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

You and those you're quoting are making a big deal about polarized rulings and the court leaning so far to the Right. Those stats show that despite the fears expressed about a majority conservative court everyone is ruling consistently. Which is a good thing. Not a bad thing. It's not broke.

What the left wants is for SCOTUS to rule based on what the majority of people want. I won't go so far as to say that they only want SCOTUS to rule favorably on thier pet issues, but they definitely want it to rule based on the majority of the populaces opinions. But that is not what SCOTUS is supposed to do. They're supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws. And since getting Amendments done is far to hard they want to gear SCOTUS into doing it for them. Because that is the only way of getting thier agenda passed.

 

~ I was referring to the goofy author of your article - who you seem to agree with.
The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27...

 

Listen to me explain why packing a court is not really packing a court....

Never mind what your eyes and ears see listen to me!!!

 

Sorry, if you want me to hear you out, you need to shorten your posts.

 

And so you're saying republicans don't want SCOTUS to rule their way?

Hey, everyone wants scotus to rule their way.

Is that supposed to be? It doesn't matter, that IS the way it IS.

Constitutionality?

ARe you kidding me? Constitutionality is whatever SCOTUS says it is.

It's fun to wax philosophical, noble and high minded, but that isn't reality.

It just isn't.

 

You need to expand your attention span.

Not every issue can be reduced sufficient so that the simplistic souls among us can understand them.

 

Try me.l And please, do it without the insult.

 

True. But yours tend to be excessively long without adding a lot of meaningful content. Good writing is concise.

 

Oh, I thought I was being humorous.

Touchy, are we?

 

There is no way in holy hell the complete story of the second amendment can be adequately addressed within a 16,000 character limit. I truncate like hell to do it. and even then it's not enough space.

How often do I find conservatives and the 'individual rights’ supporters who actually believe they can make their argument by ransacking various sources for a set of useful quotations that do not correspond to the grander historical record, which shows the founders were far more concerned with the militia and its public functions, not with the individual ownership and use of firearms, noting that we we know this given the arguments they made at the ratification convention in Philadelphia?

All the time. You actually believe a few paragraphs is all that is needed to settle this argument? No way, José.

Here's a 100 page thesis, perhaps you'd like to get a more thorough, in depth, study of it?

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf

 

Humorous, are we?

 

Learn to write for your audience. You do not have to write the complete story of the second amendment. Just the parts that are in question.

 

Your patronizing tone, aside, note that the argument is not a paragraph, it is a story. It has to do with the 'why' of the second amendment, and just about every conservative argument I've seen on that point gets it wrong, completely, utterly, based on a few cherry picked quotes which are red herrings, yet they don't understand that they are red herrings, because they are missing the grander story.

There is no way to grasp it until you know the complete story.

Different authors have different takes, each selecting aspects of history which confirms their predetermined conclusions.

The one I found which factored in that particular trap some historians make and thus avoiding it, is this essay, and the story is about 100 pages.

You really should read it.

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf

 

I don't need to wax philosophical. Those stats speak for themselves.

 

I repeat, they don't matter, what matters is how they vote on the BIG issues important to conservatives.

We shall see if they uphold Roe v Wade, because if they don't, then you can toss those stats as meaningless.

 

In other words if they don't rule the way that you demand they rule then they are just being partisan and the system is broken and you'll demand that more justices be added so that the ruling will favor you more. Everything else be damned.

RvW has always had flaws in it. Many scholars agree on that point. One of them being the question of when life starts has not been codified and all it would take is for a State to get it codified in order to stop abortions beyond that point. Why? Because RvW was a compromise on that. That is why they made it to where States could make laws on abortion after the 24 week mark because that is the point of viability. Where the child in the womb could start surviving outside of the mothers womb if necessary.

And that is what has abortion advocates running scared. Because Texas codified when life starts to that of the fetal heartbeat. They finally targeted one of the flaws in RvW. It won't be because of a conservative leaning court that ends RvW. It will be the flaws in RvW that ends it.

