Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Packing the courts

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Chrocket87
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:46 pm

Packing the courts

Post by Chrocket87 » Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:00 pm

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ToLY1-ijlo

There’s a reason Biden wouldn’t give a straight answer to the court packing question during the debates.

Hopefully this burns the Dems in the midterms.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Rate This » Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:30 am

Chrocket87 wrote:
Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:00 pm
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ToLY1-ijlo

There’s a reason Biden wouldn’t give a straight answer to the court packing question during the debates.

Hopefully this burns the Dems in the midterms.
They can do it through legislation. That’s just as legitimate a path as blocking Garland and a bunch of lower judge nominees under Obama and ramming through as many of your own folks as possible when the Republicans had the reins. They were effectively stacking the court as well by delaying until they had power. Congress sets the number of justices. There’s nothing magically special about 9 and that’s before we consider that they are not supposed to be running around deciding what’s constitutional the way that they do. That’s a precedent they claimed in 1803 and nobody ever fought back on it. The language around the Supreme Courts function is some of the vaguest in the constitution. What they do now is NOT part of the plan.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Bryce » Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:16 am

I'll let Uncle Joe give you my opinion...



New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Rate This » Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:55 am

Bryce wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:16 am
I'll let Uncle Joe give you my opinion...

Fortunately nobody can change their opinion ever. That’s why Ice cream remains in my view one of the four food groups. It was a good idea when I was 6 and by god I guess I’m stuck with it.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Bryce » Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:58 am

Rate This wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:55 am
Bryce wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:16 am
I'll let Uncle Joe give you my opinion...

Fortunately nobody can change their opinion ever. That’s why Ice cream remains in my view one of the four food groups. It was a good idea when I was 6 and by god I guess I’m stuck with it.
One can certainly change their position on things. However, it is always prudent to ask the reason why.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Rate This » Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:44 am

Bryce wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:58 am
Rate This wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:55 am
Bryce wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:16 am
I'll let Uncle Joe give you my opinion...

Fortunately nobody can change their opinion ever. That’s why Ice cream remains in my view one of the four food groups. It was a good idea when I was 6 and by god I guess I’m stuck with it.
One can certainly change their position on things. However, it is always prudent to ask the reason why.
And the reason is quite simple... the other party has stopped playing fair and decided not to advance an agenda but rather to achieve its goals only through the courts. It’s not a hard one to figure out.

It’s also not the first second or third time the size of the court has been debated or changed or proposed to be changed. Every time something happens it’s like some of you think it’s a brand new never before seen thing. Sorry to burst your bubble.



zzand
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: Packing the courts

Post by zzand » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:07 am

And I don't get all upset because once the other party retakes the top spot the extra justices go bye bye and it goes back to 9 like it should be.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Bryce » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:08 am

Rate This wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:44 am

And the reason is quite simple... the other party has stopped playing fair and decided not to advance an agenda but rather to achieve its goals only through the courts. It’s not a hard one to figure out.
What you describe was the Democrat Party playbook for YEARS.

I think what you fail to consider is that the framers reason for creating our representative republic, with three separate branches of government and not a true democracy, was to make it difficult for one person or one group to advance an agenda.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Rate This » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:29 am

Bryce wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:08 am
Rate This wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:44 am

And the reason is quite simple... the other party has stopped playing fair and decided not to advance an agenda but rather to achieve its goals only through the courts. It’s not a hard one to figure out.
What you describe was the Democrat Party playbook for YEARS.

I think what you fail to consider is that the framers reason for creating our representative republic, with three separate branches of government and not a true democracy, was to make it difficult for one person or one group to advance an agenda.
It’s made the country entirely ungovernable. If that was their goal they have succeeded behind their wildest dreams.



Deleted User 14896

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Deleted User 14896 » Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:07 pm

Biden don't want to do it because he knows it will turn into a clusterfudge every time the majority changes.
The Democrats jack the number up until they are a majority.
Then the Republicans jack it up even higher when they come back.
Pretty soon there's 37 justices.



User avatar
Big Al
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:55 am

Re: Packing the courts

Post by Big Al » Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:17 pm

im surprised TT didnt turn this into a thread about fudge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbIGZliN_IM



paul8539
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:20 pm

Re: Packing the courts

Post by paul8539 » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:43 pm

According to the United States Constitution, the legislative branch has the right to control the size of the Supreme Court.

FDR asked for more judges back in the 1930s, but Congress wouldn't do it. When some of the justices retired or died, FDR managed to pack the court anyway.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic