Biden signs executive order on Supreme Court reform commission

This sort of thing is part of their "actual job". This is research, which is very much a part of their job description.

It also brings the universities prestige to have one of their faculty chosen to be on the commission. They will use that when recruiting students.

The reason it will take so long is because this will just be a small part of what they are doing each month.

As for your dollar figures, those are just stupid. This commission does not take up 100% of their time, likely will not even take up 10% of their time

 

One has to wonder if we looked back if we could find you wondering about the cost of the commissions Trump put into place

 

I don’t care if it takes up 1% of their time. What is the point? Come on man let’s be honest here. Biden is creating a commission to justify why the democrats should pack the courts. He puts a majority libs on the commission, they say yes it’s a great idea to pack the courts and they’ll produce some contrived reason as to why... such as matching the SCOTUS to the number of districts or something like that. Then the democrats can point to the commission and say, see even a bipartisan commission says we should do it.

I mean let’s be serious. This isn’t a game. This is how you institute fascist dictatorships. Especially given the racial rhetoric surrounding the progressives... or as I like to call them, the Wokerati... today.

 

If trump had done some authoritarian bs like packing the courts you damn right I would have.

 

So, it is not about the money. Why then did you bring it up in the first place?

The Dems are already moving forward with adding seats to the court, this commission is just Biden keeping a campaign pledge

 

And you don’t see a problem with that?

I brought it up because I was curious.

 

I am not sure that 9 is magic number. But I hate that the SCOTUS has become so partisan, it was never meant to be. Justices were supposed to be above such things.

They cannot add the seats without getting rid of the fillibuster and that does not seem to be happening. If they push this then in 2022 the American people can decide if they think it was a good thing or not.

 

What evidence do you have that they are ruling in a partisan manner?

 

You do realize that the “conservative” justices like Roberts and even the three new justices put on by Trump have voted across the isle and sided with the liberals on major social and political cases in the past couple decades.

Whereas the liberal members of the court have voted STAUNCHLY as a liberal caucus on the SCOTUS on EVERY single major decision to come out of the scotus in the past few decades.

And your solution to that level of partisanship, by the liberals might I add, is to pack 4 more liberals on the court?

 

LOL how about showing us a clear case of that partisanship. All 3 of Trump's appointees are centerists. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney - Barrett are just as unreliably conservative as Chief Justice Roberts. That's what happens when you nominate persons based on their merits, their integrity, and their commitment to fairly apply the law. These 3 "partisan" Trump appointees have sided with the courts liberal justices numerous times ... which is why huckster Joe is making a case for "diversity" not "partisanship".

 

I was more speaking of the selection and confirmation process. Not all that long ago it was not uncommon for a new justice to get 75 or even 90 plus yes votes.

But in today's hyper-partisan world that will never happen again

 

Gorsuch is a centrist for sure, Kavanaugh less so and ACB it is yet to be seen but her history is not of a centrist.

This year will we will find out as there are a lot of high profile cases.

 

I think your tactic here is to burden me with proving that Trump's appointees aren't partisan, when clearly it's your obligation to prove that they are. Coney Barrett recused herself from the Pennsylvania voting law case. She's proven herself to be non partisan. Kavanaugh has too, and I'll gladly rebut anything you post suggesting Kavanaugh is a hardline conservative.

 

I am not asking you to do anything. Time will tell. One case does not show anything. It is was to early to tell how ACB is going to be. She recused herself from the Pennsylvania voting law case because she had not been on the bench long enough to be up to speed on it.

 

That isn't hardcore. Hardcore would have voted. New Justices to the Court have always been a crap shoot and often fail to live up to the expectations of those who appoint them. Something about those robes brings out the American in them and that is who they try to rule for, Americans.

 

Thank Odin then that I never used the word hardcore.

And I agree with your last part, once they see the power they wield and the impact it has on the entire nation most justices tend to put petty partisanship behind them.

 

You're right - this isn't a game. It's about the only thing Democrats care about - POWER. As you correctly pointed out, the rest is transparent window dressing.

I can't help but think that if it weren't for the hubris of Her Leftist Holiness Ruth Bader Ginsburg we wouldn't be having this conversation. Had she retired when the ANSWERnik in Chief Obama was in office the composition of the Court would still be 5-4, but she blew it. BIG time. Boo-****ing-hoo....

 

Do you honestly believe that the Repubs care about anything but power?

 

I am asking you. I'm asking you to back up you're original claim that "partisanship" justifies court packing. I understand that you can't do that. I pointed out that because partisanship can't be proven, Biden is claiming "diversity" is justification. Your partisanship is showing.

 

If I had ever made such a claim I would be happy to back it up. But since I never came close to saying that, I will not play with your strawman.

 

2nd sentence.

 

Yes, I hate that it has all become so partisan. I hate that we no longer have justices being approved with 80 or 90 votes.

No where did I say it was justification for anything, no where have I even stated I approve of adding more seats. You just made up those parts.

 

Again you're using the tired old tactic? You support expanding the court, and you've said the reason you support it is partisanship. Partisanship is what I addressed, and what you still haven't demonstrated ... because you can't. What I'm trying to figure out is your motivation. Is it a desire to nullify Trump's appointments for spite, or a desire to see unconstitutional legislation upheld by the SCOTUS?

 

Please provide the post number where I indicated that I support expanding the court. I have never said such a thing.

 

No. I'm not playing hide & seek anymore. The SCOTUS is not partisan, "9 is the magic number" whether you like or agree with either of those things. Additionally, if you think 80 or 90 Senate votes should be required for appointment to the SCOTUS ... I hope you stand by that, because I've saved a screenshot of that post, so if and when the SCOTUS is expanded, I can refresh your memory.