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

Oh the whining lib narrative. Always an excuse to try and gain power through any means.

 

Bold: Maybe, just MAYBE, if you stopped demonizing conservatives then it could happen. But you're right. It definitely won't happen in the current atmosphere.

Rest: and you don't even see that is exactly what you're trying to do. Sad.

No, its not. Stats do not bear out the belief that the court is packed to the point where it is acting in a partisan manner. And replacing justices who vacated their seats (through death or retirement) is not packing the court.

FDR's attempted result was to add justices. Republican's did not plan for people to die. Did they take advantage of the fact that they did? Yes. And so too would have Democrats if the situation was entirely reversed and you know that. And you wouldn't be here advocating that the courts were packed and that more justices needs added to the bench. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

Sorry, but the stats are not showing that to be true.

And RvW upheld that Right to Privacy. As many other cases have also. However RvW did put a limit on that Right. Just like any other Right has limits. That limit was at the point of viability. At that point the State has an interest in the life of the child and can intrude upon the Right to Privacy in order to preserve that life. The reason that RvW used the point of viability is because there was no set definition determining when life starts for the ZEF. If that is ever done then it is possible that the point of viability in RvW could be over ridden.

Like I said, RvW has flaws.

BTW, if you want an example where the Right to Privacy can be overridden all you have to do is look at what happens when a cop enters a home without a warrant when they believe that there is an imminent danger involved. Note: That is just an example of the Right to Privacy being over ridden to show that it can be. It is NOT an argument about abortion.

Most Dems in 2017 did not want it ended. At that time there were 45 Dem senators. 32 of them signed a letter about keeping the filibuster. Thats a majority. Funnily enough many of those same Senators that signed that letter now want to abolish the filibuster. LINK: Senators sign letter to preserve filibuster rules | CNN Politics

Bold: You're joking right? That is the ENTIRE point of it. Every single time its been used was to obstruct something or other. The first time it was used was in 1837 by the Whig party to prevent an expungement of a censure against President Jackson. IE: Obstruct the majority from expunging a censure. And Democrats hold the record for the longest filibuster which was meant to obstruct the passing of the Civil Rights Act. That is the SOLE purpose of the filibuster. To be used as a tool for obstruction.

 

I liked your post. But your post makes it seem to agree that Republican's cheated. They didn't. Cheating is doing something that breaks the rules. They followed all the rules.

The reason I liked your post is because I agree that we dodged a bullet with Garland. He has shown himself to not be a neutral person in his job and that is required to be on SCOTUS.

 

For democrats it is simple projection.

 

Whatever

Now go pester someone else.

 

Never amazes me how low the left can get. No-one on the left would be suggesting this if they had 6 liberals and 3 conservatives in the court. Since it's the opposite, they want things changed. Shameful

But i'm still not sure i get it as Trump has a terrible record with this supreme court. They are anti-Trumpers it seems.

Just LOW to want to change institutions just because you want it to favor you, pathetic.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...st-record-supreme-court-any-modern-president/

 

Stop demonizing conservatives. I don't see you telling conservative to stop demonising liberals.
I don't see you protesting over 'libhater' 's avator.
There isn't a day that goes by where some right winger calls a lefty 'communist' or 'supports riots' or 'hates america' .

How many thousands of comments like that do you want me to provide you the link to?

Hmmmm?

Physican, heal thyself.

I criticize the right. I refer to Trump authoritarian tendencies, etc, because there is hard evidence for it.
The right is confused, because they think legislation that they don't agree with is 'authoritarian', but law, love it or hate it, is the anti-thesis of authoritarianism.

I'm not seeing it.

It will on the BIG issues important to conservatives. Citizen's United, for example. They allowed the Texas law, which was clearly unconstitutional per Roe v Wade, stand until they do their arguments on it.
Bread and butter issues that aren't particular left or right, if you factor those in, you a misleading stat.
The right chose those justices because the right perceived those justices to align with their core pro-corporation, anti-union, anti-abortion, beliefs. They chose those justices based on their writings, rulings, and decisions.
Roberts is a bit of a centrist, but tends to side with consertatives, most of teh teim. I 5/4 court wiht Roberts as the swing vote I can live with, but NOT 6/3 court, because then the swing vote is lost.

If the situation were reversed, a Democrat president would not have denied a hearing during an election year by presidential judicial appointment to the SCOTUS.

How do I know this? Because in all of history it has never happened. Yes, Biden, in 1992, asked Bush to abstain from nominating a justice until after the election,, but he DID NOT suggest or advocate DENYING a hearing of an appointed justice. THAT he DID NOT do.

