Question About The Supreme Court

I have yet to hear the media ask any democrat why they are in favor of adding 4 more justices to the Supreme Court. I have yet to hear any democrat explain why they want to add 4 more justices. If the democrats think it's a good idea then they should be able to easily explain why. Good ideas are always easy to explain. All I hear is a democrat say they are in favor of the idea and all the media does is report it. Of course we all know the reason -- more power for the democrats -- period. Anyone on the PF have a different reason?

 

Some, not all are in favor of this. Let's see if it passes.

 

I can tell you why I think 4 more justices should be added: because the Supreme Court has been politicized by right-wing justices.

Four additional independent justices is the only way I can think of to return the Court to its original path. Every effort should be made to ensure that they are, in fact, independent.

 

I don't agree with expanding the court. Let me repeat that for the reading comprehension impaired...I don't agree with expanding the court. That being said it took me all of about 15 seconds to find these two quotes from two of the co-sponsors of the bill to expand the court. In other words you clearly didn't actually look to see any explanations.

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill, told The Wall Street Journal that adding justices “will shore up the public’s confidence in the court and its legitimacy in the public’s eyes.”

“Our democracy is under assault, and the Supreme Court has dealt the sharpest blows. To restore power to the people, we must #ExpandTheCourt,” Mondaire Jones wrote on Twitter.

 

Re my OP -- I'm still waiting . . .

 

That's easy. To restore all three branches to Democrat's control.

I've seen people claim it is "because Democracy is under assault" and "to restore independence to the court" but those are lies. Democrats want control, plain and simple. This implies that the Senate failed in installing the current 9 justices.

Besides, in the entire history of the SCOTUS it had never been independent. The justices that are installed always carries thiwr biases with them.

 

I am not currently in favor of adding SC judges, but I may change my mind in the future. I wrote this in a previous thread about the SC:

"It is interesting to look at the statistics of SC judges in recent history:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Since president Kennedy, 15 judges were appointed by GOP presidents, only 6 judges were appointed by a Dem president. This is reflected by the leaning of the court, which has been conservative for a LONG time. If one thinks about this, the GOP has a 71% "majority" in SC judge appointments, while being represented by the minority of the US population.

Of course, this follows directly from the two powers appointing the judges, the President and the Senate. Both of them are elected on mechanisms that allow for minority rule. The Senate, for example, pushed Kavanaugh through with a Senate "majority" that represented only 44% of the American people.

This will be getting worse. As the population disparity between big and small states widens, the Senate majority will represent less and less of the American population. In 2040, it is estimated that 2/3 of the Senate is represented by only 1/3 of Americans. Therefore, the SC will follow similar trends. Increasing minority representation. "

Just like the Senate, the SC represents minority rule. And that's the ONLY reason why the Republicans are against adding SC judges, because it would threaten their minority rule. Of course, they won't say this out loud, and use all kinds of other pretend arguments of why the number of judges should remain the same. If I were in power, I'd do the same thing.

 

What about what's best for our country?

 

Great post. As you stated, the Supreme court has not leaned Democratic appointed justices for decades. Even roe v wade was decided by a conservative majority of judges...that is how far back it goes.

After decades of SCOTUS majority the repubs still defied the spirit of the constitution to maintain their power in the courts.

Not trying to justify it but I can see why some dems would be out for "blood" so to speak in regards to the supreme court.

 

If Republicans had wanted to set an example of what's best for the country they would have given Merrik Garland a fair hearing.

 

Why ask? Everybody on both sides understands that it is a political ploy to control the court. Supreme court justices are replaced when they die or retire. Changing the rules isn't the right way but it isn't about right or wrong. It is about power.

 

Yep, the powerful wanting more power. Sad day for the country.

 

Yes, it is about power, on both sides. The ONLY reason why the GOP is against changing the rules is because they currently favor them. If the rules currently do not favor them, as in mail-in voting, the GOP is only too happy to change the rules, so they can hold on to their minority reign. Nothing new.

BTW: I do not think that increasing the number of judges will favor the Dems. The reason why the SC leans conservative is not because of the number of judges, it it because the Senate and the electoral college both favor rural states.

