Author Topic: Packing the Court  (Read 5271 times)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Packing the Court
« on: April 10, 2021, 06:16:16 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-to-unveil-commission-to-study-possible-expansion-of-supreme-court/ar-BB1ftCv6?li=BBnb7Kz


"President Biden created a bipartisan commission Friday to study structural changes to the Supreme Court, giving the group 180 days to produce a report on a range of thorny topics including court expansion and term limits."

One thing should be very clear. If liberals had a majority on the Supreme Court and conservatives were in charge of appointing new members to it, does anyone seriously believe the liberals would be in favor of packing the court with more conservatives, or even in favor of a commission to study it?

This is purely a power grab. FDR tried it and it cost him in the mid-terms. From wiki:

"The Democratic Party lost a net of eight seats in the U.S. Senate and a net 81 seats in the U.S. House in the subsequent 1938 midterm elections.

As Michael Parrish writes, "the protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents."

This is interesting too, that even the Democrats saw this for what it is. I wonder how many of them today will be willing to stand up for principles instead of grabbing for power.

"Other reasons for its failure included members of Roosevelt's own Democratic Party believing the bill to be unconstitutional, with the Judiciary Committee ultimately releasing a scathing report calling it "a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle ... without precedent or justification".

This goes way beyond a nuclear option. This is more like a planet buster, the Death Star option. It will destroy our entire system of government as we know it and put in a new one where whoever controls Congress and the Presidency also controls the Supreme Court because they will just pack it and pack it and pack it until it bursts. Biden even saying he just wants to study the possibilities is like saying let's study the possibilities of building a Death Star that can destroy our planet. This is madness.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2021, 07:08:40 PM »
One thing should be very clear. If liberals had a majority on the Supreme Court and conservatives were in charge of appointing new members to it, does anyone seriously believe the liberals would be in favor of packing the court with more conservatives, or even in favor of a commission to study it?

This is purely a power grab.

Kind of like not giving Garland a hearing while rushing through Barret in record time was a power grab.

But a commission to look into the issue isn't a power grab. Its a commission that will write a report that will likely come to nothing.

Quote
...
This is interesting too, that even the Democrats saw this for what it is. I wonder how many of them today will be willing to stand up for principles instead of grabbing for power.
...

Biden has been against court packing. So is that him standing up against a power grab?

Quote
This goes way beyond a nuclear option. This is more like a planet buster, the Death Star option. It will destroy our entire system of government as we know it and put in a new one where whoever controls Congress and the Presidency also controls the Supreme Court because they will just pack it and pack it and pack it until it bursts. Biden even saying he just wants to study the possibilities is like saying let's study the possibilities of building a Death Star that can destroy our planet. This is madness.

There are other possibilities other than packing. 18 year term limits, with an appointment every 2 years is my personal preference. That's been my opinion for years as to what is best. There is no reason that presidents should keep appointing younger and younger people (while life spans increase) in hopes they will sit on the bench for 30, 40, or 50 years. Its rather anti-democratic that my kids (who can't vote) will likely have to live with several of the current justices until they are in their 40's or 50's.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2021, 03:10:53 PM »
Quote
while rushing through Barret in record time was a power grab.

It wasn't 'record' time.  61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the SC since 1900.  70% (43 of em) were confirmed in under 46 days.  Four of them had same day nominations and confirmations by the senate.  So you can just take out that whole exaggeration right there.

Quote
Biden has been against court packing. So is that him standing up against a power grab?

Politicians have this cool thing where they say one thing, then change their mind when it suits them (haven't you noticed?), and get away with it.  Biden is a politician, and it will suit him to change his mind on this since his party is currently in power.  This "commission" is certainly an indicator of that.

There have been indications that the Democrats want to "lock it up" so to speak.  That is, guarantee Democrats stay in power for a long, long time. Some examples:
 - Changing elections rules (Mail in, late voting...all benefit Dems more than R's)
 - Getting more votes by letting illegal immigrants vote, and getting more illegal immigrants here
 - making DC and Puerto Rico "states" with representatives (DC and Puerto Rico are very, very Blue)
 - and this commission on Supreme Court
 

So it's not just an isolated "well maybe they mean well" thing that's going on here where we can wait and see what's up.  There are too many other red flags that make me "know" what this is all about.

Quote
There are other possibilities other than packing. 18 year term limits, with an appointment every 2 years is my personal preference. That's been my opinion for years as to what is best. There is no reason that presidents should keep appointing younger and younger people (while life spans increase) in hopes they will sit on the bench for 30, 40, or 50 years. Its rather anti-democratic that my kids (who can't vote) will likely have to live with several of the current justices until they are in their 40's or 50's.

Well judges don't make law.  They aren't supposed to decide these things.  They aren't supposed to be "ruling from the bench".  I know this has come up in another thread, but it bears repeating.  There isn't anything wrong with having life-time justices if they are qualified to interpret the law properly.  I'm with you in spirit, (since there have been incidents of them overreaching)  but I don't know lessening their time on the bench is a solution.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2021, 04:26:07 PM »
FDR literally only lost his "grab" for power because he died in office. People were *all about* everything he had to say.

Reps literally added a Constitutional amendment because of him being too popular.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2021, 04:35:11 PM »
Do you all want everyone to vote, or do you not?

