Democrats Think Americans Are Stupid -- Redefining the Term "Packing the Court" (insurance, biased)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the Democrats might be right. We'll see how it plays out in the upcoming election. If the Democrats win, then it will be fairly clear that either the American people are gullible idiots, or they don't care about the complete ruination of the Judicial Branch of the United States government.
Court Packing actually means something very specific. "Packing the Court" has always meant that when you have control of both the Presidency and the Senate, you increase the number of seats on a court and add enough judges/justices that are massively politically biased in your favor that the court becomes an extension of the political will of your party. This can apply to all fedearl courts and any state courts that are similar in function and composition as federal courts. Example from the past.
So in the case of the Supreme Court right now, here is what that looks like as a retaliatory measure by Democrats:
Assuming that Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court would be skewed 6-3 Conservative.
Next assumption: The Democrats take the White House and control of the Senate in the upcoming election.
With the Nuclear Option at their disposal, they add 4 seats to the the Supreme Court, giving them a 7-6 majority.
But when you're willing to add 4 seats, why not add 8 seats? After all, this will give you an overwhelming super-majority! This does an even better job of remaking the Supreme Court into a direct extension of the Democratic Party's political will, giving them insurance against one or two of the Lefty justices ruling against them.
While you're at it, why stop there? Might as well pack every federal court too.
The Washington Post actually did a credible job of explaining court packing here.
But still, far too many in the news media and Democrats are trying to claim that confirm Amy Coney Barrett onto the Supreme Court would be "packing the court." The reason is obvious enough. If they can falsely claim, "Well the Republicans did it first, why can't we?" then it creates a false sense of credibility for their blatantly obvious plan to pack the Supreme Courts (and probably every other federal court.)
By his own statements in the debates, it's pretty clear that Joe Biden knows the danger of court packing (it's in the WaPo video.)" Democrats add 3 seats. Republicans take control and they add 3 seats."
Biden had the right idea in mind, but it's far worse than that of course. Once you open that Pandora's Box, it escalates exponentially.
Democrats add 8 seats. Total seats now 17.
Republicans add 20 seats. Total seats now 27.
Democrats add 30 seats. Total seats now 57.
Republicans add 63 seats. Total seats now 120.
Democrats add 180 seats. Total seats now 300.
Republicans add 400 seats. Total seats now 700.
This is a really bad idea. There is no Constitutional rule against it, but I'm stating to think that there needs to be one. It's the ultimate case of flipping over the chess board when you realize you're losing, and changing the rules to, "I always win, you always lose." Every attempt to change the way federal judges are nominated and confirmed in the past few decades has been done by the Democrats. Their own rule changes keep blowing up in their collective faces. Why can't they see what a terrible idea it was mucking with the rules to begin with??
Your post is excellent, but I am troubled by the image you posted. I now realize that Cory "Spartacus" Booker and Amy Klobuchar had a child, and it is LazyCrazyHazieMazie Hirono. No wonder she's so stupid when she speaks.
Your post is excellent, but I am troubled by the image you posted. I now realize that Cory "Spartacus" Booker and Amy Klobuchar had a child, and it is LazyCrazyHazieMazie Hirono. No wonder she's so stupid when she speaks.
I wonder if any of these people will lose their Senatorial seats within the next 20 years. They seem to be permanent fixtures at this point.
Your post is excellent, but I am troubled by the image you posted. I now realize that Cory "Spartacus" Booker and Amy Klobuchar had a child, and it is LazyCrazyHazieMazie Hirono. No wonder she's so stupid when she speaks.
The size of the Supreme Court has changed seven times. This is not the end of civilization as we know it. If the handmaiden is confirmed and sworn in before inauguration day then sure, add more justices. Her nomination and confirmation is simply a political act worthy of swift repudiation. If Garland was not to be considered then neither should she.
We need to amend the constitution to simply allow each political party to have an equal number of justices, say 10. If you have some ties, so be it. In theory justices are supposed to interpret the constitution not simply rule based on their political bias. Therein lies the problem. If there was only a way to separate judges from the political establishment so there wasn't any bias to their decisions.
The size of the Supreme Court has changed seven times. This is not the end of civilization as we know it. If the handmaiden is confirmed and sworn in before inauguration day then sure, add more justices. Her nomination and confirmation is simply a political act worthy of swift repudiation. If Garland was not to be considered then neither should she.
This...GOP Hypocrisy is what will bring this on...Merrick Garland should have been seated in 2016...then this would have never been an issue.
That said, if the Dems take the Senate and POTUS, I want them to "pack the court" so they can get rid of the extreme right ward shift of the court...they need to get it more inline w/ true progressive values.
And the Democrats might be right. We'll see how it plays out in the upcoming election. If the Democrats win, then it will be fairly clear that either the American people are gullible idiots, or they don't care about the complete ruination of the Judicial Branch of the United States government.
Court Packing actually means something very specific. "Packing the Court" has always meant that when you have control of both the Presidency and the Senate, you increase the number of seats on a court and add enough judges/justices that are massively politically biased in your favor that the court becomes an extension of the political will of your party. This can apply to all fedearl courts and any state courts that are similar in function and composition as federal courts. Example from the past.
So in the case of the Supreme Court right now, here is what that looks like as a retaliatory measure by Democrats:
Assuming that Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court would be skewed 6-3 Conservative.
Next assumption: The Democrats take the White House and control of the Senate in the upcoming election.
With the Nuclear Option at their disposal, they add 4 seats to the the Supreme Court, giving them a 7-6 majority.
But when you're willing to add 4 seats, why not add 8 seats? After all, this will give you an overwhelming super-majority! This does an even better job of remaking the Supreme Court into a direct extension of the Democratic Party's political will, giving them insurance against one or two of the Lefty justices ruling against them.
While you're at it, why stop there? Might as well pack every federal court too.
The Washington Post actually did a credible job of explaining court packing here.
But still, far too many in the news media and Democrats are trying to claim that confirm Amy Coney Barrett onto the Supreme Court would be "packing the court." The reason is obvious enough. If they can falsely claim, "Well the Republicans did it first, why can't we?" then it creates a false sense of credibility for their blatantly obvious plan to pack the Supreme Courts (and probably every other federal court.)
By his own statements in the debates, it's pretty clear that Joe Biden knows the danger of court packing (it's in the WaPo video.)" Democrats add 3 seats. Republicans take control and they add 3 seats."
Biden had the right idea in mind, but it's far worse than that of course. Once you open that Pandora's Box, it escalates exponentially.
Democrats add 8 seats. Total seats now 17.
Republicans add 20 seats. Total seats now 27.
Democrats add 30 seats. Total seats now 57.
Republicans add 63 seats. Total seats now 120.
Democrats add 180 seats. Total seats now 300.
Republicans add 400 seats. Total seats now 700.
This is a really bad idea. There is no Constitutional rule against it, but I'm stating to think that there needs to be one. It's the ultimate case of flipping over the chess board when you realize you're losing, and changing the rules to, "I always win, you always lose." Every attempt to change the way federal judges are nominated and confirmed in the past few decades has been done by the Democrats. Their own rule changes keep blowing up in their collective faces. Why can't they see what a terrible idea it was mucking with the rules to begin with??
Democrats rarely think of the consequences of their actions; they are by nature, impulsive and not prone to careful planning.
Of course there would be a constant "quid pro quo" for packing the Supreme Court. Democrats have begun disasterous political ploys in the past which have returned to haunt them.
The whole concept of judicial activism, which is a perversion of the courts, is a democrat creation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
