Current Events > The Democrats introduced legislation to pack the supreme court.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Either the Dems pack the court, or we should have Barrett removed and let Biden pick someone else for that seat.

I'm up for any other practical suggestions to undo McConnell's bullshit here.

---

Good

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

That said, if he DID veto it, he'd absolutely earn my respect, and I'd probably warm up to him.

But you're going to continue always to vote for the party of Trump, so in the end why do we really care?

---

Good. The GOP wanted to play this game twice, now theyll get theirs. I hate that this is what our politics has come to but its the reality. The Republicans are too corrupt. The Dems cant sit on their hands anymore.

---

Good, I was worried they would pussy out and not do it. Fuck around with your made up precedent of not replacing a justice on an election year, and find out.

---

this site was crying about trump "packing the courts", now they are in favor of this fascism because its their team doing it

---

Good.

big_pimper posted...

this site was crying about trump "packing the courts", now they are in favor of this fascism because its their team doing it

CyricZ posted...

Remember folks, ONLY Republicans are allowed to break precedence and decorum.

---

big_pimper posted...

this site was crying about trump "packing the courts"

damn right

did you think there would be no repercussions for that bullshit he pulled?

---

Rapid99 posted...

*x-ray camera on OP's skull, revealing it contains nothing but a stationary cymbal monkey covered in cobwebs*

lmao

---

big_pimper posted...

this site was crying about trump "packing the courts", now they are in favor of this fascism because its their team doing it

What's the solution for what McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate did? Should the Republicans be allowed to pack the courts? If so, why shouldn't the Democratics?

---

Honestly, its going to suck when Republicans get everything again and they just add four more using this as a precedent but idec anymore. If its good optics, just do it lmao

---

Musourenka posted...

What's the solution for what McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate did? Should the Republicans be allowed to pack the courts? If so, why shouldn't the Democratics?

Serious question, but did packing the courts really hurt the dems as badly as people think it would? Didnt the SC, with a Republican majority, stop a huge amount of things that Trump tried to do?

---

Samurontai posted...

Serious question, but did packing the courts really hurt the dems as badly as people think it would? Didnt the SC, with a Republican majority, stop a huge amount of things that Trump tried to do?

It'd be a little different if the Republican in power isn't a braindead egoist.

---

Bleuets posted...

My party is doing it? Cool

The party I dont like is doing it? OMG this is outrageous

politics in a nutshell

This is always a dumb take. What matters is the reasoning behind your preference, not just that you like x or dislike y.

---

DrizztLink posted...

It'd be a little different if the Republican in power isn't a braindead egoist.

Or if it was a Democrat in power... oh wait

still doesnt seem to have harmed Biden much at all. Can you answer the question now please?

---

big_pimper posted...

this site was crying about trump "packing the courts", now they are in favor of this fascism because its their team doing it

"precedent for thee but not for me"

---

Samurontai posted...

Or if it was a Democrat in power... oh wait

still doesnt seem to have harmed Biden much at all. Can you answer the question now please?

Biden has had three months, has anything he's done even reached the Supreme Court?

---

DrizztLink posted...

Biden has had three months, has anything he's done even reached the Supreme Court?

Literally any one of his EOs could be stopped by the SC at any time

which hasnt happened iirc

---

monkmith posted...

ignoring TC's clickbait bullshit, supreme court reform needs to happen. packing it likely isn't the way, but enforcing a term limit or turning it into a rotating body drawing from a pool of federal judges are a logical path towards that reform.

after the partisan bullshit pulled by republicans, where they crippled the court for a year to block obama's appointment, its clear that the current system is broken.

This is my take too. The SC needs reform but adding more seats isnt the reform I believe it needs. The nominating/appointment/term system should be what is addressed to remove some of the politics that are currently involved.

---

not televising hearings would also be nice.

Samurontai posted...

Serious question, but did packing the courts really hurt the dems as badly as people think it would? Didnt the SC, with a Republican majority, stop a huge amount of things that Trump tried to do?

While Obama got screwed out of his nomination, the "packing" didn't occur until 2020, with Barrett taking RBG's seat. Barrett also recused herself from several cases. That Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not 100% back Trump in Supreme Court cases does not mean they (and Barrett) won't back 80%+ of future Republican sides to cases. So essentially, we haven't yet seen the full effects of the GOP's court packing.

---

Then Republicans take back power and pack it even further. I for one can't wait for our 25 seat SCOTUS.
---

Musourenka posted...

While Obama got screwed out of his nomination, the "packing" didn't occur until 2020, with Barrett taking RBG's seat. Barrett also recused herself from several cases. That Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not 100% back Trump in Supreme Court cases does not mean they (and Barrett) won't back 80%+ of future Republican sides to cases. So essentially, we haven't yet seen the full effects of the GOP's court packing.

But they seem to have supported 100% of Bidens side to side cases, up to now


---

voldothegr8 posted...

Then Republicans take back power

As I said, the endgame here is to make that impossible.


---

Doom_Art posted...

As I said, the endgame here is to make that impossible.

So you want America to be a one party system?

Thats always gone over well in every case that its happened in history lol

---

Samurontai posted...

So you want America to be a one party system?

I'd be open to an alternative to the GOP coming in at some point, if only out of principle.

But parties that try to overthrow the government when they lose should be torn apart, thanks.

---

Samurontai posted...