No judgment. There are arguments for and against. God only knows I don't want some redneck deciding on how to deal with China. So I get it.

Seems to me though the whole idea is about allowing, encouraging, and enabling as many people as possible to participate in the electoral process.

If ya'll have such sh*try ideas that ya'll have to start making excuses for people not to vote, maybe it's time to examine your ideas.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2021, 11:24:01 PM »
Quote
Biden has been against court packing. So is that him standing up against a power grab?

Politicians have this cool thing where they say one thing, then change their mind when it suits them (haven't you noticed?), and get away with it.  Biden is a politician, and it will suit him to change his mind on this since his party is currently in power.  This "commission" is certainly an indicator of that.

He called for a commission like this when the democratic left was screaming for court packing during the Barret hearings. Therefore so far he's doing exactly what he said he would do and he hasn't come out in support for court packing yet. I expect he won't because its bad politics. Other changes to the SC nomination process or its relationship to the other branches are up for grabs. I have a few bridges to sell to anyone thinks the results of this commission will be immediately implemented. Democrats have very narrow majorities, I don't think this is the hill they are going to spend it on.

Quote
There have been indications that the Democrats want to "lock it up" so to speak.  That is, guarantee Democrats stay in power for a long, long time. Some examples:
 - Changing elections rules (Mail in, late voting...all benefit Dems more than R's)
 - Getting more votes by letting illegal immigrants vote, and getting more illegal immigrants here
 - making DC and Puerto Rico "states" with representatives (DC and Puerto Rico are very, very Blue)
 - and this commission on Supreme Court

What evil plans they have. Making sure American citizens have easy access to voting and voting representation in congress.

The furor over this commission is much ado about nothing. They will write a report. Make a few recommendations that likely get shelved somewhere unless there is some real bipartisan support to implement them. And since the Republicans just about burned the Senate down getting 2 of the last 3 appointments to the SC I doubt they are going to go along with anything, even if it would be good long term policy.

Quote
Quote
There are other possibilities other than packing. 18 year term limits, with an appointment every 2 years is my personal preference. That's been my opinion for years as to what is best. There is no reason that presidents should keep appointing younger and younger people (while life spans increase) in hopes they will sit on the bench for 30, 40, or 50 years. Its rather anti-democratic that my kids (who can't vote) will likely have to live with several of the current justices until they are in their 40's or 50's.

Well judges don't make law.  They aren't supposed to decide these things.  They aren't supposed to be "ruling from the bench".  I know this has come up in another thread, but it bears repeating.  There isn't anything wrong with having life-time justices if they are qualified to interpret the law properly.  I'm with you in spirit, (since there have been incidents of them overreaching)  but I don't know lessening their time on the bench is a solution.

If its just a matter of having qualified people, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to Biden nominating and confirming 6 new qualified justices in their 40's to swing the balance of power of the court back to the liberal wing.

Maybe the commission will come up with a suggestion that congress pass laws regulating the scope of judicial review and authority. But I'm beginning to believe we can't fix the fact that the executive and court have grown too powerful without removing an ineffective legislature. The filibuster is great in theory but when it is used so frequently and widely as to make the Senate impotent to act on anything then it cripples our legislative branch and the president and the court are filling the power vacuum.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2021, 02:56:40 AM »
There have been indications that the Democrats want to "lock it up" so to speak.  That is, guarantee Democrats stay in power for a long, long time. Some examples:
 - Changing elections rules (Mail in, late voting...all benefit Dems more than R's)
Quote
- making DC and Puerto Rico "states" with representatives (DC and Puerto Rico are very, very Blue)

Wow, Democrats want people to be able to vote!

Are you even *censored*ing pretending that the Republicans aren't evil antidemocratoc dictatorship-lovers who want to disenfranchise people?

What is even your *censored*ing excuse for not wanting Puerto Rico to become a state? That THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT POLITICAL OPINION THAN YOU? That it's "BLUE"? Why not take the vote away from blacks then? Black people also very "blue". Oh, I forgot: TRYING TO TAKE THE VOTE AWAY FROM MINORITIES IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING!!

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2021, 08:04:03 AM »
Puerto Rico should be a state if they want to be a state.  I see no reason for them not to be and I have no problem if they do become a state.

DC is another issue, and not because it would most likely vote Dem.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2021, 09:39:56 AM »
What evil plans they have. Making sure American citizens have easy access to voting and voting representation in congress.

That's not their intent, though.  Yea, I want people to be able to vote, and I want people in areas controlled by the U.S. to be able to vote.  (People in DC vote, btw, they just aren't considered a state on their own {You do know why this is, right?})

Do you think there would be *any* talk of DC and Puerto Rico becoming a state if they were more likely to vote R?  (I don't.)  And I'm not against Puerto Rico becoming a state either.  All I'm saying is that the Dems have made this a priority not for any humanitarian or "rights" issue, but because it means more votes for them.  If they can get DC and puerto Rico as (blue) states with representatives, and Texas (by having illegals being able to vote there) then it's gg.  USA will be blue forever.

