Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,841
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
This is illustrative of the democrat thought process that alarms me. No discussion of whether the idea makes sense, except that it's one way that we can get our way quicker, so all that matters is figuring out how to get it done. It's the Alinsky approach.
|
|
03-19-2019 07:44 AM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 69,270
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 7136
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-19-2019 07:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: This is illustrative of the democrat thought process that alarms me. No discussion of whether the idea makes sense, except that it's one way that we can get our way quicker, so all that matters is figuring out how to get it done. It's the Alinsky approach.
no question about it....
it is this, and only this, why I believed #DJTexperiment was critical....
not that they ever were, but the democrats are no longer an option in the nuts zongo playground...
|
|
03-19-2019 08:23 AM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 69,270
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 7136
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-18-2019 05:01 PM)atsKnight Wrote: Dumb idea. When the SC starts having caucuses people will regret it.
I think 9 is a good number to have an actual discussion about things. Any more than that would be difficult to have real collaboration.
agree....toss in the term limits from the one that nominates, and any larger odd integer would lend to stacking the court by either side of the aisle in a stacked senate.....
it would defeat the purpose of the SCOTUS...
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2019 08:30 AM by stinkfist.)
|
|
03-19-2019 08:29 AM |
|
bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,912
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3317
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
Rules don't apply to their side.
|
|
03-19-2019 08:38 AM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 69,270
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 7136
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-19-2019 08:38 AM)bullet Wrote: Rules don't apply to their side.
sometimes, this board offers the rationale of the Philly convention....
it's actually quite impressive being able to witness those that extrapolate between the 'then and the now'...
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2019 08:44 AM by stinkfist.)
|
|
03-19-2019 08:44 AM |
|
swagsurfer11
Heisman
Posts: 6,345
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 178
I Root For: UC
Location:
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-19-2019 08:38 AM)bullet Wrote: Rules don't apply to their side.
Yes.
|
|
03-19-2019 09:00 AM |
|
Ohio Poly
1st String
Posts: 2,381
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-18-2019 12:35 PM)Kronke Wrote: If you can't win, just change the rules. Pack the courts, abolish the Senate and electoral college.
Enemy of the people.
It will be called the "Mitch McConnell Supersized Supreme Court of the United States."
MMSSCOTUS
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2019 10:12 AM by Ohio Poly.)
|
|
03-21-2019 09:03 AM |
|
q5sys
1st String
Posts: 2,135
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 323
I Root For: MIT & USAFA
Location: DC/Baltimore Metro
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-19-2019 08:38 AM)bullet Wrote: Rules don't apply to their side.
when they cant win by the rules they want to change the rules so they win.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2019 09:26 AM by q5sys.)
|
|
03-21-2019 09:26 AM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,841
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
I would still favor going to 11 or 12 with this proviso--one justice from each of the 11 federal judicial circuits (12 if you include the DC Circuit), to avoid the current situation where the court composition definitely does not mirror the US population in religion, education (all justices attended one of two law schools), or geography. That's an environment begging for groupthink.
To transition, let republicans appoint one, democrats appoint one, and if you add a 12th then the third one go through the normal appointment process. And you can do the paperwork to conform to the constitution--the democrat name, the republican name, and the president's choice, if necessary, are all submitted together to the senate by the president. When each new vacancy comes up, it must be filled from an unrepresented circuit until all circuits are represented (this includes the two or three transition appointments listed above). After that, the 11th circuit seat becomes the 11th circuit seat, and must be filled by someone from the 11th circuit, and so forth.
|
|
03-21-2019 09:41 AM |
|
umbluegray
Legend
Posts: 42,190
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-18-2019 06:03 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote: (03-18-2019 03:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote: (03-18-2019 12:10 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote: This is a national emergency. 4 new justices will be needed.
And Trump appoints them all!
Not yet. We have to first try and get the Congress to act. If they will not act, emergency.
You love national emergencies, right?
Well, we're in a 40-year-run at the moment!
THE UNITED STATES' STATES OF EMERGENCIES
Quote:FOUR DECADES OF EMERGENCIES
Since that first order in 1979, American presidents have declared 58 national emergencies. According to the Brennan Center's running count, 31 of these are still in effect—including the ban on Iranian property, which was extended in November of 2018. In other words, the country has been in some state of emergency for almost four decades.
These 58 national emergencies include declarations over dealings with Yemen, Syria, and North Korea, among others; sanctions against an array of terrorist groups, including one after 9/11; and various orders concerning nuclear weapons, diamonds imported from Sierra Leone, and the 2009 swine flu epidemic. Most recently, George W. Bush declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN.
|
|
03-21-2019 10:46 AM |
|
usmbacker
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17,677
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 1320
I Root For: Beer
Location: Margaritaville
|
RE: Democrat candidates open to expanding Supreme Court
(03-18-2019 12:35 PM)Kronke Wrote: If you can't win, just change the rules. Pack the courts, abolish the Senate and electoral college.
Enemy of the people.
And change the voting age to 12.
|
|
03-21-2019 10:59 AM |
|