Poll of the Day > Amy Coney Barrett got confirmed

(+) Yeah! (+)

Rip.

---

Cool. Who's next in line to die?

---

Goodbye 60 years of social progress.

---

Please be Mitch McConnell.

---

Was this a surprise after Brett Cavanaugh was pushed though despite his poor showing and sexual assault allegation?

---

We don't use the words "sexual assault" anymore, not after the Supreme Court struck them down in 2022.

---

Well the upside is democrats are likely to take the senate, but I don't know if they win enough seats to overcome people like Manchin who are unlikely to vote in favor of restoring democracy.

Well I dont like her

---

The People of Praise literally have handmaids

---

Good. And my favorite justice, Clarence Thomas, will be swearing her in tomorrow night!

Jen0125 posted...

Rip.

Judgmenl posted...

Goodbye 60 years of social progress.

Baseless, sensationalist take. Cue the dramatics from the kids' table.

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Cool. Who's next in line to die?

Breyer is 82.

I guess this means 4 more years of trump.

fuck it lets just add more justices. Why not. Its incredibly disproportionate

Good

IAmNowGone posted...

fuck it lets just add more justices. Why not. Its incredibly disproportionate

Ive always felt that the Supreme Court and judges in general should be non-partisan because being neutral or in the middle should be how people with that type of power and authority should be. Given thats not the case, keeping it at a 5-4 or 6-5 ratio would be more in line with what the purpose of the Supreme Court should be.

IAmNowGone posted...

fuck it lets just add more justices. Why not. Its incredibly disproportionate

Get enough democratic senators and I fully expect Biden to put 2 more justices on the court.

I feel like increasing the court by two would make some sense, since in 2016 republicans refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing, using the reasoning of "no new justices in an election year" only to intentionally not have that reasoning follow suit when the same scenario happened 4 years later(which is to say, if that's the reasoning you wanna use, Ginsburg dying in September is a hell of a lot closer to election day than Scalia in February). All that and you still keep an odd number of justices.

WTF? Hasn't it only been like 2 weeks?
Wow, they really don't give a shit about the will of the voters, didn't even bother to wait till the lame duck session after the election to just give America the middle finger.

argonautweakend posted...

I feel like increasing the court by two would make some sense, since in 2016 republicans refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing, using the reasoning of "no new justices in an election year" only to intentionally not have that reasoning follow suit when the same scenario happened 4 years later(which is to say, if that's the reasoning you wanna use, Ginsburg dying in September is a hell of a lot closer to election day than Scalia in February). All that and you still keep an odd number of justices.

Yup. They've stolen two seats now, so taking 2 back is bare minimum acceptable retaliation. Plus, you need to keep it an odd number anyway, like you said.

Time to pack the SCOTUS and assign term limits!

---

argonautweakend posted...

I feel like increasing the court by two would make some sense, since in 2016 republicans refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing, using the reasoning of "no new justices in an election year" only to intentionally not have that reasoning follow suit when the same scenario happened 4 years later(which is to say, if that's the reasoning you wanna use, Ginsburg dying in September is a hell of a lot closer to election day than Scalia in February). All that and you still keep an odd number of justices.

The odd number is really the only reason for two. We're owed one, but the court can't be left even.

https://imgur.com/St9XvHU


---

BlackScythe0 posted...

The odd number is really the only reason for two. We're owed one, but the court can't be left even.

Nah, Dems got cheated out of 2 picks.

11 months is not even close to the election. Then Republicans changed their standards the second it was convenient for them. Fuck 'em. This is war now, I don't give a shit anymore.

Add 2 Supreme Court seats. Put in term limits, too.
Add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states (and thus 4 more Senate seats)
Pass a law making abortion legal (right now its legality rests on decades of court decisions, time to end that)

https://youtu.be/amo2ZkhAn4w

---

streamofthesky posted...