And I don't think Republicans should be AGAINST making a Puerto Rico a state simply because it will hurt them in the voting booth.  I think things like this ought to be done or not done on principle, or what's right.  There are good reasons to make Rico a state, and there are some good reasons not to.  There are bad reasons to make them a state and there are bad reasons not to.  Just because I point out that the Dems are (likely) trying to make it a state for BAD reasons, doesn't mean I think it ought not be a state.  And when you give them all the credit of the good arguments and me all the bad arguments, that's just poor debating.

Do you think things ought to be done or not done  primarily for political reasons or primarily for "good" or "right"reasons? 

Aris - I don't respond to you or your comments anymore (at least not after this one) because, well, look at the kind of crap you write.

Quote
If its just a matter of having qualified people, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to Biden nominating and confirming 6 new qualified justices in their 40's to swing the balance of power of the court back to the liberal wing.

Lol.    That logic made me do a triple take.  I wouldn't be against Biden nominating justices if there were vacancies because that would be in his power to do.  I don't have a problem with justices sitting for life as long as they don't attempt to "legislate from the bench" or try to use power that isn't granted them.  I would have a problem with a commission stating we need to "nominate 6 new qualified justices in their 40's to swing the balance of power of the court back to the liberal wing."  And really, so should you.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2021, 09:55:45 AM »
USA will be blue forever.

Horse*censored*. That's been said every time they've added states. And a dozen more times besides. What usually ends up happening is if one coalition of voters looks to have a permanent electoral advantage, coalitions shift as the losing party reaches out to groups that are under-served by the current government. That the Republicans are currently trying to preserve their coalition and electoral chances by voter suppression and disenfranchisement doesn't mean that can't revitalize themselves in the future by actually trying to expand their pool of voters.

Quote
I don't have a problem with justices sitting for life as long as they don't attempt to "legislate from the bench" or try to use power that isn't granted them.


So you have a problem with the current court, then?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2021, 10:07:36 AM »
If PR were red, I think there would be efforts on the part of Republicans to make it a state. That is if the Republicans realized it was already a part of the US and not a foreign country, like some current Republican politicians do.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2021, 10:09:00 AM »
What evil plans they have. Making sure American citizens have easy access to voting and voting representation in congress.

That's not their intent, though.  Yea, I want people to be able to vote, and I want people in areas controlled by the U.S. to be able to vote.  (People in DC vote, btw, they just aren't considered a state on their own {You do know why this is, right?})

Yes PR and DC are different cases. The best solution for DC is for all the residential areas to be reintegrated into Maryland or Virginia. PR should be a state if they want to be. If they don't then that's up to them.

Quote
Quote
If its just a matter of having qualified people, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to Biden nominating and confirming 6 new qualified justices in their 40's to swing the balance of power of the court back to the liberal wing.

Lol.    That logic made me do a triple take.  I wouldn't be against Biden nominating justices if there were vacancies because that would be in his power to do.  I don't have a problem with justices sitting for life as long as they don't attempt to "legislate from the bench" or try to use power that isn't granted them.  I would have a problem with a commission stating we need to "nominate 6 new qualified justices in their 40's to swing the balance of power of the court back to the liberal wing."  And really, so should you.

Why? If all that matters to you are that justices are qualified to interpret the constitution and law why should you care if there are 9 or 15 justices?

Spoiler, I think court packing is a bad idea. 18 year terms (IMO) are a much better solution that reduces the randomness of the SC make up. Trump getting 3 appointments in a single term is an aberration and 1/3 of our government shouldn't be dominated by such randomness.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2021, 10:12:56 AM »
This is basically why I feel the Republican stance is racist at its based.  Latin immigrants who come from Central and South America are mainly Catholic. They work hard to support their families and for the most part would embrace most of the conservative values the Republicans are supposed to value. Why wouldn't the Republicans want them to come?  If the Republicans had a positive immigration policy that supported those from the south of the border, I would expect 70% or more of those immigrants would vote Republican. And cement Republican control. But instead the Republicans embrace a racist policy against the immigrants, and turn those who do come here legally against them. If Texas goes purple or blue, it is the Republicans own fault.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2021, 12:54:06 PM »
What evil plans they have. Making sure American citizens have easy access to voting and voting representation in congress.

That's not their intent, though.

To HELL with intent. Intent doesn't *censored*ing matter. We want people to do good things for their own selfish intents. That's how incentives work. Do this good thing, because it will personally *censored*ing benefit you.

Support gay people, because you'll get gay people voting fom you.
Support black people, because you'll get black people voting for you.
Support hispanics, because you'll get hispanics voting for you.

And yet what I don't see you doing is to bash the Republicans and Trumpist who do evil things (for their own selfish intents)

Quote
Yea, I want people to be able to vote, and I want people in areas controlled by the U.S. to be able to vote.

But you don't want them bad enough, to criticize Trumpist fascists and other Republicans for disenfranchising them. I didn't see you criticize Georgia for banning even giving water to people waiting in lines to vote.

Quote
Do you think things ought to be done or not done  primarily for political reasons or primarily for "good" or "right"reasons? 

Oh, I think they should be done exactly for BAD reasons. That's how progress is made. When the people who care about doing good things for good reasons manage to find a way to convince people with bad reasons that it's also to their benefit to do good things.

You on the other hand seem to prefer people doing bad things for bad reasons, rather than good things for bad reasons.

Quote
That logic made me do a triple take.  I wouldn't be against Biden nominating justices if there were vacancies because that would be in his power to do.