My argument is that to deny a hearing is an abuse of the 'advise and consent' clause. Though such isn't spelled out, the framers make the colossal mistake of assuming the Senate would forever consist of higher minded nobler souls, who would act in good faith, who wouldn't have to have every little thing in the Constitution to be spelled out for if were, it would have been insultling in the late 18th century when the Constitution was debated. Never in their wildest dreams would they have predicted the petty power playing politics of Senate Republicans of late.

What did a democratic president do during an election year? He nominated Garland, a centrist. For the first time in history, a republican Senator denied a SCOTUS appointment a hearing, without cause or reason and McConnell declared that that act of denial, was consistent with the spirit of the advise and consent clause.

Note I did not say 'approve' an appointment, I said 'deny a hearing'. To advise and consent, one must first hear, so as to have reasons for advice and consent, one follows the other.

If SCOTUS observes the historical precedence of Stare Decisis on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Heath and upholds Roe V Wade,
you might have a point. But, I still don't think so because if they uphold R v W, my view is that Kavanaugh and Barret ( Gorsuch won't care ) will consider the political disaster such a ruling will cause and might not want to be the ones getting their proverbial heads chopped off by public opinion ( oh yes, if you think it doesn't matter, you'd be wrong with Gore v Bush disaster fresh in their minds ). But, still, liberal justices would have voted differently and did vote differently on Heller and Citizen's United.

Remember, it's not the bread and butter not-so-partisan rulings that are important, it's the BIG conservative issues that democrats disagree with, the reason Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barret were appointed, that I'm talking about. The point is, your stat doesn't reflect this.

You said that Abortion wasn't a 'right'.

I just told you it was a penumbra right of the 14th amendment's right to privacy, thereby refuting your assertion.

I didn't mention or address the issue of limitation of rights, which is a given.

Yes, repubs nuked the filibuster on Scotus appointments, they screwed Obama on Garland and wanted to cram Gorsuch down dems throats, and nuking the filibuster for SCOTUS Obama did NOT do when dems nuked the filibuster on bench appointments.

These filibuster nukings by dems on bench appointments were because repubs were expanding the use of the filibuster far beyond historical precedents. \

The filibuster nuking by repubs was done on Scotus appointments, NOT because dems were obstructing senate appointments, but ONLY because they didn't want garland and they did want Gorsuch so the placed a bet that Trump would win, and he did.

Am i kidding? No, you are kidding yourself

No, you totally do not comprehend what the entire point is. It's the quantity of filibusters. Historically, filibusters were reserved on BIG issues. Today, they are being applied to PROCEDURAL VOTES AND EVERY THING ELSE. BIG OR SMALL. The one exception is the infrastructure bill, but a number of 19 republican senators knew that their states needed federal money for federal infrastructure projects, it wasn't a philosophical decisions, it was a self-preservation decision and they were willing to whether the storm of Trumpian backlash.

Some dems want to keep the filibuster as is, others want to return it to being a 'talking filibuster and forcing a minimum of 40 senators to remain on the floor' (like it was originally ) and others want to end it altogether. I'm for the talking filibuster, at the minimum, that way it will be reserved or big issues.

 

I criticize the right also. Past posts prove this. Do some research before you spout drivel.

I'm sorry but saying "law" "is the anti-thesis of authoritarianism" has got to be the stupidest statement I have ever seen. Authoritarianism is all about the law. Excessive law that often interferes with Rights.

And Democrats think the same about laws that they disagree with. Both Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin.

Hence why I said you don't see it.

Citizens United happened LONG before the current court makeup that you are complaining about. So that is a bad example. Do you have any currently? You can't even use RvW because it hasn't seen a case about it yet. You're just assuming that they will over ride it.

I do get why you're rejecting the stat. Because it doesn't support your stance. And you know that. So you narrow it down to "big issues". As if "big issues" haven't been overturned in the past ever before.

President's don't deny hearings in a legislative process. Legislatures do.

Which happened prior to Reed dumping the filibuster to appoint judges to lower courts.

Yes, it can be considered abuse. And they did in fact predict that Republicans would be petty. And Democrats to. Everything that has happened regarding appointing SCOTUS judges started when Reed ended filibusters on appointing lower court judges. Its been escalation an escalation game ever since. Even you are feeding into it by wanting to add justice seats to SCOTUS.

Both sides are to blame in this escalation game. Not just McConnell or Republicans. Can you admit this fact?

The Right to Privacy =/= Right to abortion. They are two separate issues. There is no Right to Abortion. There IS a right to Privacy.

And you're seeing the result of both sides always trying to outdo the other.

Yes, trying to stop the expungement of a censure is a "big issue" (the very first use of a filibuster). uh huh. Sure.

Btw, who is determining what is and isn't a "big issue"? Your side? pfft.

 

I took the OP seriously, too seriously.
When there were 13 states there were 6 justices, divided geographically. That would yield 23 now.
When there were 17 states there were 7 justices. That would yield 21.
When there were 26 states they went to 9. That would yield 17 now.
When there were 35 states (including the Confederacy) they went to 10. That would suggest 14 now.
Then they went back to 9 with 37 states. That suggests 11 is best right now.

 

It appears the OP suggests adding one justice per year with the exception of years in which there is a vacancy to fill. So I put it to the test.
No one suggested this in 2001, but its the year someone should have thought of it because it was the 7th year without a vacancy (second time ever).
Starting that year we would still be at 21 justices (12-9 Republican).

 

So I decided to go back further. 1966 would be a bad year to start because we had replaced 8 justices in 12 years, but LBJ got a lot of new appeals court judges that year and got what he wanted. He moved people around like chess pieces.
So starting in 1966 by those rules we would reach 27 justices in 1992 (15-12 Republican).

 

What the writer really wants of course is diversity, every category you can think of on the Supreme Court at all times, and so many that their ineptitude will never be noticed. There's been a dunce seat on the court since 1923. Some people have noticed who was in it and it's embarrassing.

 

Being the way I am, I had to look back into history and revise it based on: what if the Senate did the right thing regarding Supreme Court nominations starting in 1860, because starting in 1852 is too hard to calculate.

 

By doing the right thing I mean approving nominees. I had to decide whether bullying Hoover into appointing Benjamin Cardozo was the right thing. It isn't but I left him there. This exercise is hard enough as it is.

 

I also had to decide whether Presidents should do the right thing. I decided they should do what they did, except Nixon, who would not try to force a vacancy in 1969. That was a hard decision and changes a lot.

 

The first thing is that they allow James Buchanan to fill a vacancy in his last months. Since we can't guess who that might be I call him D?
Next they should have allowed Andrew Johnson to fill 2 vacancies during his tenure. I call them D?? and D???.

 

I decided that those 3 mystery people would retire under a President of the same party. So D? and D?? retire during the first term of Grover Cleveland, replaced by D?2 and D??2.
D??? holds out for the second term of Grover Cleveland, replaced by D???2.

 

Meanwhile in 1897 Stephen Field, who held seat 10, retires and they retire the seat with him.
That deprives us of Justice Joseph McKenna and later his replacement Harlan Fiske Stone. Stone was elevated to Chief in 1941. Instead Hugo Black gets promoted. Remember that. Vinson, who replaced Stone as Chief, replaces Murphy in 1949 as Associate Justice, replaced by Earl Warren in 53.
We miss out on Sherman Minton, and his replacement William Brennan. Remember that too.

 

Justice D?2 can't hold out for a Democrat, so he retires in 1907. Moody replaces him, joining the court one year later than in reality.
With the extra Democrats on the court, Taft would not appoint Horace Lurton. However D??2 retires in 1914, replaced by James McReynolds (who replaced Lurton that year).
D???2 retires in 1919, replaced by D???3.
He retires in 1942, replaced by D???4.

 

D???4 retires in 1965. That makes it unnecessary for LBJ to kill Adlai Stevenson. So Arthur Goldberg stays on the court until 1989. Nixon never uncovers the conflict of interest Abe Fortas had, so he serves from 1965 until he gets sick in 1983.
Robert Bork replaces Fortas and stays until he gets sick in 2011, replaced by Merrick Garland.
Souter replaces Goldberg in 1989.

 

Meanwhile when Warren retires in 1968 he is replaced by Homer Thornberry. Thornberry retires in 1990, replaced by R?
R? reluctantly retires in 2018, replaced by Neil Gorsuch.

 

In 2016 when Scalia dies he is replaced by D?
This is how it should have been.

 

So in this scenario justices Miller, Bradley, Brewer, Shiras, McKenna, Lurton, Stone, Minton, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Kennedy and so far Kavanaugh don't serve on the court.
Think of the consequences.

 

With Black as Chief the court would have been a brutal place of infighting for 30 years, but some radical things might have gotten through.
Without Blackmun and Powell the abortion decision would have gone the same way, but the reasoning would be sound.
Bork would have battled Scalia for dominance for 25 years, bad for the health of all.

 

So Buchanan would have appointed 2 instead of one,
Lincoln would have appointed 4 instead of 5,
Andrew Johnson 2 instead of 0,
Grant 3 instead of 4,
Cleveland term 1 would have appointed 4 instead of 2,
Benjamin Harrison 2 instead of 4,
Cleveland term 2 would have appointed 3 instead of 2,
Mckinley 0 instead of 1,
Taft 4 instead of 5,
Wilson 4 instead of 3,
Coolidge 0 instead of 1
FDR 9 instead of 8
Truman 3 instead of 4
Eisenhower 4 instead of 5,
Nixon 2 instead of 4,
Bush Sr. 3 instead of 2,
Obama 4 instead of 2 and
Trump 2 instead of 3.