Democrats plan bill to pack the court

MontourBob

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2002
1,822
1,482
1
Lie, cheat, steal - the Democratic Party way. These idiots trying to talk in front of the Supreme Court are an embarrassment, especially Jabba the Hutt.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
35,289
10,883
1
The absolute worst thing that could happen to this nation. To make the SCOTUS political, is about as despicable as a political party can be.
Come on man. Look at what Mitch did with the last two Supreme Court nominees. That ship has sailed.

Mitch completely flip flopped his position to put both nominees up under Trump. Legal? Yes. Political? Hell yes. Ethical? Hell no.
 

Hotshoe

Administrator
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
17,543
27,583
1
Come on man. Look at what Mitch did with the last two Supreme Court nominees. That ship has sailed.

Mitch completely flip flopped his position to put both nominees up under Trump. Legal? Yes. Political? Hell yes. Ethical? Hell no.
For you to compare this to stacking the court with an additional number of justices, is laughable. RBG doesn't agree with this. Again, you're not good at this, and you're definitely not well read. Well, unless you consider MSNBC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjbankos and Ski

KanePoster

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
1,807
2,854
1
31
Kane
The absolute worst thing that could happen to this nation. To make the SCOTUS political, is about as despicable as a political party can be.

This is why I'm so extreme in my beliefs against any element that threatens the USA as founded by the constitution.

This was the greatest country ever conceived. For freedom loving people who only want to live their lives as they see fit with no government help or interference.

The scumbags and idiots (those are the only two choices) who are voting it into history deserve to be fought with all the energy we can muster.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
35,289
10,883
1
For you to compare this to stacking the court with an additional number of justices, is laughable. RBG doesn't agree with this. Again, you're not good at this, and you're definitely not well read. Well, unless you consider MSNBC.
The result is the same. Mitch’s double standard resulted in the same outcome that increasing the number of justices would. What Mitch did would definitely qualify as firing the first shot.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

Glen

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,228
858
1
One of the four sponsors is Hank Johnson - if more troops are moved to Guam, won’t that upset the balance and cause it to tip over and sink.
 

Lion84

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2015
3,286
4,103
1
When the R's take back Congress then it will go to 17 and then 21 - it's just stupid and they will have no leg to stand on when the worm turns as it always does.
 

TFBaum

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2020
645
532
1
Come on man. Look at what Mitch did with the last two Supreme Court nominees. That ship has sailed.

Mitch completely flip flopped his position to put both nominees up under Trump. Legal? Yes. Political? Hell yes. Ethical? Hell no.
Please tell me one extreme view any of Trump’s nominees had or has. I think you let Democrat talking point to be your guide and source.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,041
18,465
1
One change that I would not mind seeing is the establishment of a minimum AGE for nomination to the Supreme Court. Something like 50 to 55. Age has become a bigger factor in SC nominations in recent years, with Presidents seeking to nominate younger people in order to ensure that their tenure - and, thus, their political viewpoint - endures for a longer period of time.

The problem with that is that, as the age of nominees gets younger, their experience gets shorter along with it. You end up with a shorter track record upon which to assess their worthiness, temperament and philosophy. You end up with a nominee who, due to his or her shorter period of practicing law, has a less sterling legal reputation and is to some extent an unknown commodity. And SC nominees have learned how to dodge questions from Senators quite artfully ("That question is likely to come up before me as a justice, so it would be improper to answer it here"), so you're unlikely to get much out of them at confirmation hearings. You need to get it from their prior published opinions or other writings.

Finally, if a justice comes onto the court at a somewhat older age, the fact that he or she may have partisan baggage is going to be somewhat less objectionable if his or her age indicates that he or she will not be serving for decades. That makes him or her easier to confirm, and the confirmation process a bit less rancorous, which is in itself a plus.
 
Last edited:

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
35,289
10,883
1
When the R's take back Congress then it will go to 17 and then 21 - it's just stupid and they will have no leg to stand on when the worm turns as it always does.
Yes and the worm has turned from Trump to the Dems.

