- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 12:23 pm to moneyg
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:23 pm to moneyg
quote:
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?
She won’t commit to it because she doesn’t want to admit she’s in favor of it until her social peers are openly in favor of it after the election and she feels safe admitting it.
Phase 1: it’s not happening
Phase 2: it probably isn’t happening but if it is it would be good <— cubbies is here
Phase 3: you’re a racist/facist if you aren’t in favor of it
1
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:28 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
I would be in favor of adding more to Congress
Why? I visibly shuddered when I read this.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:32 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
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?
If there was an amendment that passed that would allow it, yeah. It could happen.
Since we are speaking theoretically, a court of that size would create utter chaos in rulings that contradict each other. Too many heads always leads to failure in communications. And too many contradictions leads to flaw in judgement.
Just my opinion.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:41 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
Since we are speaking theoretically, a court of that size would create utter chaos in rulings that contradict each other. Too many heads always leads to failure in communications. And too many contradictions leads to flaw in judgement
It would like Congress Jr.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:42 pm to I20goon
quote:
What Trump did was not "stacking" in any shape form or fashion.
He filled a vacancy. Period. As prescribed by the constitution with NO modifications to the structure of the court.
He did not increase (or decrease) the number of justices and then fill that newly created justice position. That is stacking.
I mean, I know this... and you know this... but to Democrats, he "stacked" the court because he nominate and got approved people they don't agree with. That is their definition of stacking.
"If they had just ruled like we wanted them to, all of this could be avoided".
Thing is, they did rule how I wanted them to on the issue at hand.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:42 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
lol. Horrible. Nine is the number. Deal with it.
There's no argument about the number. The problem is the caseloads. And not forcing people to have their states deprive them of civil rights for YEARS while the suits against the laws work their way through the system.
Not saying this to you. But people who complain about unconstitutional laws, then crack down on suggestions or discussion of how to fix those problems are retards.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:45 pm to Wolfwireless
Or maybe we could just have Tort reform instead? Or expand the court to 10, 001 judges and dilute it beyond all recognition and become an official Bureaucratic/ Administrative State. We could all have numbers. Sounds efficient..
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:46 pm to TDTOM
Exec order ??
quote:
Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?
Yes. It was a joke, that’s why I put the
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:48 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I think these would be more vulnerable to manipulation either by administration or interpretation than a strict age limit.
Hmmmmm.
Ok, yeah, we've all seen how vulnerable the medical field is to financial incentives.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:48 pm to tide06
quote:
Phase 2: it probably isn’t happening but if it is it would be good <— cubbies is here
Haven't you been reading? Cubbies has no opinion on this or any other issue involving the Federal government. She gives them no thought whatsoever. Zero.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:49 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I haven't really thought about it.
A dangerous ignorance engulfs you, willful or otherwise.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:51 pm to 4cubbies
quote:all the president has to do is momma new justice , the 9 number is not in the constitution. If Congress does not like a Supreme Court justice, they can simply impeach said justice and remove them from the bench. This is all feel good legislation
A sweeping bill introduced by a Democratic senator Wednesday would greatly increase the size of the Supreme Court,
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:51 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
McConnell said Garland’s nomination came too close to the 2016 presidential election, but he later helped push through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in the waning months of Trump’s presidency, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal.
This is disingenuous. Obama was a lame duck when he appointed Garland, Trump was not, at the time, when he appointed Barrett.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:53 pm to 4cubbies
One wing of government keeps shutting down our shite laws, they're corrupt!
-Democats
-Democats
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:55 pm to evil cockroach
quote:
If Congress does not like a Supreme Court justice, they can simply impeach said justice and remove them from the bench. This is all feel good legislation.
You can't do this simply because you don't like the way a Justice rules on cases. Only one USSCJ has been impeached in American history, Samuel Chase in 1805, but was not convicted by the Senate.
This post was edited on 9/29/24 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I don't want to be governed at all. I generally don't support ANY legislation. I don't support ANY politicians.
So you believe in anarchy?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:58 pm to 4cubbies
Did you pick up a Hobo to celebrate with?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:04 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
quote:
Make them stop punting cases back to the lower courts.
Why is this important? Seems like forcing the Supreme Court to decide more cases just concentrates power at the federal level.
Possible long response. Trying to cut down wording to shorten the read.
Ok I'ma use California as an example, because I know that one best.
California passes a law. Law is unconstitutional, deprives citizens of rights. litigation ensues. Litigation goes to local state court, which usually sides with the people, not the state. Cali immediately appeals, and it goes to district. District sides with the state, not the people. People appeal. SCOTUS may or may not take the case. If they do, sometimes they say
No district court screwed up, didn't do it right. Retry the case. Throwing it right back to the court they know will not change verdict.
District court then throws it back down to state court. Which rules the same way it did before, and then gets appealed again. Then the district court places preliminary injunction on state courts ruling, and then just SITS on the case. Leaving it in limbo.
All the while, for years, people of Cali are stuck living under the unconstitutional law, that deprives them of rights.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:04 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
t's hard to imagine a bigger shitshow than what we already have, but anything is possible.
I hate to show the entire board how stupid you actually are but can you point to an opinion that has been done by this current Supreme Court that you consider to be wrong
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:06 pm to 4cubbies
That bill is deader than a doorknob
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News