Oh, suddenly you don't care about "good reasons" or "bad reasons", you wouldn't be against it because it's in his power. But you *are* against his packing the court, because that's not in his power? Oh, wait it is. And yet you are against him packing the court!

The only reason you say you wouldn't mind if there were 6 vacancies, is because you don't *censored*ing expect there to be 6 vacancies. You'd change your tune if there were any.

OrneryMod

  • Administrator
  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2021, 02:53:06 PM »
Aris: Please stop depending on the censoring feature. It is not appropriate to use language like that here. The Cards have asked us to treat this like forum their living room, and they do not want us cursing in their space.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2021, 03:05:28 PM »
Quote
This is basically why I feel the Republican stance is racist at its based.  Latin immigrants who come from Central and South America are mainly Catholic. They work hard to support their families and for the most part would embrace most of the conservative values the Republicans are supposed to value. Why wouldn't the Republicans want them to come?  If the Republicans had a positive immigration policy that supported those from the south of the border, I would expect 70% or more of those immigrants would vote Republican. And cement Republican control. But instead the Republicans embrace a racist policy against the immigrants, and turn those who do come here legally against them. If Texas goes purple or blue, it is the Republicans own fault.

What makes you think it's 'racist' though?  I think your right about the rest of it, but I don't know the R's aren't letting them in because of any racist motives.  'Rule of Law' is the term that's most succinct here.  (I don't think we ought to de-rail this thread into immigration talks, though.)

Quote
Why? If all that matters to you are that justices are qualified to interpret the constitution and law why should you care if there are 9 or 15 justices

It doesn't.  What matters is the reasons for the change.  If it doesn't matter if it's 9 or 15, and I agree that it doesn't, then why change? 

When President Trump wanted Judge Barrett nominated quickly, Rep. Joe Kennedy III tweeted "If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021.  It's that simple."  Just as an example.  (I'm sure you'll find an instance of a Republican threatening something like that, or equal to that, somewhere too.)

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler wrote on Twitter: 'If Sen. McConnell and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame-duck session -- before a new Senate and President can take office - then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.'  ( no i do NOT think *quickly* nominating a new SC judge is in the same category as 'packing the courts'.)

So I have reason to believe these people will take actions to benefit their party instead of what's right, or what is good for the country as a whole.  And that's, to quote Noblehunter, is Horse poopy.

I think I like the idea of 18 year term limits for them, but I haven't heard a counter argument so I don't know yet.

Quote
1/3 of our government shouldn't be dominated by such randomness.

Didn't we just discuss it not mattering?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2021, 03:19:43 PM »
I think it is racist because otherwise they would be working out methods to help the immigrants get into the country legally. They would not call them rapist and murderers and bad people. The only obvious reason I can see for the GOP not passing laws to allow in a group that would probably help them is that the group in question is not white. But the GOP seems to have sold it soul to the shrinking old white guy demographic, and it looks like that demographic is doing all it can to keep its power (see Tucker Carlson's White Replacement rant).

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2021, 03:41:21 PM »
Quote
1/3 of our government shouldn't be dominated by such randomness.

Didn't we just discuss it not mattering?

But we both know it does matter. What rights people have, what rights corporations have, and what roles the government can play in regulating the environment, corporations and elections are all at stake.

If the legislative branch properly functioned and the court hadn't expanded its own power so significantly over the last 100 years then maybe I could more easily accept the fact that the Republicans through manipulation and luck got 3 appointments from a single term President, reshaping the court for a good 30 years at least. I would love to see a functioning legislative branch claw back some power from the executive and courts. But it would have to be a bipartisan effort and if you listen to John Boehner talk about the current Republican caucus there is little hope for a strong push for competent governance.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2021, 07:47:01 PM »
That's fair.  I can't really disagree with any of that other than maybe saying the Supreme Court doesn't really insert itself in things like the environment or corporations.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2021, 12:20:33 PM »
"President Biden created a bipartisan commission Friday to study structural changes to the Supreme Court, giving the group 180 days to produce a report on a range of thorny topics including court expansion and term limits."

Bi-partisan with a ratio of 3:1 progressive to conservative, no question about who decides what the "bipartisan" commission reports.

Quote
This is purely a power grab. ***

I wonder how many of them today will be willing to stand up for principles instead of grabbing for power.

None of them even recognize it for what it is.  Between an education that is focused on being a passionate advocate reacting on emotion, rather than on logic and analysis, a state media that is full on about spreading propaganda, and a social media that not only endorses spreading propaganda but is now suppressing counter-propaganda and even just contrary voices and putting the brakes on any way for opponents of the regime to organize (it's no mistake that the DOJ's new focus is on monitoring social media connections of the enemies of the state (i.e., moderate concerned Republicans)), they don't have the capacity to think through the issues and the consequences and increasingly they don't even have access to real information to even begin the process.  They will believe they are fighting for democracy the entire time they sell us out to totalitarianism because they don't know any better and they have been deliberately conditioned to have no ability to figure it out.

Quote
This goes way beyond a nuclear option. This is more like a planet buster, the Death Star option. It will destroy our entire system of government as we know it and put in a new one where whoever controls Congress and the Presidency also controls the Supreme Court because they will just pack it and pack it and pack it until it bursts. Biden even saying he just wants to study the possibilities is like saying let's study the possibilities of building a Death Star that can destroy our planet. This is madness.