But leftists are trying to frame it as being the fault of conservative justices and the system being broken. Which is false. They know that making an Amendment to the Constitution is too hard to do. That its much easier to try and pack the court. And packing the court will cover far more issues than just RvW.

You know what's ironic? Congress could easily handle the problem right now if they wanted to. They can stop SCOTUS from hearing specific cases. But they don't want to do that because then it will send a message to The People. Especially if they do it multiple times because it comes up multiple times.

 

Interesting idea worthy of more thought.

 

Republicans desire to reverse R v W will have disastrous effects on their future political prospects if they succeed.

I find it amazing they cannot see the future, which is so easy to predict.

For one thing, the vast majority of Americans support it, and even more among women.

You don't believe that every young woman who dies because of a botched back alley abortion isn't going to be major headlines form now until kingdom come?

You can count on it.

Reverse R v W? Make our day.

That texas law will defeat itself, just as soon as someone sues for the $10k bounty, it will be challenged and the court will shut it down for a number of reasons. 1 It usurps judicial review ( SCOTUS, even conservative court won't like that one) 2. It's unconstitutional as long as R v W remains in force. .

The court is already packed, 6/3 in favor of conservatives.

There is nothing ironic about Congress not wanting to interfere in SCOTUS certiorari process.

Well, R v W is all we have now, isn't it? Reverse it, and it may take many years for women regain that right in many states.

The Dem Congress has Manchin and Sinema problem, without them, there is very little they can do except pass moderate bills that don't rock the boat. Even then, it's only one per year, because the BR is the only way dems can get anything passed as long as McConnell abuses the filibuster.

 

Dang, the left doesn’t even know the definition of court packing.

 

A liberal court and you never heard this kind of wailing. A conservative court and now the whining to pack the court.

Whenever the left loses power due to their unpopular and often insane anti-American ideas they push to change the system.

 

Then that will be an effect. :shrug: Maybe you could use that effect to pass an Amendment to make abortion a Right? Instead of trying to pack the court.

It is not packed. Stop trying to change the definition. FDR set the definition for court packing.

See, even you know the effect that it would have.

Right now there is no such Right. Make an Amendment and make it a Right. Stop trying to turn the court into a partisan whipping boy.

Abuses the filibuster? That is nothing more than your opinion. What's funny is between 2016 and 2020 Dems demanded that the filibuster remain in place if there was even a HINT that someone wanted to get rid of it. Now they want to get rid of it because they are in the majority. What does that tell you?

 

republicans cheated, dems can do the same, but can claim if the rules allow it, it can be done, same as repubs did

 

The article isn't a 'whine', it's a solution to a long standing problem with the court.

Insane? Anti-American? Here are 400 pages of anti-American insanity: The Senate Judiciary Report:

How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election


https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

You have the gall to accuse democrats of 'anti-american' when Trump is the most anti-American president in history

 

There is no way this country is going to pass an amendment. You know this. 2/3 of the states and the legislature? No way.
Republicans have already packed the court. We just want to unpack it.

FDR tried to add justices to make it more liberal.

See? Since it's 6/3 now, the court is EFFECTIVELY packed.

Repubs didn't pack it by increasing size, no, so not in the FDR definition, but in the FDR attempted result by making it 6/3

An effectively packed court has the same result as a truly packed court.

R v W unless it's reversed, it's a penumbra right of the 14th amendment, the right to privacy
Griswald v Connecticut held that a right to privacy existed in the penumbra of the constitution.

Some dems want it to stay in place, some don't. I'm one that doesn't.

The filibuster was never meant to be used as a tool for obstruction, which McConnell uses it for, on the vast majority of legislative proposals dems make, forcing dems to put all their eggs into the BR basket.

 

Cheated? Well it was a good move as Garland does not seem familiar with the Constitution. We dodged a bullet.