HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS PLAN BILL TO ADD FOUR JUSTICES TO SUPREME COURT

The legislative branch absolutely needs some reform, primarily the House of Representatives as it is supposed to be a proportional representation to the people as set up by the founders, which it no longer does. Repealing the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and replacing it with the Wyoming rule would repair this — but it would actually add more Democratic districts instead of removing them.

The Senate is fairly similar to what the founders intended I believe.

You are wanting each party be equally represented, I am wanting the voice of the people to be heard. The current SCOTUS makeup does not do that and was instead forced on the American people through partisan games (refusing to allow a vote for one, retiring under odd circumstances on another and finally rushing through one because the people fired Republicans but they needed a power grab.

The main issue is our two party system and a federal government has gotten too big and is involved in virtually every part of the average citizens day. Had we done what was intended and had independent states with a central government resolving issues between the states none of this would be an issue.

 

Well firstly I'd have to point out that courts are where the law, not people, is heard.

But side-stepping that, how can a party imbalance in the Judicial equate to people not being heard but a party imbalance in the Legislative not equate to the same thing? You refer to Pres Obama not getting his nomination confirmed but can't you see that how that saga played out was the people being heard? The people who elected Pres Obama wanted a liberal replacement for Justice Scalia, the people who elected the Senators of that Congress didn't - each were heard. Just because the b.s. parliamentary process allowed for the Senate to sit on the nomination until the expiration of their session doesn't mean that people weren't heard, some of them just didn't get their outcome they wanted because they didn't hold a majority at that point in time. So now we come full circle; if people not get what they want because they aren't the majority = them not being heard, then we must equalize the party control in all branches, yes?

 

Absolutely, unfortunately Republicans have chosen almost all of their judges from the fringe conservative Federalist Society. That alone should concern anyone that doesn’t have an extreme partisan goal. They are chosen based on loyalty to the party and ideological basis for their rulings.

There is a party imbalance, in the House. I described this in my previous post. The House is slanted in the Republicans favor that in turn slants the presidency and SCOTUS towards Republicans. Gerrymandering further slants the system.

The process was not intended for a single man to stop the rights of the president and even refuse a vote. Sure you can argue it is “constitutional” but so is adding more justices. Which is what many people want to combat what Republicans did.

We need to correct policy that has impacted the makeup of the congress against the original intent of the process.

That will correct the other areas.

 

And THAT occurred when, before Bush41, Bush43, Trump? And based on THAT you think the court should be expanded so what they have enough Justices to review ALL pornography?

 

LOL.. you are seriously trying to differentiate "packing" and "stacking"??

Awesome...

T**** was entitled to 2 appointees, not 3.... it's time to rectify that...

 

I completely agree with you, on Puerto Rico. On the idea of laws that are behind the times & inapplicable to current circumstances-- which was what my citing of old laws, still on the books, was just meant to underscore, in a more evocative way than just imagining future technology-- is, of course, a legislative problem. But that MAKES IT a judicial issue, since the courts base their opinions, in part, on laws (& the precedents which are set in the implementation of these laws-- but only if they have been made).

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood_Referendum_(2020)

Was actually a larger margin than the BREXIT 2016 ****up....

 

JFC you cannot be that obtuse

Ever hear of the electoral college ?

Were’nt you one of the ones posting and bitching about Michigan and Pennsylvania claiming they were cheating the election ? But now we shouldn’t worry about other states because it suits your agenda today ?

Your embarrassing yourself

 

Short on time so just responding to this line. The process, as in the parliamentary process of the Senate, clearly does intend for the Sen Maj Leader to do just that. Harry Reid didn't let a single thing move when it was his position. As far as the President's (Obama's) rights, well those stopped at the nomination process. After that the President has no involvement nor right whatsoever in Senate business. People like to say that Pres Obama was denied but he completed his nomination process to its prescribed end, he wasn't denied anything.

And you say "combat what Republicans did" presuming you mean with Garland, ok, well then why is it 4 seats they want to add and not just one? Clearly, the way they want to "combat" this is to stack the bench with Justices that will rubber-stamp procedural violations in abolishing the filibuster, which will lead to the addition of two new states thereby four new solid Dem Senators, thus creating a Democrat super-majority in all three branches of government for generations to come. The rules, that each side had a hand in making at one point or another, didn't break the Democrat's way one time and now they want to re-configure the entire federal government so that they never have to be challenged again. Surely you see this. All that talk of fascism and dictatorships - this is the type of moves true fascists and true dictators make.

Plus consider this: Democrats are enjoying their turn in charge right now specifically due to Pres Trump and the GOP royally pissing off people with their handling of COVID. If it had not of been for this pandemic the WH and the Senate would currently be under Republican control. If Democrats manage to pull off this mother of all power grabs then they'll hold control for decades but if they try and fail they'll be heading into midterms and the next Presidential election with: a MASSIVE surge in illegal immigration (remember this was a top 3 issue that Pres Trump run/won on), crippling inflation and subsequent market fallout (we're whispering recession again on The Street), all of the weight of BLM/ANTIFA terrorism that is surely to grow in intensity, and then on top of all of that and more the stench of trying to undeniably rig the game in their favor with SCOTUS and statehood games. The people that put Pres Biden over Pres Trump were not hardcore far-left radicals who will sit idle and tolerate any of that. We could be looking at another era of 3-tierd Republican control.

 

Wait that's what you're trying to get at? Honestly I don't know how I feel about the court packing strategy. Something needs to be done about the politicization of the courts. But I don't know what.

 

I guess I would need some sort of example of what specifically you're thinking of that the law is outdated, but outdated in such a way that the courts need to step in instead of the legislators.

