There is nothing sacred about the number nine for sc justices. McConnell was more than happy to keep the court at 8 for a year after Scalia died. And if Dakota can have four senators there is no reason DC shouldn't also. GOP plays dirty, the DNC should too.
I understand that there is nothing "sacred" about the number nine. I also understand that packing the Supreme Court with more and more justices would inevitably lead to greater difficulties in reaching (what are supposed to be) impartial case decisions.
Yes, McConnell misused his power to block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
As I have already said, the arbitrariness of setting state boundaries is what makes me think that it is a poor basis upon which to always award two (and only two) Senators. There should be "nothing sacred" about the number two either.
Sorry, I'm not one of those "fight fire with fire" guys. I'd rather look for ways to reduce the dirtiness in politics rather than contribute to it.
Not realistic since the south wanted their slaves to count towards representation without having to give them voting rights and now we're stuck with the electoral college. You don't get to quit just because the GOP has this enormous senate advantage you'd like to enshrine because they already got to craft their states to maximize senate representation (eg Dakota being split in two).
I have to laugh whenever I hear today's Republicans refer to themselves as the "Party of Lincoln". It seems pretty obvious to me that what were the anti-slavery Republicans and the pro-slavery Democrats have gradually swapped their positions over the last 150 years. It is therefore somewhat silly to suggest that the GOP of the late 1800's was enshrining a senate advantage for the GOP of today. And as far as I can tell, the splitting of the Dakota territory into two states was all about politics with the Dakotas rather than about national politics.
If you feel that way expanding the court is a good Idea. It would allow the voice of the people to be heard.
The Supreme Court (and the entire judicial system) is not meant to reflect the "voice of the people", but is supposed to ensure a fair and impartial interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. The recent practice (by both parties) to litmus test nominees on their political views rather than their qualifications as fair and impartial justices is what has gotten us to where we are today. Doing more of the same is not going to solve the problem.
Well, the House is for representation by population. The Senate is designed to balance that power for the theoretically underrepresented smaller states, so that all have that equal representation. The problem is that the House--and therefore the larger states--are woefully underrepresented due to available seats based on population.
As it stands, the smallest states have vastly outsized power as it is. I see no issue with increasing whatever number of states that all citizens agree to, as well as increasing representation to an acceptable number that is more relevant to our current population instead of the current standard of, I dunno...~1893?
As for the SCOTUS, I agree with Biden's proposition, but I don't see any reason not to increase the number of the seats. It's already been done before and it isn't something that is that difficult to do. It currently represents yet another over-powered, over-represented body where the extreme minority of our country vastly outweighs something like what 90% of this country actually wants to be. It's wholly unsustainable. Likewise, the federal judiciary is woefully understaffed, by design of the GOP. We need something like 300 or more seats throughout the US, also with term limits and something like an actual experience/qualification standard to be offered a seat.
I'd rather not see any more justices appointed with the qualifications of: "Denny's picture menu reading level," and once said a very nice thing about an 78 year-old senile toddler man baby.
Yes, I understand that representation by population is what the House is all about. What I question is the rationale for retaining the Senate with its two-members-per-state makeup when the establishment of state boundaries (and their population at the time) were so arbitrary. I am therefore against the idea of extending this arbitrary process just to allow one faction to gain some short term political advantage.
Again, packing the Supreme Court with more and more politically motivated justices will only make things worse. Reforms that include term limits is IMHO the way to go.
newrepublic.com
Facebook
Twitter