• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Given the opportunity, should the democrats expand the Supreme Court?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should the democrats expand the Supreme Court?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Someone rich should buy prime time tv ads and run “YOU LINDSEY, WE KNOW YOU GAY, NO ONE CARES!”. Cause someone sure as hell has his nuts tied up...
 
cytg111 said:
Someone rich should buy prime time tv ads and run “YOU LINDSEY, WE KNOW YOU GAY, NO ONE CARES!”. Cause someone sure as hell has his nuts tied up...
Click to expand...
Love that idea. Same spot except You are gay and deserve equal rights. Show several shots of gay people but make the last one Lindsay.
 
If the Democrats win the White House and Senate, and that's a big if, then they need to focus on getting everyone registered to vote and standard voting laws across the states (Federal $). And they need to stop trying to be Republican-lite, come out and tell people why the Republican party is fucking dogshit, and how the Democratic party is going to start helping actual Americans.

Packing the court would be pointless long-term. I'm tired of trying to win short-term victories that allow the fascists to work the long con to override short-term victories.
 
nickqt said:
If the Democrats win the White House and Senate, and that's a big if, then they need to focus on getting everyone registered to vote and standard voting laws across the states (Federal $). And they need to stop trying to be Republican-lite, come out and tell people why the Republican party is fucking dogshit, and how the Democratic party is going to start helping actual Americans.

Packing the court would be pointless long-term. I'm tired of trying to win short-term victories that allow the fascists to work the long con to override short-term victories.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile while you take the long route we lose...

voting rights
Woman having control over their own bodies
healthcare (pre-existing conditions)
They've also talked about banning birth control

If on overweight patient has a heart attack you don't put him on a diet and exercise program first. You first have to shock the heart back into sinus rhythm. (Adding 2 SCOTUS justices) Then do the long term fixes.

Packing the courts needs to be followed by...

reforming voting rights act
Increasing the number of federal judges
Followed by enacting judge term limits (18 years already suggest) Implement immediately.
 
HomerJS said:
Meanwhile while you take the long route we lose...

voting rights
Woman having control over their own bodies
healthcare (pre-existing conditions)
They've also talked about banning birth control

If on overweight patient has a heart attack you don't put him on a diet and exercise program first. You first have to shock the heart back into sinus rhythm. (Adding 2 SCOTUS justices) Then do the long term fixes.

Packing the courts needs to be followed by...

reforming voting rights act
Increasing the number of federal judges
Followed by enacting judge term limits (18 years already suggest) Implement immediately.
Click to expand...
All of that, which you believe I "missed", assumes Biden wins, Democrats take the Senate, and that Senate Democrats kill the filibuster.

We're where we're at because of short-term solutions. Meanwhile the Republicans have been playing the long con for the past 40+ years.

Packing the court is a short-term, AT BEST, solution to the problems we have.

IF. IF Biden wins. IF the Democratic party takes the Senate. IF the Senate kills the filibuster, than go on ahead and add an extra 200 Supreme Court justices. It won't stop the long con of the Republican party, because they'll retake the Senate and White House, and add an extra 4000 Supreme Court justices.
 
nickqt said:
All of that, which you believe I "missed", assumes Biden wins, Democrats take the Senate, and that Senate Democrats kill the filibuster.

We're where we're at because of short-term solutions. Meanwhile the Republicans have been playing the long con for the past 40+ years.

Packing the court is a short-term, AT BEST, solution to the problems we have.

IF. IF Biden wins. IF the Democratic party takes the Senate. IF the Senate kills the filibuster, than go on ahead and add an extra 200 Supreme Court justices. It won't stop the long con of the Republican party, because they'll retake the Senate and White House, and add an extra 4000 Supreme Court justices.
Click to expand...

That would be amazing. They created the filibuster two-track system we use today (Mike Mansfield and Byrd) and then take it away lol

edit: To add to this hilarity, in 2013 Dems removed the filibuster from flow-level judicial nominees and all executive appointees, Republicans removed filibuster for SCOTUS after Neil Gorsuch was filibustered.
 
Last edited:
Republicans don't play by the Rules, neither should the Democrats. If you want to prevent abuse, just bring a balance back to the Court wherein there is Partisan Balance and 1 or 2 non-Partisans(if they exist) to make every decision more well thought out.
 
sandorski said:
Republicans don't play by the Rules, neither should the Democrats. If you want to prevent abuse, just bring a balance back to the Court wherein there is Partisan Balance and 1 or 2 non-Partisans(if they exist) to make every decision more well thought out.
Click to expand...

