- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:30 am to MemphisGuy
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:30 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
This is clearly untrue. Otherwise, you wouldn't have started a new topic about this very thing.
I am guilty of being curious about what people would think about adding justices to the supreme court. I've acknowledged that throughout this entire thread.
There is literally nothing I can do about anything the Supreme Court does. What should I be thinking about pertaining to the Supreme Court?
.
0
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:30 am to 4cubbies
I don’t support it, but let it go through.
President Trump adding six more justices plus replacing whoever retires in the next four years would cause epic meltdowns.
President Trump adding six more justices plus replacing whoever retires in the next four years would cause epic meltdowns.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:32 am to Swamp Angel
quote:
In other words, Democrats seeking to add more party seats to Politburo.
Trump put 3 (mostly) conservative justices on the SCOTUS. This created an overwhelming majority.
Dems have been taking loss after loss after loss, because of it. Some of them, extremely major losses.
Packing the court, if the have a dem president, gives them an overwhelming majority for rulings back to their side. And supreme court justices are lifetime appointments.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:38 am to 4cubbies
I’m not in favor of this at all for the record
Side discussion. I know the number of justices is not spelled out in the constitution. Can someone explain what is currently keeping it at 9? Something obviously is if it requires legislation to change it, but I’m just ignorant of what the current legislation is. Thanks in advance
Side discussion. I know the number of justices is not spelled out in the constitution. Can someone explain what is currently keeping it at 9? Something obviously is if it requires legislation to change it, but I’m just ignorant of what the current legislation is. Thanks in advance
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:38 am to Tigershatebama
I wish I could up vote your comment infinite times.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:39 am to Wolfwireless
quote:
Packing the court, if the have a dem president, gives them an overwhelming majority for rulings back to their side. And supreme court justices are lifetime appointments.
Theoretically, couldn't every subsequent president also pack the court? We could end up with 450+ justices on the court - why not?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:41 am to OBReb6
The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 10:55 am to 4cubbies
wouldnt part of this require a constitutional amendment?
Separation of powers would prevent congress from passing legislation to curb the courts power.
sure, they can change the size of the court, but most of the others needs an ammendment
Separation of powers would prevent congress from passing legislation to curb the courts power.
sure, they can change the size of the court, but most of the others needs an ammendment
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:09 am to Jon A thon
quote:
And from a long term perspective, this just gives precedent that when it's not in your favor, dilute it more. 20 years from now, what if we still end up with a majority conservative court....do they expand to 20 judges. Why stop there...100 judges. Any time it's not in your favor, dilute it more!
The packing of the Supreme Court for blatant political advantage would be the final nail in the coffin for the US republic.
It would be an acknowledgment by the left that they intend to use the courts to force their political will in spite of all existing norms and constitutional restrictions.
At that point no political compromise would be possible and the path to an extra judicial response would only be a matter of time.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:11 am to Figgy
quote:
Exactly. There’s no way to know (without fixed elections) who is going to win. So why suggest this when your opposition could benefit greatly from it
Case in point. And the reason they want this.
Trump and his threepeat.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:20 am to Jon A thon
quote:
It's one branch of government trying to dilute the power of another. And from a long term perspective, this just gives precedent that when it's not in your favor, dilute it more. 20 years from now, what if we still end up with a majority conservative court....do they expand to 20 judges. Why stop there...100 judges. Any time it's not in your favor, dilute it more!
Ok so for the record, I'm NOT in favor of packing the court. It's entirely obvious that they want to turn the courts back to their favor.
But can you imagine how many more important cases we could get settled if we had 100 impartial, constitutional judges who played by the actual rules? 5 judges for a case? They could slaughter the backlog!
I reiterate... Leave SCOTUS alone. But just daydreaming
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:27 am to 4cubbies
Until a republican president is in and now we have a 12-3 conservative bench.. then they will cry foul and try to eliminate the 6 extra judges. ie, look at how they play with the filibuster
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:33 am to kingbob
quote:
Adding justices to SCOTUS? Absolutely not.
Adding more district and circuit courts? Yes
Adding a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges? Yes, but only via a constitutional amendment
Let's also throw in an amendment blocking them from punting back down to the lower courts, while we are at it.
The delays of years, deny people in control states of their rights.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:39 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Pro tip: tinkering with every American Institution for partisan power and control is absolute madness. Nine justices is perfect. It works. It's competent. It serves the intention of the Founders and has led to tremendous stability in the Rule of Law.
Ok. I will say this again. I am very much against packing the court.
But it's happened before. There used to be 5. And now there's 9.
And let's take a look at the insane amount of civil suits against states like Cali, Washington, Mass, IL, NY, NJ, etc etc etc.
Too many caseloads. We need a bigger team. Too many people are being stripped of rights, because of delays.
Again, I am very much against packing the courts. But there's a big problem that needs to be addressed, and somehow fixed.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:42 am to 4cubbies
quote:
don't know. I haven't really thought about it.
liar 
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:43 am to 4cubbies
That bill is D.O.A.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:44 am to weptiger
quote:
Sore losers. If the Democrats held a majority and Roe versus Wade was not reversed, this would never be raised as an issue.
More than just RvW.
ATF getting bitch slapped left and right.
Removal of Chevron deference.
Just the two off the top of my head. The current courts are shutting down a lot of dem tactics and agendas.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:44 am to Wolfwireless
lol. Horrible. Nine is the number. Deal with it.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:44 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
You are almost as disingenuous as SFP.
SFP actually does his homework
SFP > 4cubbies >>>>>>>>>>>> VOR
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:48 am to tide06
quote:
Are you in favor of adding justices to the court yes or no?
You don’t like her hit and run, non-explicit opinion style of posting? How is she supposed to run from her obviously flawed opinion if you force her to take a stance right away?
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News