Also, I would like to thank you for being such a civil partner in these discussions. That has become pretty rare on this forum, and I've missed it.

 

Brexit has nothing to do with this.

This was the first one, at 52%. The others: Puerto Rico has had five previous referendums on its status. A vote in 1967 rejected statehood. The next three referendums produced no clear majorities. The non-binding 2017 referendum was in favor of statehood, but had only a 23% turnout.

To me, this is such a big, and irrevocable decision that you would think a supermajority would be required.

However this is off topic. If you would like to continue this discussion, there is already a thread about it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/should-puerto-rico-be-allowed-statehood.346561/

 

Since you mention this, in your closing, I'll say that, in reading the Puerto Rico thread you recommended, I noticed a distinct change in tone from the 1st few pages, which were posted in 2014, to the thread's reanimating posts, in 2017-- supporting your depiction, above, of the evolution of this forum. As I, likewise, prefer friendly discussions & disagreements, you are most certainly welcome for my civility, & I thank you, as well. I appreciate that you seem able, & willing, to recognize your own partialities, and that they affect your sense of what is, "logical," or, "just," in certain of your opinions. That element of honest self-reflection is not something one often encounters among partisans, nor the earnestness to both admit personal bias, & even separate oneself from it, in order to see a situation as might one with a different bias.

As to the other subject of your post, I think we are losing focus of the, "original intent," of my remarks (on page 15, post # 356).

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-supreme-court.586996/page-15#post-1072573367

I only brought up this idea of changing times requiring suitable adjustments in law, with regard to your contentions about the textualists' superiority as Justices. I was making the point that one's view of the Constitution must be able shift, in order to discern its most appropriate application to precisely these frontiers of the new, in society, whether they regard technology, circumstantial exigencies, or major changes in attitudes (as those which brought voting rights to women, for example). While we should be grateful for the wisdom passed to us, through this document, we should not use it to pretend that we ARE those people, or live in their times, with only the same considerations.

 

I went back to the Puerto Rican thread to see if I could discern the ways in which I had a "change in tone" from my 2014 posts to the 2017 ones. I admit I didn't see it. However I guess sometimes it takes someone from outside to notice those things.

In your previous post that you linked about the courts, you said that abortion was a perfect example, and on this I disagree. Abortion was a thing during the founding, so it's not like it was new science, but I don't think the founders would have ever considered it a national issue that needs to be enshrined in the constitution. An originalist SC would simply have returned that case to the state instead of hunting for emanations and penumbras in the text to do what they really wanted to do. That's the problem with judges who are not originalists, they think the constitution means what they really want it to mean, rather than what it means. Sometimes that means there are no answers at the federal level.

 

I didn't mean in your particular tone, I meant the timbre of the overall discourse being more antagonistic-- since you had commented on the dearth of civility you'd encountered here, of late. The general tenor of the debate, after that 3-yr. hiatus, seemed to shift from a polite discussion, to more of a taunting of each side, by the other.

Well then I'm confused about a couple of things. Didn't you say that the difference between conservative & liberal judges was that conservatives are originalists/textualists, while liberals base their interpretations on how they feel about an issue? Because there are certainly a lot of Conservative Justices who DO believe that abortion is unconstitutional, as murder. In fact, isn't Amy Coney Barrett (who is supposedly very anti-abortion) a big fan of Scalia (who is the most easily-identifiable originalist I know)?

 

Ah I see what you mean about the civility gap.


I don’t doubt that some conservative Judges DO think abortion is murder, although I’ve not heard of a judge ruling that way. Basing their decision on feelings wouldn’t be originalist . The proper originalist position would be that it’s a state issue.

 

Bingo. It is indeed a state issue. Nationalizing the abortion issue has contributed a great deal to poisoning national politics.

 

Do you think politicizing it as the Dems are attempting is how to depolicitize it?

Dems - let's politicize the court and make it a legislative body, the judges they appoint agree with this
Reps- let's keep the court as a decider of the constitutionality of laws pass by the legislature, the judges they appoint agree with this

Which way should we go?

 

Do you know how we elect Presidents???? Do YOU vote in the Electoral College, well if you run for one of the seats maybe but I doubt you ever have. When the Electoral College meets do we ALL vote in that selection? No of course not. You ONLY vote for ELECTORS from YOUR state IF your state legislature allows you to do so. You don't even have a constitutional right to do so your state legislature could say no votes WE will select the state electors.

STATES elect the President NOT the PEOPLE, Civics 101. And no I did not Michigan and Pennsylvania were "cheating" which would not change a thing I said about how we elect Presidents anyway.

There has NEVER been a national vote in this country EVER. We are a federal system.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

You DO know there is a difference? Yes? Presidents aren't "entitled" to a number. If there were 9 vacancies during a Presidents term they would get to nominate 9 justices. Then it is up to the Senate to confirm or not confirm.

 

It used to be, before Moscow Mitch made up his own rules

 

That is exactly what he did under the rules. The decided not to confirm.

 

Please to show vote results...

 

Your just making it up as you go along aren't you ?

How do electors get selected ?

How many different sets of electors are their in each state ?

How many states BIND their electors to the vote ?

You're being beyond obtuse to make the claim that "states" elect the president when in reality it is the popular vote in that state that determines whom they vote for. 33 states BIND them to that vote, and the other states assign those representatives based on the popular vote. And keep in mind that in the last election Trump was the one making the claim of voter fraud only in states whos electoral counts were high enough to change the winner. So even though the popular vote nationally can be off, states either bind these EC reps to a vote, or they are assigned by the state legislature based on the states popular vote

Your being beyond obtuse

 

Why? It is leadership that decides what to bring and his own discussions with the Senate Reps said nope we will not confirm.