What party will nominate neither a liberal or conservative nominee?
 
blackangst1 said:
Sorry thought we were talking about SCOTUS judges, not circuit judges (based on the topic title). And he's one of...how many? He's the exception not the rule.
Click to expand...

He was nominated to SCOTUS four short years ago, and is a very high profile example of the Democrats nominating a non-partisan candidate. So the answer to your original question is the democrats, as easily demonstrated by recent history.
 
I voted no. I think I was just in shock. I still am in a sense. I would vote yes if I could change it. I think America as a cultural thing is gone. I felt like I needed to hang on to something. For the first time in my life, I 'm truly afraid for this country as a nation of people.
 
I just watched an exchange on msnbc right now and the guest was arguing for expanding the court but he articulated reasons I didn’t even think of.

The main argument against such action is that people ask, where does it end? If democrats add two then republicans can just add four and on and on. His rebuttal to that was, so what? We have the lower courts with more judges and one of the unique things they do is that cases are randomly selected.

So congress should/could expand the court and then have a certain number of judges hear a case and who hears a case will be randomly selected which makes a packed court less advantageous to anyone. More judges would also allow more cases to be heard as well.
 
ivwshane said:
I just watched an exchange on msnbc right now and the guest was arguing for expanding the court but he articulated reasons I didn’t even think of.

The main argument against such action is that people ask, where does it end? If democrats add two then republicans can just add four and on and on. His rebuttal to that was, so what? We have the lower courts with more judges and one of the unique things they do is that cases are randomly selected.

So congress should/could expand the court and then have a certain number of judges hear a case and who hears a case will be randomly selected which makes a packed court less advantageous to anyone. More judges would also allow more cases to be heard as well.
Click to expand...
And when one panel of the USSC rules on something that contradicts the way another panel of the USSC has ruled, then they can just
 
nickqt said:
And when one panel of the USSC rules on something that contradicts the way another panel of the USSC has ruled, then they can just
Click to expand...

Why would a panel be ruling on something another panel heard?
The Supreme Court selects the cases it decides to hear.
 
ivwshane said:
The main argument against such action is that people ask, where does it end?
Click to expand...

Term justices out on a staggered schedule. If a justice dies or retires then the party that installed them gets to put in another one for the remainder of that term.

Do the same thing to the lower federal courts. Lifetime appointments are bad ideas.
 
The media actually believes that we could have republicans defecting with not supporting a replacement before this election? HAHA Seriously? Well, one of those "possible" defectors just now put an end to that possibility.... old iOwa senator Chuck Grassley has confirmed that he will support replacing RBG ASAP. So media, there is one defector your can remove from your DUH list. No republican will defect or go against Trump or Mitch, not a single one of them. So, quit pretending that THIS could happen. 🙄
 
K1052 said:
Term justices out on a staggered schedule. If a justice dies or retires then the party that installed them gets to put in another one for the remainder of that term.

Do the same thing to the lower federal courts. Lifetime appointments are bad ideas.
Click to expand...

The only reason I don’t support term limits is because the end of ones term could impact how/who they rule for/against. It just opens up the possibility of motivated rulings.
 
ivwshane said:
The only reason I don’t support term limits is because the end of ones term could impact how/who they rule for/against. It just opens up the possibility of motivated rulings.
Click to expand...

There is relatively little to prevent this now since justices can decide to retire whenever they wish. I'm not opposed to shuffling them off to other jobs inside the government or supplying a relatively fat pension after their service is done to reduce the risk. We're talking about under a 1000 people at any given time so it would not cost all that much really.
 
ivwshane said:
Why would a panel be ruling on something another panel heard?
The Supreme Court selects the cases it decides to hear.
Click to expand...
He's saying that let's say you have 30 people on the SCOTUS. Then if a case comes up, not all 30 would hear the case. It'll be like 9 or 11 or something because you don't need 30 people ruling on something. Probably it'd be random selection or perhaps based on background/interest.

You could have a situation where one bunch of judges overrules the others but we already have that. Currently the SCOTUS seems to put value in keeping precedent and I think the larger it gets the more emphasis that will probably get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top