Biden Launches Commission to Look at Supreme Court Reform (1 Viewer)

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
522
Reaction score
953
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
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.





 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
475
Reaction score
1,592
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
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.
 

Booker

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
648
Location
Colorado
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
2,213
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
2,213
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
124
Reaction score
155
Location
American Dreamland
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
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).
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #101
OP
Mr. Blue Sky

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
522
Reaction score
953
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
2,213
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
[
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..)
 

bdb13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
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??


:shrug:
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.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #107
OP
Mr. Blue Sky

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
522
Reaction score
953
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
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. :ylsuper:
 

bdb13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
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. :ylsuper:
:cheers1: 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..
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom