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

You do realize that even if something like this passed in both parts of Congress, the President would have to sign it....

Also, the President is responsible for nominating the candidates, not Congress.

As I said in the other thread on this topic, I wouldn't make this logical expansion after the R's packed the court until after this court has made a completely egregious indefensible decision.... which they will at some point.

In other words, don't worry your pretty little head about it... yet

 

Renounce your orange idol and all his evils and join the reasoned and sane.

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-wor...ourt-from-9-to-13/CG3VPASG6VHCFHSWU6JFVKB3JI/

 

Good points. I'm impressed that you've been following this issue for so long; for most of us, I think, it's only come to the fore recently.

Quick clarification: what possibility are you suggesting, in #2, by, "disenfranchisement...delegating state citizenship to the...actual territory itself.?" Are you saying you'd be fine with DC having a Rep or two, in the House?

On number 4, though, I disagree that hypothetical additional justices, if picked by a Dem President, would mean Dems getting their way on this issue. I'm sure you've noted that, on these types of questions of law, it is often hard to predict how justices will vote, because they do actually try to go by the law (as the Trump justices who still would not hear his supposed election fraud case).
It is mostly when a jurist is on the record strongly supporting a particular stance on, say, Roe v. Wade, or Citizens United, or the 2nd Amendment, that one can anticipate how a given, new justice will rule. D.C. statehood is not something on which one is likely to find many published, legal opinions. So it seems a false assumption, to my mind, that more justices nominated by a Dem will net specific rulings, regarding that or other, particular legislative issues. It would only change the general leaning of the Court.

Statehood for Puerto Rico. That's something that hadn't crossed my mind for more than 30 years, back when there was a Puerto Rican, militant group that was against it (the name escapes me, for the moment)-- what ever happened with that movement? Do Puerto Ricans, now, overwhelmingly want to become officially part of the U.S.? It would certainly be a state, distinctly different, than any other. But that can be said of Hawaii, as well, and I'm sure that was even more the case, back when they were first admitted to the Union. I'll need more time to consider. Do you have a view, already?

 

Yes, but that's not all he said.

 

I guess I wasn't clear about what I meant about handling the disenfranchisement issue for DC. I meant that they can select the territory they need to remain the nation's capital, and everywhere else in the district can be given back to the state it originally came from, either Virginia or Maryland. Then those former DC citizens can vote in their states; problem solved.

As far as my opinion of liberal judges, they explicitly reject originalism or textualism, so their rulings are based on (in a general sense) how they feel about a law or case and controversy. I can't think of a recent SC case in which the conservative wing voted in lockstep and was wrong on the Constitution and the law. There of course may be one, but an example doesn't occur to me at the moment. So I think a law granting DC statehood without also handling the constitutional objections would probably be thrown out by the current court. But add a few Justice Ocasio-Cortez' then I'm sure it will pass muster.

As far as Puerto Rican statehood goes, I'm personally opposed to it but if I were a Pelosi or Schumer that might be the easier path to two more Democratic senators than the DC statehood idea. Among Puerto Ricans who live in the states, it's a fairly popular idea and there have been a few tortured referendums on the island that could provide Congressional cover. Best of all, both parties have endorsed the idea in their platforms for years. Republicans in the House and Senate who have previously endorsed the idea would have to explain why they are now suddenly opposed to it. That's why I think this is the easier path to those Democratic senate seats. If every Republican in the House or Senate who has previously endorsed Puerto Rican statehood voted for it, it would pass.

 

I understood your meaning about current DC residents becoming part of the electorate of the adjacent states, I had only thought that you were suggesting another option, as well. I don't see the former D.C. being run by multiple states, like occupied Berlin, but it would solve the disenfranchisement issue. (Let me use this opportunity to correct myself, that it was not the D.C. statehood issue, but the expansion of the Supreme Court, which Sen. Markey introduced, & I carelessly misstated).

Moving on, I fundamentally disagree with your thesis that, in a judge, his/her:
A) ascribing to originalism or textualism guarantees a truer, better, more accurate, interpretation of the Constitution or that
B) this differentiates "conservative judges," from "liberal," ones.
But that is a much longer conversation, which would NOT be out of place, in this thread, so get back to me on that. I am not a Supreme Court wonk, so you will have to define the terms you use, but originalism/textualism seems straight forward enough: what the words meant, to those who wrote them. But I have read about originalists, for example, who misunderstood the words' original context-- no particular "philosophy," exempts a person from errors or misconceptions. And then there are many issues which the Constitution does not, specifically, treat, so that, no matter what one's Constitutional proclivities, deciding where & how it applies is always a matter of personal interpretation (or, in your words, the way the judge feels about it).

Abortion is the perfect example of this. One can make a case either for very strict, or very liberal, laws governing it, even if one is a textualist, since the text says nothing directly about it. Therefore it is always a judgement call on which parts of the text one applies, & how, & how to resolve contradictions. I think it is a fallacy to believe anyone can completely divorce themself from who they are, and look at something with absolute objectivity.

Since my main "complaint," about your description of the two types of judges is that it is too broad & lacks any examples, I will give one, that fits both of my two points, so far: about subjectivity & about being misinformed (in this case, the two are definitely related). Forgive that it's been a while, so some of the details are fuzzy, but not the important one, at the end. I once heard part of the SCOTUS proceeding in a case about the displaying of some religious symbol, on government property. This led to one attorney pointing to the cross symbol, used in connection with a federal cemetary. Justice Scalia interjected that the cross is a universal sign of a gravesite-- which is 100% wrong. The lawyer then paused as if he hated to have to correct Scalia, was not expecting such ignorance from a Justice, but finally said, "not for a Jew." (In fact, it is the sign of a grave, exclusively, for Christians).

The last main argument with your idea about textualists vs. non-textualists, is that our world has changed quite a bit, in the last couple of centuries, and laws have a nasty habit of not keeping up. There are all kinds of antiquated laws, still on the books, in America (in Britain, the Witchcraft Act was not repealed until 1951). While some could say that they are not enforced, that is a very sloppy (& hazardous) way to keep law. But my main point is the other side of the coin: laws are often not updated in a timely fashion; internet privacy laws, & regulations for online companies, are STILL in limbo, in many cases. But this updating is necessary and, in that process, there ARE situations when technology, or society, or circumstances have so markedly changed, that old laws no longer can have the same EFFECT, if applied in their traditional manner. So, in my view, any absolutist, is misguided, because we CANNOT see every modern issue strictly through the eyes of the founders; and trying to do so, is no guarantee whatsoever, of getting it right. That said, I would, naturally, also greatly fault any jurist who basically ignores the Constitution and just goes by their own opinion, as you allege of, "liberal," judges, but which I would dispute is typically the case.

Finally, a big part of my considering the Puerto Rico question, is hearing the opinions of others. So, unless your reason for not favoring P.R.'s induction as a state is purely partisan, I'd be interested to "see your work," in arriving at your oppositional position.

 

So would I. If one had any political common sense, perhaps I should say Democrats instead of one. They should realize how this works. You add four, I'll raise your four to six when I get back in power.

But recent history shows the Democrats seem to lack that. Take the first use of the nuclear option by Reid and the Democrats, did the democrats actually believe once the Republicans gained control of the senate and the presidency that they would be gentlemen and never use it? Or did Reid and the Democrats think they'd have control of the senate from that date until eternity? These things escalate, tit for tat.

I'm political savvy enough to realize the above. That if the Democrats add four, the Republican will add six when they get the chance and so on until we have a SCOTUS with 99 justices. Or perhaps, the Democrats are naive enough to once again believe the Republicans wouldn't add any or do any such thing. Are they, the Democrats really that dumb?

 

Last things first: If you are really interested in Puerto Rican statehood, here is a link to a thread about it in which I give a general run down of my opposition to statehood. It's not a complete list but good enough to get the conversation started:

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

As for your judicial philosophy overview, this, like the Puerto Rican issue, are really off topic for this thread, but you gave a good review for your side. You might want to consider expanding that into it's own thread. But as a teaser, your example of outdated laws still on the books misplaces the responsibility. Those are legislative acts and unless the law is actually unconstitutional, there is no no legal basis for the court to overturn them. That's the job of the legislator.

 

Biden should remember his own words on court-packing
Opinion by Kathleen Parker

 

It amazes me the short-sightedness of Democrats. That act as if they will NEVER lose power because of this elitist belief that anyone with half a brain just MUST support what they want to do. They in fact insult those they claim to represent.

As I noted in another thread just take our President and his rants about he is going to create UNION jobs, that we need to shift the balance to UNIONs and support UNION jobs because ALL the workers in American want UNIONS and in fact if you want all this help he is handing out you MUST support UNIONS.............................when in fact as we just saw at Amazon workers OVERWHELMINGLY reject unions.

How long can they get away with this stuff it begs the question.

 

If you have something to say then say it and this has nothing to do with Trump so don't try to divert to that.

 

Can you cite where the Constitution says the President has to sign? It is just Congress that decides there is no provision for the President to have say in the matter it is not a matter of legislation over which the President has veto power.

The Republicans had never proposed stacking the court. PERIOD. Packing the court is the expected and normal policy of a President, they are elected to do so and one reason Trump won the first time.

 

OK what Georgia does is up to the citizens of the state of Georgia. I don't vote in the state of Georgia, my vote has nothing to do with Georgia. The citizens of my state have never vote in a Georgia/Alabama election or a national election/ Neither have you.