It's not madness it's the only path open.  Dems are at a cross roads because they've pulled off the veil, they either take over permanently or they're going to go down.  So if you plan to violate the Constitution your priorities have to be to control every authority that could stop it, to ensure you can rig all future elections,  to ensure that you control all forms of information to prevent anyone from being able to question what happened, and that you constrain any ability of the enemies of the state to even discuss it (seriously, everything they've done in the last few years has been to prevent conservatives from being able to organize and hear each other, cancel culture, attacking speakers, banning social media accounts, news blackouts of a large number of stories, threats to monitor social media to prevent "organizing").

When I was a kid everyone wondered how any Democracy could fall into totalitarianism, it just seemed so implausible, and now we know exactly what it looks like and how it's being accomplished.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2021, 12:30:59 PM »
There are other possibilities other than packing. 18 year term limits, with an appointment every 2 years is my personal preference. That's been my opinion for years as to what is best.

And have you addressed the most serious issues with this?

The reason we appoint for life is because appointing for a shorter time invites massive corruption.  A Supreme Court Justice that has to consider their career - which is all of them in an 18 year term, whether or not their retirement is otherwise adequate - has a personal interest in the outcomes that is a direct conflict with the interests of the law and justice.

Even worse, you'd have to have term limits at all levels of the court, which means every judge is now concerned about those same personal conflicts.  I would expect you would apply the limits per job so one could be 18 years at the district court, 18 at the circuit and 18 in the SC, but even with that you can expect significant continued movement into other government roles which triggers even more back scratching, horse trading and favor garnishing.

The Supreme Court already has too much authority, reforms that encourage politically motivated use of that authority are not actually reforms. 

Quote
There is no reason that presidents should keep appointing younger and younger people (while life spans increase) in hopes they will sit on the bench for 30, 40, or 50 years. Its rather anti-democratic that my kids (who can't vote) will likely have to live with several of the current justices until they are in their 40's or 50's.

No, what's unDemocratic is the extent we have permitted the SC, the circuit courts and the district courts to interfere in purely political processes.  You may have enjoyed that a single district court judge could "overrule" President Trump on a matter of national security but that's exactly what is broken in our system.  It was Congresses job to call a President to account if it needed to be done, not something that's within the personal portfolio of hundreds of mini-dictators in robes.

So instead of complaining about who is on the court or for how long focus on reigning in that authority.  Advocating to add more of your team to "balance" it out is revealing, because its not reform, it's a desire to misuse an authority that should be curtailed for political purposes.

And yes, it's just a fact that as between "conservative" and "progressive" judges and justices the ones that rule from the middle and based on law most frequently are the conservatives.  There are no swing progressives, nor will there ever be.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2021, 01:00:48 PM »
I have a few bridges to sell to anyone thinks the results of this commission will be immediately implemented. Democrats have very narrow majorities, I don't think this is the hill they are going to spend it on.

Lol, they'll break the filibuster within this term and impose all kinds of extremist positions.  One might think that losing House seats and having a 50/50 Senate indicates that the government should try to work on a cooperative basis, but one would be wrong.  Dems see this as their chance to rig the rules to ensure that they never face a minority position again.  On what basis would they not take it?

They already believe that they have an absolute moral authority, they believe that they were entitled to win a massive majority and that any result that deviates from that is itself illegitimate, they believe any election they lost was stolen.  They don't see rigging the system in their own favor as wrong, they view as ensuring that the "correct" answer that they know in their hearts is true. 

Honestly, to believe they are not going to do these things would require that you believe they are deliberately going to undermine what they believe is self evidently and morally correct. 

Quote
What evil plans they have. Making sure American citizens have easy access to voting and voting representation in congress.

Nice propaganda.  How does making it illegal to verify the identity of voters do this?  It doesn't.  If your position was reality and Democrats were being honest they'd support measures that ensured that actual voters could cast their ballots free from interference, but they don't.  They are expressly opposed to any measures that prevent the ability of their own operatives to manipulate voters and even votes.  There's only one reason for a position like that, and it's to make sure that you can cheat when you need to, to "ensure" that the "correct" result occurs.

Quote
If its just a matter of having qualified people, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to Biden nominating and confirming 6 new qualified justices in their 40's to swing the balance of power of the court back to the liberal wing.

Implicit in your argument is your acknowledgement that Biden is going to appoint people that don't follow the law but instead rule from the bench to support the progressive agenda.  No one with any common sense should support that.  If you believe the power of the Supreme Court is abusive call for limits on what it can do.

Quote
Maybe the commission will come up with a suggestion that congress pass laws regulating the scope of judicial review and authority. But I'm beginning to believe we can't fix the fact that the executive and court have grown too powerful without removing an ineffective legislature. The filibuster is great in theory but when it is used so frequently and widely as to make the Senate impotent to act on anything then it cripples our legislative branch and the president and the court are filling the power vacuum.

Except what you're looking at is naive.  Democrats have no interest in limiting the power of the courts, they want to control that power so they can force policies through without an electoral mandate.  You talk out of two sides of your mouth when you cry out about ensuring access to the vote and the need to maximize the voice of the people (even if it means counting illegal and fraudulent voters) and then focus on controlling the least Democratic institution in the country which you specifically intended to use to force through policies that the people don't support.  Or do you want to go back and specifically repudiate every anti-democratic Supreme Court decision that forced through progressive policies from history?