Dems got cheated out of 2 picks.

they didn't get cheated, the senate didn't approve their picks

---

Merrick Gardland didn't even get a hearing, so the senate never got a chance to approve the pick.

So, this is something...

https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution

Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. In fact, the office of Chief Justice only exists because its mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...).
Its Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789. When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.

By the start of the Civil War, the number of Supreme Court justices had increased to nine in order to cover additional circuit courts in the expanding American West. But Abraham Lincoln, upset over the Supreme Courts 1857 decision in Dred Scott and wanting to cement an anti-slavery majority on the Court, added a 10th justice in 1863.
After the Civil War and Lincolns assassination, Congress clashed with Lincolns successor, Andrew Johnson, who was rapidly undoing the Radical Republicans plan for Reconstruction. To limit Johnsons power, Congress passed legislation in 1866 that cut the number of Supreme Court justices back to seven, all but assuring that Johnson wouldnt have the opportunity to fill a vacant seat.
The last time Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices was in 1869, again to meet a political end. Ulysses S. Grant was elected president in 1868 with the backing of the congressional Republicans who had hated Johnson. As a gift to Grant, Congress increased the number of justices from seven back to nine, and Grant gamely used those picks.

9 is far from the sanctified number we think it is, anyway.
Someone on Reddit suggested Dems pass a law tying the number of SC justices to the number of circuit courts, adding some so they in turn get 2 new justices as revenge.
Then Republicans would have to add more circuit courts to stack the court further.

It's something.... Fuck Mitch McConnell for even making this a discussion...

Wanded posted...

they didn't get cheated, the senate didn't approve their picks

The senate never voted on their picks in the first place

The courts are already packed, the elections college are already rigged, law and order is already gone

Dems can't chicken out when they get power, or they may never get it again

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

The courts are already packed, the elections college are already rigged, law and order is already gone

Dems can't chicken out when they get power, or they may never get it again

https://imgur.com/4Oi9tWs


---

Wanded posted...

https://imgur.com/4Oi9tWs

You are honest to god the laziest fucking troll in years

---

Remember, folks, this office is only a lifelong term. <_<

---

argonautweakend posted...

I feel like increasing the court by two would make some sense, since in 2016 republicans refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing, using the reasoning of "no new justices in an election year" only to intentionally not have that reasoning follow suit when the same scenario happened 4 years later(which is to say, if that's the reasoning you wanna use, Ginsburg dying in September is a hell of a lot closer to election day than Scalia in February). All that and you still keep an odd number of justices.

isn't it also fair to say that the democrats were totally in favour of obama appointing a justice during an election year, but now that someone they dont like is in office they're against it? almost like people want different rules in place at different times to suit what they think benefits them personally, rather than what is most fair.

---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

isn't it also fair to say that the democrats were totally in favour of obama appointing a justice during an election year, but now that someone they dont like is in office they're against it? almost like people want different rules in place at different times to suit what they think benefits them personally, rather than what is most fair

Yes, they were. Then the GOP set a precedence that apparently only applies when there's a Dem president. The latter part of your comment could be directly applied to the GOP.

---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

isn't it also fair to say that the democrats were totally in favour of obama appointing a justice during an election year, but now that someone they dont like is in office they're against it? almost like people want different rules in place at different times to suit what they think benefits them personally, rather than what is most fair.

Wow that is some impressive mental gymnastics.

Obama was denied his rightful pick, correct republicans kept spouting a bull shit rule.

Where is that rule now? Either the sitting president can appoint a justice in an election year or they can't republicans can have it both ways but it's democrats who are somehow in the wrong here?

ssj4supervegeta posted...

isn't it also fair to say that the democrats were totally in favour of obama appointing a justice during an election year, but now that someone they dont like is in office they're against it? almost like people want different rules in place at different times to suit what they think benefits them personally, rather than what is most fair.

Republicans left a court seat open an entire year so that "voters could decide", then rushed to fill a seat literally a week before the election.