 

Thanks for pointing me to the thread. It answered the question I'd forgotten to ask you: if both Repubs & Dems are for it, why has it never happened? I didn't agree with all your reasons, but found you made a persuasive argument. It seems that Puerto Ricans have not really WANTED to be a full-fledged state, until it was in their advantage, after the recent hurricane. Also, I really believe that any nation, for the sake of communication, should have a national language that all speak in common. Additional languages are fine, but not a substitute for that one, common tongue. We already have a bit of a problem w/ some long-term residents not bothering to become fluent in English; an entire state that doesn't want to speak English: that's a problem. Without going on too long, I am now leaning markedly against statehood. I mentioned a couple of the why-nots, but one can also ask themself, "why," and find it hard to come up with a really compelling case, beyond the boost, this is anticipated, it would give to the Democratic Party. There has got to be a better way to do that.

On the issue of different types of judges (which I thought would have appropriately fit in a thread about a plan to add more S.C. Justices), since we're not going to be immediately continuing that discussion, I'll just mention that my segment on out-of-date laws was not meant to directly relate to the question of whether the textualist view-- which I still think is what most SCOTUS justices will claim to hold (i.e., I would see a difference between these & originalists)-- was, on all counts, superior to other approaches. It was only the counterpart, as I'd said in my last post, to "my main point...the other side of the coin:" new laws not keeping up to date with changing technology, culture, & national/world circumstances, which might well require an extra-textualist perspective (definitely something beyond originalist).

To end on a balancing note (in respect to having used one negative ScaIia example), I remember hearing Sandra Day O'Conner in a general-topic interview (about her own role, legacy, etc.) and was not especially impressed with any obviously-towering intellect. While justices clearly have a more in-depth understanding of the law, due to all their study, I think they are widely credited with greater genius than most truly possess.
(Sorry that I can't say that w/o sounding a little bit full of myself).

 

Democrats supporting unions, Biden received 27,618,480 dollars from unions for his presidential campaign. Give me 27 plus million and I'll sure support unions. This according to Open Secrets campaign donations.

Unions gave Biden 27,618,480 dollars for his presidential campaign. Give me 27 plus million dollars and I'll support unions. This according to Open Secrets on campaign donations. Biden also received 62 plus million from lobbyist to Trump's 8 million. Wall Street or as open secrets puts it Finance, insurance, real estate, 262 million.

Give me that kind of money and I'll definitely support you and do my best to keep you happy. Biden ended up raising 1.6 plus billion. That with a B, billion dollars. Trump raised 1.1 billion.

 

As far as Puerto Rico goes, it's telling that the push for Puerto Rican statehood is coming from almost exclusively Democratic Party sources, not from actual Puerto Ricans who live in Puerto Rico. It's a big enough decision, and an irreversible decision, that we should be absolutely sure there is an enthusiastic majority in favor of it, rather than simply and ends to Democratic Power. I think right now Puerto Ricans would probably be more interested in getting the Jones Act repealed than statehood.

Although the idea of laws keeping up with technology and being updated are an issue, again I see that as strictly a legislative problem, not a judicial one.

 

So then its OK since it doesn’t effect you...but does effect your vote in a national election

I accept that you have no defense

 

Then we should equalize the Legislative and Executive branches as well, right? Several Dem House Reps will have to give up their seats or we'll let red states add a bunch and I guess VP Harris will have to step down and we'll need to elect a Repub in her place. Or does this concept only apply to branches of government that Democrats don't already control?

 

Ah yes, that's why the court has no problem figuring out what pornography is. It's clearly part of the first amendment. The government shall not interfere in your right to have alien boobies, especially for kids. Either we make the constitution longer to fix these things, or justices are going to need to make their opinion based on something other than the rules in front of them.

 

They have done just fine and if this were the case why didn't the Dems try to do this when Trump was President or Bush43? And the Constitution in front of them is all they need.

 

And only when there is a Dem president to nominate the additional justices.

 

give people a little credit..

whatever the dems do the next president from the GOP will do it ten-fold

if the dems expand the court the republicans will explode it the minute they have power again

would it ever stop??

a 100 supreme court justices??

I think not

it stops at 9

 

I am NOT a citizen of Georgia, the citizens of Georgia decide how to hold their elections and the citizens of my state decided how WE do it. Do you not understand our federal system? And there are NO NATIONAL ELECTIONS where were you ever taught that we have national votes?

I accept you do not understand these things.

 

If liberal judges (which is what would be appointed) had a history of adherence to the Constitution I would likely support the expansion on the grounds of efficiency. But liberal judges have a long and documented history of ignoring not only the Constitution but precedent and established case law in favor of activist rulings.

 

Sweetie the SCOTUS once ruled that all pornography had to be reviewed individually by the court. That is not fine.