Even worse, the bureaucratic state - heavily staffed by Democrats, and increasingly more so over time - has been granted authority superior to the elected branches.  Agencies that work for the President resisted implementing Trump's policies for 4 years (un-Constitutionally), and yet managed to flip hundreds of policies with immediate implementation within weeks of Biden's inaugeration.  If you really believe in the importance of the vote those circumstances should be intolerable.  Yet I've never heard you rant once about them, despite your need to complain about the need to pack the Supreme Court.

It's not entirely the fault of the progressive voters.  The propaganda complex is feeding them a constant line of garbage, telling them that they can illogically both support "the people's" voting power (ironically by ensuring that it will be trivially easy for Democrats to commit open fraud in elections - not reciprocal by the way, because the main stream propaganda will cover for the Democrats and expose even legitimate Republican efforts in ways that will sound nefarious) and also support paternalistic top down orders that the people don't support but that are for their own good.

They haven't noticed as they've aligned over time with authoritarian solutions to every problem and even joined in suppression of civil liberties and rights.  They've even convinced themselves that they're doing good when they advocate for censorship and repression, when they support a politicized response to a pandemic (always in ways that enhance non-democratic authority by the way), or when even when they parrot propaganda points.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2021, 01:34:51 PM »
There are other possibilities other than packing. 18 year term limits, with an appointment every 2 years is my personal preference. That's been my opinion for years as to what is best.

And have you addressed the most serious issues with this?

The reason we appoint for life is because appointing for a shorter time invites massive corruption.  A Supreme Court Justice that has to consider their career - which is all of them in an 18 year term, whether or not their retirement is otherwise adequate - has a personal interest in the outcomes that is a direct conflict with the interests of the law and justice.

Appointment to the SC could still come with a life time salary. Give them the option after their term is up if they want to pursue academic style judicial writing or taking on pro-bono cases. But with the understanding that they don't take cases or other jobs for profit. We could even continue to fund a number of clerks for them. Or they could just take their money and retire.

Quote
Even worse, you'd have to have term limits at all levels of the court, which means every judge is now concerned about those same personal conflicts.  I would expect you would apply the limits per job so one could be 18 years at the district court, 18 at the circuit and 18 in the SC, but even with that you can expect significant continued movement into other government roles which triggers even more back scratching, horse trading and favor garnishing.

Why? The SC is unique, the other judicial appointments could still be lifetime. People sometimes leave lower courts for other jobs already.

Quote
The Supreme Court already has too much authority, reforms that encourage politically motivated use of that authority are not actually reforms. 

The court is already used politically. What I'm proposing is that we just quit having people wield that level of power for 3 decades. And I actually think the legislature should claw back power from the executive and courts. I thought that under Obama, Trump, and still think that under Biden. But the legislature can't or won't claw that power back while the Senate stands in permanent deadlock. If the filibuster dies, there will be Republican policies in the future that I will strongly disagree with. But an ineffective legislature that doesn't address issues of the nation (from a conservative, progressive, or moderate viewpoint) just lets more and more power seep into the executive and courts.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because for the most part you just misrepresented my actual position and implied I'm just a useful idiot for not buying into your conservative viewpoint that democrats are the root of all evil and out to dominate the country by any means necessary.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2021, 03:42:43 PM »
Appointment to the SC could still come with a life time salary. Give them the option after their term is up if they want to pursue academic style judicial writing or taking on pro-bono cases. But with the understanding that they don't take cases or other jobs for profit. We could even continue to fund a number of clerks for them. Or they could just take their money and retire.

Lol, you are going to restrict what a human being is allowed to do for the rest of their life?  That's beyond even authoritarianism.  Are you going to lock them out of family companies?  Of taking on projects about which they are passionate?  Of doing something productive with the rest of their lives?  Do you really think people that become Justices are just to going accept a permanent dead end?

But that's the kind of  off the cuff dismissive answer that proves you haven't actually thought the issue through (which is exactly what I identified as the problem).  You picked it as a solution because it "sounds" reasonable not because its tied logically to problems you've actually identified and are seeking to sovle.

The reality is that term limits will create a massive incentive to corruption and do nothing to curtail politically abusive decision making.

Quote
Why? The SC is unique, the other judicial appointments could still be lifetime. People sometimes leave lower courts for other jobs already.

Lol, this is the worst idea ever.  Permanent judicial bureaucracy at a level below the SC only loosely controlled by the limited number of cases the SC can hear.  The 9th Circuit has been overruled 5 times on the same issue this year alone, you'd enshrine a distributed abuse of power so long as the figure heads appear to be changed.  Circuit court judges with life tenor would be dictators and the politically motivated SC would have zero control over them.

Quote
The court is already used politically.

It is, but I'm not sure you really understand when it its.  Can you point to the political decisions?  Seriously, can you do it, can you walk through the decision itself and demonstrate what was political and wasn't?  We have had decades of progressive decisions implementing policies that had no electoral mandate, we've had dozens of material decisions that bent the Constitution into a pretzel, but I suspect your beef is with the judgement and not the analysis, which means you don't even know what the political decisions are.  So I'm honestly curious - can you, without jumping onto a progressive publication made to support your arguments identify the problematic judgements and what was political about the reasoning?