They're the ones that keep changing the "rules" to suit their needs and plunder all that they can. You seem to have it backwards.
Perhaps if Republicans hadn't pulled that shit w/ Garland, and even went to cartoon villainy levels of evil such as stating their intent to steal the seat literally hours after Scalia had died, Dems wouldn't call them out on their FUCKING HYPOCRISY right now.

ssj4supervegeta posted...

isn't it also fair to say that the democrats were totally in favour of obama appointing a justice during an election year, but now that someone they dont like is in office they're against it? almost like people want different rules in place at different times to suit what they think benefits them personally, rather than what is most fair.

This would be fair if we were looking at time in reverse order

Since we live in reality though, this is a dumbass take

---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

isn't it also fair to say that the democrats were totally in favour of obama appointing a justice during an election year, but now that someone they dont like is in office they're against it? almost like people want different rules in place at different times to suit what they think benefits them personally, rather than what is most fair.

I have nothing more to add but it was satisfying to see you get dunked on by five posters in a row

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

This would be fair if we were looking at time in reverse order

Since we live in reality though, this is a dumbass take

It's like blaming Obama for the economic crash of early 2008 or for 9/11. His presidency came after, but try explaining linear time to some people, I guess.

---

OrangeDawn posted...

I have nothing more to add but it was satisfying to see you get dunked on by five posters in a row

He did say something pretty astoundingly foolish.

Blightzkrieg posted...

You are honest to god the laziest fucking troll in years

https://imgur.com/aJktcuq

---

So... To everyone now reading this topic, I am going to have to ask that you do not feed the trolls. Some are lower effort than others, but the truth remains that feeding any one of them makes things worse.

---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Cool. Who's next in line to die?

Probably not alot of unborn babies.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Probably not alot of unborn babies.

yeaaaaaaa boiiii

---

Odd question for discussion's sake: how ironic would it be if she or Brett, or both, was next to go, and it didn't take long at all?

---

Realistically, if Biden gets elected, what can he do to counteract this? Because if GOPs don't want to play nice, it's time to not play nice back.

---

Entity13 posted...

Odd question for discussion's sake: how ironic would it be if she or Brett, or both, was next to go, and it didn't take long at all?

i'm sure most people in this thread are fantasizing about that

---

Marcster1994 posted...

Realistically, if Biden gets elected, what can he do to counteract this? Because if GOPs don't want to play nice, it's time to not play nice back.

If I understand your question it all depends on how many seats the democrats get in the senate. It's very possible democrats will take the senate, but if they don't have enough votes to offset conservative members of the party they won't be able to appoint additional justices.

Entity13 posted...
Odd question for discussion's sake: how ironic would it be if she or Brett, or both, was next to go, and it didn't take long at all?

Uh it would bring a lot of conspiracy theories.

Wanded posted...

i'm sure most people in this thread are fantasizing about that

Fantasizing or not, it's still a question to be answered. How would the far Right act, because we know the Left will laugh and jeer at the Right as much as the Right is doing the Left right now. So how might the Right take this slice of irony, in all of the universe's grandeur?

---

Entity13 posted...

Fantasizing or not, it's still a question to be answered. How would the far Right act, because we know the Left will laugh and jeer at the Right as much as the Right is doing the Left right now. So how might the Right take this slice of irony, in all of the universe's grandeur?

1. you're equating people dying to people being nominated to things which is false equivalence
2. are you talking leftists "Far right" which is pretty much half the country or the 200 crazed people with guns who are actually anarchists but everyone relates them to the right anyway?
3. oh i know 100% the left would gloat with glee and laugh if brett or acb dies because most leftists are simply those kind of people, as shown here on potd a few times actually when right wing people died, but right wingers generally don't stoop to those levels, i don't recall anyone doing so here when rbg passed away...iactually i do remember some leftists here being impolite about her death because her actions of not stepping down during obama resulted in what we are seeing now

---