Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.

[Naturegirl1999]

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.

What’s court packing?

[Culise]

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.

What’s court packing?

The US constitution in itself does not have any requirement for or limits on the composition of the US Supreme Court.  As such, the actual number of justices has been controlled by the number of candidates able to make it through the appointment process and statutory law, varying between six to ten.  Court-packing schemes, the most infamous of which was FDR's in 1937, refer to any attempt to take advantage of control of the Congress and Presidency in order to add appropriately-partisan justices to the Supreme Court until you're guaranteed to win any court cases that are posed against you or your policies.  The effects this would have on the checks and balances between the three branches would be...let us be polite and call it "profoundly negative."

[Max™]

Adding seats to the Supreme Court (possibly others) to negate the effect of McConnell flat out stealing seats for years.

[Naturegirl1999]

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.

What’s court packing?

The US constitution in itself does not technically have any requirement for the composition of the US Supreme Court.  As such, the number of justices has been controlled by the number of candidates able to make it through the appointment process and statutory law, varying between six to ten.  Court-packing schemes, the most infamous of which was FDR's in 1937, refer to any attempt to take advantage of control of the Congress and Presidency in order to add appropriately-partisan justices to the Supreme Court until you're guaranteed to win any court cases that are posed against you or your policies.  The effects this would have on the checks and balances between the three branches would be...let us be polite and call it "profoundly negative."

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party

[Max™]

Given how the parties have changed over time it would be easier to say defined by conservative/liberal lean I think?

Though then you get into all the bullshit with social vs economic, and constitutional originalism vs whatever the fuck they call "interpreting shit in a sensible modern fashion" lately.

[hector13]

How dare you, the Founding Fathers were omniscient benevolent super-beings, their words will stand the test of time and need no interpretation!

[Lord Shonus]

Justices generally aren't members of any party to begin with. Judges are labeled "Democrat" or "Republican" not because they hold membership in those parties, but because their judicial record suggests an ideological alignment with one or the other. That isn't really relevant, because the people wanting to pack the Court are openly doing so because the EEEEVIL Republicans have appointed more members, and the EEEEVIL Justices they appointed won't rubber-stamp the agenda the candidates are proposing.

[Culise]

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party

Most likely?  Absolutely nothing would change; most USSC decisions are unanimous and less than 20% are sharply split (5-4).  Judges already aren't part of the political apparatus and don't require (or even prefer) direct membership in political parties.  This would just result in a question of enforcement and, possibly, even worse.  If they're not part of a party officially, do we require them to be?  Do we try to infer their political standings?  We can't just crack open the ballot box and examine their votes; the secret ballot is also constitutionally protected.  Do we do it based on their public statements?  How do we reconcile banning people with opinions from holding political offices?  Who judges these judges?  Another non-partisan committee would be turtles all the way down, and the only reason for this sort of amendment is if you don't trust the partisan Congress (the present arbiter).  It's a nasty can of worms for questionable benefit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My compromise position on court packing is that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas should all be impeached for their crimes and replaced with socialist agitators rather than expanding the court size.

[Frumple]

I don't recall gorsuch's actual crimes (save how he was appointed to begin with), but I'd take that compromise pretty handily anyway. In the meantime adding a few seats to counterbalance GOP fuckery would be okay, too. Whichever's more likely.

[Naturegirl1999]

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party

Most likely?  Absolutely nothing would change; most USSC decisions are unanimous and less than 20% are sharply split (5-4).  Judges already aren't part of the political apparatus and don't require (or even prefer) direct membership in political parties.  This would just result in a question of enforcement and, possibly, even worse.  If they're not part of a party officially, do we require them to be?  Do we try to infer their political standings?  We can't just crack open the ballot box and examine their votes; the secret ballot is also constitutionally protected.  Do we do it based on their public statements?  How do we reconcile banning people with opinions from holding political offices?  Who judges these judges?  Another non-partisan committee would be turtles all the way down, and the only reason for this sort of amendment is if you don't trust the partisan Congress (the present arbiter).  It's a nasty can of worms for questionable benefit.

Thank you. I never thought of those things. I thought they were of parties. Thank you for clarifying.

[smjjames]

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.

What’s court packing?

The US constitution in itself does not technically have any requirement for the composition of the US Supreme Court.  As such, the number of justices has been controlled by the number of candidates able to make it through the appointment process and statutory law, varying between six to ten.  Court-packing schemes, the most infamous of which was FDR's in 1937, refer to any attempt to take advantage of control of the Congress and Presidency in order to add appropriately-partisan justices to the Supreme Court until you're guaranteed to win any court cases that are posed against you or your policies.  The effects this would have on the checks and balances between the three branches would be...let us be polite and call it "profoundly negative."

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party

How do you define 'independent' though? That's the problem as most who label themselves as 'independent' actually lean one way or another.

My compromise position on court packing is that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas should all be impeached for their crimes and replaced with socialist agitators rather than expanding the court size.

I get Kavanaugh and Thomas, but Gorsuch? Any impeachment of him is going to be political, not criminal as his only crime is stealing the seat by proxy of McConnell. Really, it's McConnell who should be punished. Socialist agitators though, lol.

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party

Most likely?  Absolutely nothing would change; most USSC decisions are unanimous and less than 20% are sharply split (5-4).  Judges already aren't part of the political apparatus and don't require (or even prefer) direct membership in political parties.  This would just result in a question of enforcement and, possibly, even worse.  If they're not part of a party officially, do we require them to be?  Do we try to infer their political standings?  We can't just crack open the ballot box and examine their votes; the secret ballot is also constitutionally protected.  Do we do it based on their public statements?  How do we reconcile banning people with opinions from holding political offices?  Who judges these judges?  Another non-partisan committee would be turtles all the way down, and the only reason for this sort of amendment is if you don't trust the partisan Congress (the present arbiter).  It's a nasty can of worms for questionable benefit.

Yeah, most of the cases are what have been described as 'bread and butter' cases, basic stuff that are mostly of little interest politically. It's the highly political and polarized stuff (the roughly 20%) that get peoples attention, not the boring ones.

Anyways, my position on court packing is that it should be something only dictatorships and illiberal democracies take part in. Besides, does anybody think that McConnell or any other Republican WOULDN'T pack the court back their way the next chance they get? That's the main problem with court packing, with the way the Republicans (McConnell in particular) respect (or rather, don't) the rules, theres no guarantee that they won't turn the tables around next time.

Given how the parties have changed over time it would be easier to say defined by conservative/liberal lean I think?

Though then you get into all the bullshit with social vs economic, and constitutional originalism vs whatever the fuck they call "interpreting shit in a sensible modern fashion" lately.

Haven't the positions and definitions of conservative/liberal changed over time as well? I mean, the core definition hasn't changed all that much, but the place on the spectrum (though using a 1D line would be a massive oversimplification) has changed over time.

[ggamer]

The judicial system being famed for it's socialist agitators? I figured most of them were working defense pro bono cases or working for the liberal crime squad

[Naturegirl1999]

Given how the parties have changed over time it would be easier to say defined by conservative/liberal lean I think?

Though then you get into all the bullshit with social vs economic, and constitutional originalism vs whatever the fuck they call "interpreting shit in a sensible modern fashion" lately.

Haven't the positions and definitions of conservative/liberal changed over time as well? I mean, the core definition hasn't changed all that much, but the place on the spectrum (though using a 1D line would be a massive oversimplification) has changed over time.

There is a website called https://www.politicalcompass.org/

that has a two axis system. An authoritarian/libertarian axis, and a left/right axis