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

That would require changing the law. Nothing Mitch did required that.

 

There it is. The "creeping" part is over. Welcome to democratic socialism. Pelosi has her politburo, Biden's America's reclusive dictator, the SCOTUS soon to be our kangaroo court. 2022 is your last chance if you voted for the (D)s and now you got a little case of buyers remorse.

 

Nope. When it comes to Supreme Court nominations, that's all McConnell.

In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option​

 

Crimea river.

 

Indeed, but after Harry Reid had already invoked the nuclear option for other nominations no one believed SCOTUS nominations would be exempt, whether by Dems or Repubs.

 

If the Democrats have any balls, they will definitely try anything they can to pack the court. After what scumbag McConnell has done for 13 years straight.

 

A real news story about this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...l-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132

... the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.​

People can probably chill out about this. It's an interesting idea but doesn't appear likely to go anywhere. Biden has not come out in favor of it. It seems to be more of a public statement aimed at bringing about some proper discussion and dialogue about the SCOTUS situation in the wake of McConnell's abuses. After all, I think we can all agree that having the two parties fight over the SCOTUS like this is not really sustainable and is harmful on the whole to our democracy. It is not supposed to be a politicized part of government, but a third and independent branch of it.

More from the article:

But it represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.

...

"This bill marks a new era where Democrats finally stop conceding the Supreme Court to Republicans," said Brian Fallon, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide and a co-founder of Demand Justice, who described the court as "broken and in need of reform."​

McConnell can complain all he likes, but he has only himself to blame if this actually passes at some point. All he had to do was give Obama his nominee, as was due, instead of playing this sick game of his, and the SCOTUS would not be such an issue today.

But maybe he likes it to be. Maybe he thinks it helps the Republican Party at the ballot box. In fact, I'd bet real money that he does.

 

Why would it not be Constitutional?

 

That has got to be the phoniest, & intellectually laziest, reply possible.
1) You realize that the, "Senate rules," can be changed, at any time, by the Senate?

2) How is what the Dems have not yet even officially proposed (much less passed, and probably will never pass), NOT, "just Senate business, well within the rules?"

 

Straight up admitting its a Democrat power grab stemming from butthurt. Best post you've ever made, Dan.

 

To be clear, he didn't prevent a vote he prevented even a committee hearing for a very moderate candidate.
The best solution for the system is for Justices Breyer and Thomas to resign. I think this is the goal of the Congress, get Thomas to resign after sooo long on the court. 5-4 court but some of the 5 do stray to the left. Hopefully we won't have an issue in the future of one nomination held up a year and another replaced almost before the flag was raised to full staff mere days before the election.

 

McConnell acted within the law and rules as they were and are. The Dems' proposal is to change the law.
If you start with your highest decibel level shriek, how can you expect readers to differentiate gradations of intensity?

 

Hey, where you been?

 

One current and one former now deceased and will not be surprised if more to follow.

 

This is what comes from the Democrats wanting to turn the courts into political bodies which they can control and put the Constitution into a lower drawer somewhere.

Why is 13 better than 9, forget judicial philosophy, purely on the number why would 13 be better than 9? Would it the Court be better had this been done while Trump was President? If the Democrats want a balanced court then why not 12 or 14?

 

The SCOTUS has been politically charged for the last decade. It's why I've led the argument to abolish it. The Court, in its present form cannot exist as it was originally designed to do so.

We should cap courts at the federal level, and what is 'politically constitutional' should be decided by the parliament at large.

 

Nope they carried out their constitutional authority, they didn't change it or the court. I have not doubt Dems would have done the same as the SENATE. They didn't try to increase the number of Senators in their favor did they.

Again why is 13 better than 9 politics aside.

What current or former Justices have spoke in support for this now or in the recent past?

 

Dude - the entire push for getting conservative justices on the Court over the last four decades has be a political
move by conservatives to overturn Roe v. Wade and the Gay marriage issue. Don't pretend the Republicans haven't
made the courts a political issue just as much as the Dems.

 

Marky announced today that the Senate filibuster is next meaning they want to turn the Senate even more political to get their way.

Do they really think they will forever be in power and the Republicans or some other party will not unseat that power?

 

When was the last time the number of justices changed. If this were to pass how routine do you believe it would come?

Why is 13 better than 9?

 

So that's what this fundamental change is all about to you? And Reid started it and McConnel only reacted in kind. So when the Republicans take back the Congress you would not object to then increasing it to 17?

 

No it's about getting more Constitutionalist judges on the bench just as Democrats put anti-Constitutionalist judges on the bench. The voters decide who is President and gets to select and what is the make up of the Senate to confirm.

So you would have supported increasing the size to 13 when Trump was President because 13 is the better size for the court?

 

At first glance, I was completely against the increase in Court Justices - but on reflection, it might increase the stability of
Court decisions in the long run. As it stands now, if two Justices pass away while one President in office, it can completely alter the Court - but increased numbers add stability for BOTH sides.

 

"When the rules are in our way, we change them!"
- Democrats

 

How do you suggest that happen?