My honest suspicion is that you can't.

Quote
What I'm proposing is that we just quit having people wield that level of power for 3 decades.

I see, so unelected dictators wielding an unConstitutional authority should be accepted so long as its for 2 decades (18 years) rather than 3?  Why not address that they're wielding too much power?

Quote
And I actually think the legislature should claw back power from the executive and courts. I thought that under Obama, Trump, and still think that under Biden. But the legislature can't or won't claw that power back while the Senate stands in permanent deadlock. If the filibuster dies, there will be Republican policies in the future that I will strongly disagree with. But an ineffective legislature that doesn't address issues of the nation (from a conservative, progressive, or moderate viewpoint) just lets more and more power seep into the executive and courts.

If you truly want this you should be advocating to tear down the administrative state.  Congress can only avoid its duty to pass laws because they've delegated to those agencies the ability to pass laws to the extent that they have.  Those agencies pass orders of magnitude more laws than Congress ever did and they do it without any elected officials interfering no matter how politically motivated those rules are, without any real oversight, and then they also enforce, judge and punish the victims of those laws, increasingly without any oversight by elected executives or even the judicial branch.  If our problem is really a lack of legislation you'd be hard pressed to honestly explain how progressive staffs pushing huge volumes of regulations hasn't solved that problem.

Quote
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because for the most part you just misrepresented my actual position and implied I'm just a useful idiot for not buying into your conservative viewpoint that democrats are the root of all evil and out to dominate the country by any means necessary.

Whether someone is a useful idiot is determined by whether they seek to find out the truth or whether they just repeat back illogical propaganda.

Ask yourself why you locked on to the "reasonable" sounding concept of term limits rather than the openly political power grab of adding more Justices.  There's nothing about the 18 year limit that actually addresses the concerns that are raised, have you seen some sort of study that shows Justices at year 20 are more likely to make political judgements than Justices at year 12?  Of course not, because the actual studies show that political Justices make political decisions from day one and over time they trend towards philosophies that have more legal principal in them (even if they're still politically motivated).  Whether that's because their "party" leaves them behind, or whether its because spending all that time having to think and argue legal arcana retrains their brains to think in that manner is immaterial.

I mean look at Ginsburg.  Very much on the left of the spectrum, yet also very committed to civil liberties.  The modern progressives view civil liberties as a hinderence when attacking "bad" people.  I mean we just saw in the last cop involved shooting a city manager firing for saying the officer deserved due process.  Due process is a fundamental guaranty to EVERY American, it's in the US Constitution and virtually every State Constitution, its the back bone of everything most of us believe about our rights in criminal law.  Was she a worse Justice in your view because she'd been there "too long" and would back due process even when banana justice demands a guilty verdict practically without consideration?  Was it really a problem to you that her positions had become more solidly rooted in principals?

The strongest legal philosophies on the right are serious commitments to the rule of law and to the legislative branch (and even administrative agencies) being responsible for making those laws.  Standing in opposition to that is literally anti-democratic, it's literally supporting the idea that it's better for a dictator to impose their own position on what the law should be over top of the decision of Congress.  Yet that's exactly what you're calling for.

Your arguments on why we need to change the SC are not logical, they are rationalizations.  You don't like the current make up of the SC, ergo you will accept any position or any change that alters that make up in favor of Justices you think will serve your political goals.  Seriously, the entire reason for court packing is to try an put in place a SC that will allow the Constitution to be violated, that's what you're asking for.  It's not wonder though that the elected Democrats are willing to smash any norm, violate any principal and engage in naked Real Politik to implement it, they already know that the Constitution doesn't support their plans, ergo it's in the way of their ambition.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2021, 04:25:24 PM »
Lol, you are going to restrict what a human being is allowed to do for the rest of their life?  That's beyond even authoritarianism.  Are you going to lock them out of family companies?  Of taking on projects about which they are passionate?  Of doing something productive with the rest of their lives?  Do you really think people that become Justices are just to going accept a permanent dead end?

This is perhaps addressing a side point, but I really don't see why you can't require certain jobs to be a life commitment, even if the job doesn't last for life. I bet you that there would be a lot of support for various positions to be barred from certain appointments and activities after their term ends. You want to know if people would agree to become SCOTUS justices if it meant a severe restriction on their future activities? I'm sure many would still be honored regardless. You're talking about the honor of a lifetime, and the chance to serve. That a sacrifice would be attached would probably not deter too many prospective candidates. Anyone who found the restriction unacceptable is probably not the best candidate anyhow. It's not authoritarian to have create a voluntary contract where signing on means restricting future activity. It would be authoritarian if the candidate had no choice; but they do have a choice to not take the job. Plenty of others would be happy to sign up if they refused, and I will point out that this is a typically right-wing argument about the free market (i.e. that if they don't like the terms they can walk). Anyhow, there are already contracts that involve restricting your future activities, including NDA's, non-competes, and such agreements.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2021, 05:04:37 PM »
Appointment to the SC could still come with a life time salary. Give them the option after their term is up if they want to pursue academic style judicial writing or taking on pro-bono cases. But with the understanding that they don't take cases or other jobs for profit. We could even continue to fund a number of clerks for them. Or they could just take their money and retire.

