The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27

Its not complicated.

The goal is to increase the likelihood getting your agenda forced on society while reducing the likelihood of the other side getting their agenda forced on society.

The real solution is reducing government, not increasing it.

 

I didn't realize I made an assumption. I certainly didn't state one.

 

Would you be okay with 18 liberals?

I suspect you wouldn't. We need to figure out a way to balance the court.

 

No, that is not the goal, the goal is a balanced court that has the incentive to rule by consensus among the justices, and reduce the odds of party line decisions.

Has nothing to do with government size.

 

the title is misleading, which is why a pleaded 'hear me out'.

 

I wish that were true, but the more government forces on us, the more government it takes to force it. If abortion was illegal, it would take extreme amounts of money, man power, resources, prisons, etc to force such a law.

 

~ I am afraid in the near future the Supreme Court will be replaced by G00GLE ...

 

The reason I bolded and colored your remarks was to make a point.

We don't need politically and socially liberal judges.
We don't need politically and socially centrist judges.
We don't need politically and socially conservative judges.

The Court should not be political at all. All of our politics should revolve around the Congress and the President. Nowhere else.

What we do need are judges who are able to leave all of their personal political and social biases at home when they go to work. And yes, there are people in this world who understand this concept and who are able to do it.

As an American citizen, all I ask of the SC is to make decisions based upon what is written in the Constitution, leaving out their biases.

We have the mechanism to amend the Constitution if we want to.

The whole question of packing or expanding the Court is political, and the SC is the wrong place for politics.

 

I'll wait for his reply. Thank you.

 

I went back several comments, didn't see a 'quote'.

 

You assumed the content based on your belief of what the title meant.

The content will reveal that the title is misleading in that your concerns are assuaged in the content.

You assumed that they would not be. Which is why, in my first sentence, I wrote 'hear me out'. But you didn't bother to ever read that much because you made an assumption about the content of the OP.

 

Good grief. Go back to #33. I quoted you..

 

I repeat:

Restoring balance to the SCOTUS and reducing odds of party line votes has NOTHING to do with 'government size' or the argument you just interjected..

 

Should not be.

Once upon a time, long ago, it wasn't.

But now it is.

That is the world we know live in.

Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't chase it away.

Weren't you listening when Scalia, when asked about it, said "Well, justices do have their judicial philosophies".

Believe me, some 'judicial philosophies' are prefered by republicans, others by democrats.

That's life.

 

~ Neither does packing the Court .

 

So just surrender?

No.

Fight for the high road. And the high road is keeping politics out of the SC.

 

Okay, how does :

It's why Obama nominated him, because he believed the sane republicans, if there are any left, would have supported him.

Not make sense?

If you just take it at face value, without reference to the comment you made, it makes sense.

Where you are hung up is why I chose the words 'it's why.....".

I chose those words because I misunderstood what you wrote:

The more I hear about Garland, the more I believe that he should have never even been nominated to the Supreme Court.

I read it rather quickly and didn't see it in the negative, i didn't see the 'never even' part.

 

No one is packing the court, unless you are referring to what the republicans have done to it, thus far.

 

Good luck.

 

Nine's fine. Thanks for playing.

 

Turned it into a legally sound agency, rather than a "if it feels good, it must be legal" loony left zone.

 

I'll post this again since you have ignored it the first time:



LINK: In Barrett’s first term, conservative majority is dominant but divided - SCOTUSblog

15% of cases that are considered "polarized". The normal percentage for that is 20% before Trump was elected. The vast majority of cases are not polarized. Pretending that its worse now than previously is fear mongering.

 

Great job - that breakdown on decisions shoots the hell out of the "republican court" whining from the left. I had a similar breakdown a few years ago that illustrated that those "evil republican justices" crossed the lint to side with their "democrat justices" far more often than the dems crossed over to side with the conservatives. And something like only about 1 in 5 5-4 decisions were along party lines

Mostly just childish whining from the left.

 

Oh, by the way - the "population" argument is a:

SCOTUS doesn't handle cases among citizens routinely. It deals with constitutional issues that bubble up through district courts.

 

Numbers are misleading.

Barret, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, given their judicial philosophy, are likely to please republicans on the BIG issues,
which do not come up often, which is WHY they were chosen, not on the bread and butter rulings.