Biden Launches Commission to Look at Supreme Court Reform (3 Viewers)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I say pack it, stack it, shellack it, tallywhack it... As Moscow Mitch McConnell has proven with his actions re the SCOTUS over the last few years, there are no rules.

Biden launches 'court-packing' commission

President Joe Biden established a presidential commission to examine expanding the Supreme Court, a demand liberals made of him during the presidential campaign.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[RobF]

So if they do decide to add, say 4 justices to give a total of 13, they should at least roll it out over time. Maybe add one every two years for the next 8.

At least that way, it can't be painted as a liberal takeover of the court. I'm sure the liberals would hate that idea, but if their reasons for expansion are legitimate, and not just an attempt to swing the balance of the court, they should support it.

It's a bipartisan commission though. Seems like there's basically zero possibility that this Commission will come back and say, "There should be four more justices and they should all be liberal and Biden should appoint them all right now."

Anything about what this commission might recommend is speculation, but it seems pretty safe to rule that out. Seems more likely that if they did recommend adding four more justices, they'd further recommend that Biden takes the recommendations for who they should be from an independent bipartisan group, or some other similar approach.

 

[bdb13]

It's a bipartisan commission though. Seems like there's basically zero possibility that this Commission will come back and say, "There should be four more justices and they should all be liberal and Biden should appoint them all right now."

Anything about what this commission might recommend is speculation, but it seems pretty safe to rule that out. Seems more likely that if they did recommend adding four more justices, they'd further recommend that Biden takes the recommendations for who they should be from an independent bipartisan group, or some other similar approach.

It was announced yesterday that Congressional Democrats plan to bring forth their own legislation to add four justices.. I don't think we know details yet though.

 

[DaveXA]

What does this post even mean, Dave? You might as well have just said ‘It is what it is’...

Because it is....

But really, I don't think anyone here is missing anything like you seem to suggest. I just felt like you were stating the obvious.

 

[Booker]

What will happen is Republicans will stonewall and accuse the Democrats of trying to pack the courts, and go on and on about how outrageous it is (forgetting about McConnell's court packing shenanigans over the last decade) and then it ultimately won't happen.

Then, the next time Republicans control the House, Senate and White House (maybe as soon as 2024), they'll kill the filibuster and add four justices, and say it was the Democrats idea.

 

[brandon]

Currently 6 conservative justices & 3 liberal justices.

Democrats adding 4 more justices:

7 liberal justices & 6 conservative justices is a liberal takeover of the court. How convenient that they want to add enough justices that would make it a liberal majority.

I would agree, but there’s gotta be a penalty for the Garland/ACB bullshirt.

If you cheat on a test, things aren’t just restored to normal when you’re caught. Your test gets thrown out. You get a zero, even if you might have scored 75%.

 

[bdb13]

I would agree, but there’s gotta be a penalty for the Garland/ACB bullshirt.

If you cheat on a test, things aren’t just restored to normal when you’re caught. Your test gets thrown out. You get a zero, even if you might have scored 75%.

Then go with 3 if you must. That's still an advantage to the left over where they'd be had Garland been confirmed and everything else stayed the same.

 

[brandon]

Then go with 3 if you must. That's still an advantage to the left over where they'd be had Garland been confirmed and everything else stayed the same.

Republicans enjoyed an undue advantage when they refused to seat Garland. Fairness dictates that Democrats have an equal length of time with undue advantage.

 

[NoPartyMike]

NBC: Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."

Sounds like this bill is for show only.

 

[bdb13]

Republicans enjoyed an undue advantage when they refused to seat Garland. Fairness dictates that Democrats have an equal length of time with undue advantage.

It's all hypothetical bullshirt but I think you're likely to hurt yourself long-term by doing that as it increases the odds that Republicans will have public sentiment behind them to immediately change it again once they have the power to do so. So in that sense I think the short term gain is likely not worth the more negative consequence you'll likely receive out of it in the long run (I'm not one of those that thinks it's inevitable that Republicans will successfully counter no matter what you do here).

 

[bdb13]

NBC: Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices



Sounds like this bill is for show only.

Joe Biden is the president and Joe Manchin is their 50th vote.. is what it is, you won't get radical change like that out of slim, moderate majorities.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Off topic, but one of the Brandons needs to change their handle to something different.


ETA: Yall both joined here on the same day?? What are these shenanigans??? Whomever joined the SR site last needs to change their handle.

 

[brandon]

Off topic, but one of the Brandons needs to change their handle to something different.


ETA: Yall both joined here on the same day?? What are these shenanigans??? Whomever joined the SR site last needs to change their handle.

Sir, we negotiated in good faith our handles here. Keep pressing the issue and I'll change my avatar to match his.

 

[bdb13]

[

Off topic, but one of the Brandons needs to change their handle to something different.


ETA: Yall both joined here on the same day?? What are these shenanigans??? Whomever joined the SR site last needs to change their handle.

Sir, we negotiated in good faith our handles here. Keep pressing the issue and I'll change my avatar to match his.

That actually happened..

(I did join Sr first though..)

 

[JRad]

Sounds like this bill is for show only.

About what I would have figured as well. An actual effort to launch legislation like a week after the commission was formed is just way too quick.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

[

That actually happened..

(I did join Sr first though..)

Yikes... Ok, well then maybe one of you could add more numbers? Or like another word *after* Brandon13, since keeping that moniker seems so important to you??

 

[bdb13]

Yikes... Ok, well then maybe one of you could add more numbers? Or like another word *after* Brandon13, since keeping that moniker seems so important to you??

Lol man.. uh I just don't really see any reason to up and change it immediately since it seems like you're the only one that really cares thus far.. I really don't give a shirt I'll change it if it bothers everyone else but I didn't actually realize you expected one of us to acquiesce to you.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Lol man.. uh I just don't really see any reason to up and change it immediately since it seems like you're the only one that really cares thus far.. I really don't give a shirt I'll change it if it bothers everyone else but I didn't actually realize you expected one of us to acquiesce to you.

I’m only kidding.. Mostly.. i do have a little trouble keeping straight which one of you made which comment, but i think that’s more a case of me being in my mid-40s than anything else.

That said, i am never opposed to anyone acquiescing to me.

 

[bdb13]

I’m only kidding.. Mostly.. i do have a little trouble keeping straight which one of you made which comment, but i think that’s more a case of me being in my mid-40s than anything else.

That said, i am never opposed to anyone acquiescing to me.

I'll probably end up changing it here now because @wardorican also slapped @brandon the other day for a post that I actually made. So now there have been real world consequences to it..