Lol, you are going to restrict what a human being is allowed to do for the rest of their life?  That's beyond even authoritarianism.  Are you going to lock them out of family companies?  Of taking on projects about which they are passionate?  Of doing something productive with the rest of their lives?  Do you really think people that become Justices are just to going accept a permanent dead end?

I'm offering them a full pension retirement with the option to (pro-bono) teach, take legal cases, or write and have a small staff. Considering most of them would be ending their 18 year term in their late 60's or 70's, its not a bad retirement package. They can take on any project they want, its just that their compensation comes from the tax payers and they can't go off and make millions.

Millions of people take jobs that have non-competition clauses in them. I don't see why that would be a deal breaker for someone accepting an 18 year term on the SC followed by a full pension for life.

The 18 year term is to avoid the weirdness of Trump appointing 3 SC justices in 4 years, when most 2 term presidents only appoint 1 or 2 in 8 years. It provides a consistency and predictability to the court and ends the practice of appointing younger and younger people to the court. It solves one problem but not all.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2021, 05:09:33 PM »
Quote
The court is already used politically.

It is, but I'm not sure you really understand when it its.  Can you point to the political decisions?  Seriously, can you do it, can you walk through the decision itself and demonstrate what was political and wasn't? 

I'll give two but I'm not going to write a law review article analyzing the reasoning throughout each decision.

Roe vs. Wade - I think its good policy but it is a real stretch to say that right is enshrined in the constitution.

Citizen's United - I think its crap policy and the idea that corporations have all the same rights as people is definitely not enshrined in the constitution.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2021, 05:20:32 PM »
Quote
Quote
What I'm proposing is that we just quit having people wield that level of power for 3 decades.

I see, so unelected dictators wielding an unConstitutional authority should be accepted so long as its for 2 decades (18 years) rather than 3?  Why not address that they're wielding too much power?

An 18-year term limit wouldn't be a solution to 'unelected dictators wielding an unConstitutional authority', it'd be a solution to younger people unjustly wielding more power than old people, and thus motivating presidents to indirectly exercise more power than others by appointing very young people so those people will exercise that power for longer than average.

It'd also be a solution to happenstance deciding which president gets to appoint how many Supreme Court judges -- with 18 year term limits, appointing a SC judge once every 2 years, the randomness would be abolished. Each president would appoint 2 SC judges per term in office, e.g. one in the first year of the presidential term and one in the third year of the presidential term.

Moreover, what happens when we invent a cure to aging? I'm expecting it to possibly happen within a few decades, and certainly within the century. It's a problem for people to can only vacate their positions if they die, because WHAT IF THEY NEVER DIE?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2021, 05:21:52 PM »
Your arguments on why we need to change the SC are not logical, they are rationalizations.  You don't like the current make up of the SC, ergo you will accept any position or any change that alters that make up in favor of Justices you think will serve your political goals.  Seriously, the entire reason for court packing is to try an put in place a SC that will allow the Constitution to be violated, that's what you're asking for. 

I don't like the current make up of the SC. I don't like the fact that every time a position comes open on the SC when the senate is controlled by the opposite party as the president that the position is going to sit open until after a new presidential election. And maybe beyond that if the Senate doesn't flip. Let's say the Senate flips back in 2022 and an opening comes up two months after the election. Let's say someone the conservatives would care about like Thomas. Don't you think McConnel would just do the same thing again. Ignore the nomination, just for 20 months instead of 10. And same thing the other way, if Democrats pick up some seats and Republicans take back the white house don't you think they would sit on a nomination for a couple years after the Garland precedent?

The 18 year term limits addresses many of the issues around nomination and confirmation. At this point there it would probably have to be in the constitution that the Senate has to vote on a presidential nominee within x days.

The power of the court can only be limited by bipartisan action and a fully functioning congress. And I have little hope of that happening.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2021, 02:12:49 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/most-americans-want-end-lifetime-100341804.html

Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments: poll

And of course, predictably, now we get the media water carriers out in force providing cover and ammo for the Democrat agenda.

All you need to do to decide if this is about principles or just purely a power play is answer one or two simple questions.

Would any of this be an issue right now if liberals had a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and the Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of Congress? Would the same Democrats be pushing for Republicans to add 4 more justices to the Supreme Court so the liberals lost their edge?

The answer to that tells you everything you need to know.

Nobody seemed to have a problem with it until Trump got a 6-3 conservative majority and then all of a sudden it blew up to be a pressing issue of principles. Not buying it. The timing is no coincidence.

Now if the argument is not about the principles involved with the Supreme Court and it's more about the principles involved in the democratic process and since the voters chose Democrats for the next two years at least then those Democrats have an obligation to do what their voters want and hurriedly ram through as much partisan power grabbing legislation as they possibly can while they can then I can buy that. At least it's honest. But pushing arguments about some sort of principles is a bridge too far.  And of course as noted it just means if Republicans get control back we'll see even more justices added to the Supreme Court and that cycle will never end which makes it all the more important and obvious why Democrats are doing everything they can to enshrine permanent control of our government in their hands.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Packing the Court
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2021, 09:36:30 AM »
actually, I would say where it began showing up as an issue is when Obama got screwed out of his appointment.