Like i said before, Trump forever changed politics on both sides. Trump normalized the previously unthinkable.

This is just the beginning.
 

TFBaum

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2020
645
532
1
One change that I would not mind seeing is the establishment of a minimum AGE for nomination to the Supreme Court. Something like 50 to 55. Age has become a bigger factor in SC nominations in recent years, with Presidents seeking to nominate younger people in order to ensure that their tenure - and, thus, their political viewpoint - endures for a longer period of time.

The problem with that is that, as the age of nominees gets younger, their experience gets shorter along with it. You end up with a shorter track record upon which to assess their worthiness, temperament and philosophy. You end up with a nominee who, due to his or her shorter period of practicing law, has a less sterling legal reputation and is to some extent an unknown commodity. Finally, if a justice comes onto the court at a somewhat older age, the fact that he or she may have partisan baggage is going to be somewhat less objectionable if his or her age indicates that he or she will not be serving for decades. That makes him or her easier to confirm, and the confirmation process a bit less rancorous, which is in itself a plus.
I am not a lawyer but I do know living here in DC a number of Federal judges and a recent retired one who went to Stanford and his wife to Berkeley. We watch Big Game with them, wife went to Cal. Just based upon my social interaction I am amazed at the fairness and open mindedness of them. I think that is across the board.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,041
18,465
1
I am not a lawyer but I do know living here in DC a number of Federal judges and a recent retired one who went to Stanford and his wife to Berkeley. We watch Big Game with them, wife went to Cal. Just based upon my social interaction I am amazed at the fairness and open mindedness of them. I think that is across the board.
That is typically the case regardless of the judge's political viewpoint. It's pretty hard to function as a judge without a decent reservoir of patience. Criminal defendants have a 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial, so criminal proceedings uniformly have calendar preference. I can't recall ever sitting through a civil court calendar of a half day or longer that was not interrupted at least twice for the judge to handle criminal arraignments or other criminal matters. And they deal with some fairly sketchy folks when they handle those arraignments. They have to be patient, or they will burn out pretty quickly. Dandy likely has a better perspective on this, but I would be surprised if it was significantly different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TFBaum

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,876
8,141
1
Wow! Pelosi won't bring the court packing bill to a vote. I would like to think she is finally showing some integrity and common sense, but really she knows she does not have the votes to pass it, so she isn't going to try.

Pelosi rejects ‘Supreme Court packing bill’… Will not bring it to vote…


Nancy Pelosi does not support the effort by her fellow Democrat congressional leaders to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 — and will not bring such a bill to the floor for a vote, she said Thursday.

Pelosi made the revelation while during her weekly press conference, offering a stark “No” after being asked about the measure being introduced to expand the nation’s highest bench.

“I support the president’s commission to study a such a proposal,” she continued, going on to say that she and her members were focused on President Biden’s infrastructure package and not the federal judiciary.

As for whether she would eventually support packing the court, Pelosi said the jury was still out on the matter.

“I don’t know that that’s a good idea or bad idea. I think it’s an idea that to be considered. And I think the president’s taking the right approach to, to have a commission to study such a thing,” the top-ranking House Democrat said, calling Biden’s move itself “a big step.”

“It’s not out of the question, it has been done before,” she went on to say, noting that “the history of our country a long time ago, and the growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy, etc. might necessitate such a thing.”

“I have no plans to bring it to the floor,” she said.

Asked about the proposal Thursday on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) offered similar sentiments to Pelosi. “I’m not ready to sign on yet,” the No. 2 Senate Democrat told reporters, “I think this commission of Biden is the right move.

“Let’s think this through carefully. This is historic.”
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
3,410
1,154
1
When the R's take back Congress then it will go to 17 and then 21 - it's just stupid and they will have no leg to stand on when the worm turns as it always does.
Packing the court is not going to happen. But I do expect this commission to take a critical look at lifetime tenure. That has been the source of more abuse than what McConnell did. Putting up nominees in their 30's for lower level judgeships and in their 40's for the Sup. Ct. is as cynical as it gets in terms of shaping the court.