 

When did the GOP campaign to pack the court when it was in the minority? Just curious.

I you can keep the city dwellers in the cities, then you can pack the court as far as I am concerned. How the justices decide depends on who the justices are, not how many of them there are.

 

Efficiency. I believe the last expansion occurred around the Lincoln period roughly 150-odd years ago.

A statute governs the process and a simple majority is all that is needed to change it.

We’ve had from 5 to 10 justices and the changes were normally driven by partisanship. So that wouldn’t be anything new—I believe Adams was first to jump in the fray. He lead the reduction of the court movement (6 to 5) to deny Jefferson a possible appointment.

Our partisan retardation has always played a role.

 

See post #4. Who am I kidding....you already did but just pretending you didn’t. Head in the sand thingy. Carry on.

 

How would adding 4 leftist Democrat justices return the Court to its original path? Seems like we would then have 7 leftist justices and 6 conservative justices meaning all decisions would yield a bias to liberal leftist Communist desires of the Democrat Party. That would be politicizing the Court for sure! In a very un-American way.

If we are to be on a path that is original, we should then revert back to the times of slavery, no? So, what is your idea of what the "original" path for the Court?

 

It wouldn't. That's why I said we need independent justices. Focus!

 

The problem is the nimrod Jerry Nadler and gang of thieves today said specifically why the court has to be packed. To rid the Country of the evil Trump (TDR), to stop the racist republicans on the Court and to prevent the end of the world through climate change. All three B.S. political reasons were made today why to add 4 leftist justices to sway the Court to a 7-6 leftist majority. It is the Democrats pushing politics and they will use the three reasons I gave to try and persuade the public to let them do it and to end the filibuster. The media will be in there corner as well to do this. All political.

 

Independent justices? That isn't the direction of Biden and his gang of thieves. From what I've seen from the 9 justices we have now, is independent justices. If they weren't, Trump would still be President and the Republicans would still run the Senate.

 

OK, it's a great idea. So the next time a republican president is elected we can add four more justices to make it 17. Then when a dem president is elected . . .
Beam me up Scotty there's no intelligent life here on Earth.

 

They invoked the Biden rule. Then the Reid Rule. If Schumer expands the Court, the GOP will expand the Court as well, invoking the Schumer rule.

A better idea might be for the State Legislatures to adopt a few Constitutional Amendments as the Federal Government seems to have forgotten that they represent us, not the Kingdom of DC.

1- State Legislature may recall their Senator on a Party Line vote.
2- Each State Governor shall appoint 1 Supreme Court Justice, subject to confirmation by the State Legislature. States that currently have a resident on the Supreme Court shall not make a Court Appointment until they no longer have a representative on the Court.

The plain fact that the death or retirement of a single justice in their 80's, and now since the Left has take up political rioting and the burning of cities every time they don't get their way, clearly each Justice is far too consequential. Once there is 50, retirements and replacements should no longer be national crises, rather, routine state duties.

 

We don't need 9 justices, we need 27. This article explains it nicely. See, the objective is AGAINST 'court packing', which is NOT about numbers, court packing is where one side has the overwhelming advantage. Republicans have already packed the court 6/3 in their favor. \

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

The battle over court packing is being fought on the wrong terms. Americans of all political stripes should want to see the court expanded, but not to get judicial results more favorable to one party. Instead, we need a bigger court because the current institutional design is badly broken. The right approach isn’t a revival of FDR’s court packing plan, which would have increased the court to 15, or current plans, which call for 11. Instead, the right size is much, much bigger. Three times its current size, or 27, is a good place to start, but it’s quite possible the optimal size is even higher. This needn’t be done as a partisan gambit to stack more liberals on the court. Indeed, the only sensible way to make this change would be to have it phase in gradually, perhaps adding two justices every other year, to prevent any one president and Senate from gaining an unwarranted advantage.

 

Has a republican body ever suggested increasing the justices when they had the majority? Do tell.

 

What nonsense! The fact that they're partisan doesn't mean they want to institute a dictatorship. That would obviously curtail their power.