But they seem to have supported 100% of Bidens side to side cases, up to now

Which cases are you referring to that the SC sided with Biden?

---

Samurontai posted...

But they seem to have supported 100% of Bidens side to side cases, up to now

Kavanaugh cast the decisive vote that barred federal courts from challenging partisan gerrymandering, which is one of the key ways the republican party is able to wield so much power, particularly at the state level

---

Samurontai posted...

But they seem to have supported 100% of Bidens side to side cases, up to now

So far.

Again, we aren't far enough to see how this has affected us. Right now the worry is on things like HR1, anti-abortion laws, and anti-trans laws.

As for the "one-party" thing, the Democratic party needs an good opposition party, and the Republicans ain't it.

---

justaguy3492 posted...

Which cases are you referring to that the SC sided with Biden?

Literally every single one that hasnt been stopped by them.

Also when they repeatedly stopped Republicans from trying to subvert Bidens presidential win. Thats a huge one imo

---

Musourenka posted...

So far.

Again, we aren't far enough to see how this has affected us. Right now the worry is on things like HR1, anti-abortion laws, and anti-trans laws.

As for the "one-party" thing, the Democratic party needs an good opposition party, and the Republicans ain't it.

There have been 39 EOs signed so far

EOs arent a time thing, they are a numbers thing. Youd think if the SC were so corrupt and conservative, that theyd have stopped at least one lol

And what if that doesnt happen, which is the more likely scenario btw. Then you have one super party.

---

Samurontai posted...

Literally every single one that hasnt been stopped by them.

Also when they repeatedly stopped Republicans from trying to subvert Bidens presidential win. Thats a huge one imo

Ah ok, so they didn't overturn a fair democratic election therefor they're on Biden's side, got it. If you can point out a case that challenged one of Biden's policies where the SC sided with Biden over the opposition then we have a convo, but my sneaking suspicion is you're just making this claim because you haven't read a headline titled "SC overturns Biden administrations attempt at XYZ"

---

Samurontai posted...

Youd think if the SC were so corrupt and conservative, that theyd have stopped at least one lol

The first challenge to trump's eos didn't get to the scotus until later in the year

---

Samurontai posted...

There have been 39 EOs signed so far

EOs arent a time thing, they are a numbers thing. Youd think if the SC were so corrupt and conservative, that theyd have stopped at least one lol

And what if that doesnt happen, which is the more likely scenario btw. Then you have one super party.

How many EOs have been blocked by a federal judge? That's the first step.

---

Musourenka posted...

How many EOs have been blocked by a federal judge? That's the first step.

They dont have to be blocked by a federal judge to be overturned by the SC though

justaguy3492 posted...

Ah ok, so they didn't overturn a fair democratic election therefor they're on Biden's side, got it. If you can point out a case that challenged one of Biden's policies where the SC sided with Biden over the opposition then we have a convo, but my sneaking suspicion is you're just making this claim because you haven't read a headline titled "SC overturns Biden administrations attempt at XYZ"

No, its literally if you can name one point where the SC has gone against Biden, Ill change my mind

but that hasnt happened yet, after a lot of legislation and 39 EOs lol. They can blatantly deem an EO unconstitutional and put a stop to it, like they did with Trumps travel ban (or were going to anyway or something)


---

Samurontai posted...

They dont have to be blocked by a federal judge to be overturned by the SC though

It doesn't need to be blocked, but it does need to be ruled on.

The scotus doesn't just arbitrarily decide they want to rule on certain laws

---

Samurontai posted...

They can blatantly deem an EO unconstitutional and put a stop to it, like they did with Trumps travel ban (or were going to anyway or something)

I can tell you've put a lot of thought and research into your position

---

Balrog0 posted...

It doesn't need to be blocked, but it does need to be ruled on.

The scotus doesn't just arbitrarily decide they want to rule on certain laws

My mistake on that.

But yeah, it has to go up the chain first.


---

It'll never make ot through the Senate and the Dems in the house know this. It's entirely so they can shrug their shoulders and say "well we tried".

---

Balrog0 posted...

I can tell you've put a lot of thought and research into your position

then prove me wrong.

The SC can outright deem an EO unconstitutional if it felt the need to do so

---

@Balrog0

Here, I chose the most appropriate format for you

https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-check-balance

The executive branch can declare Executive Orders, which are like proclamations that carry the force of law, but the judicial branch can declare those acts unconstitutional.

Who is the head of the judicial branch? The Chief Justice? And what is he a part of? The Supreme Court.


---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

if it conflicts with this new tyrannical party's views

The GOP, you mean.

---

Doesnt bother me

---

Also just to add, if this helps out the Democrats more in the future, Im all for it. I just hate how dishonest some people are with their justification for it lol

I legit hope it happens at this point, just because itll give more power to the democrat party when it comes to laws and stopping insane Republicans, and literally no other reason beyond that. I dont have some weird fear of the SC as it is right now, and I wont pretend that I do have

---

@Samurontai I didn't say that the scotus can't declare things unconstitutional, what I said is that the fact they haven't ruled any EOs unconstitutional is irrelevant because they don't get to decide arbitrarily what laws or policies are unconstitutional. That is why, like I said, none of trump's had even been heard by the scotus at this point in 2017.

Read this to understand why the argument you've been making, that eos are about "numbers not time" is ignorant: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

---