Hammer Dog (jaime59)

4GEA (Golf Equipment Aficionados)

Hosted by Hammer Dog (jaime59)

This is the successor forum to the original Golf Equipment Aficionados forum or 4GEA

  • 163
    MEMBERS
  • 10188
    MESSAGES
  • 16
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Expand the Supreme Court to 27?   Futility Folder:Politics

Started Sep-23 by Boomslang (DaveP8); 443 views.
Boomslang (DaveP8)

From: Boomslang (DaveP8)

Sep-23

Justice Kennedy’s retirement has prompted a chorus of cries by Democrats to resuscitate a seemingly unlikely idea: “packing” the Supreme Court.

For would-be packers, expanding the court from nine to 11 justices, if and when the Democrats take back executive and legislative power, provides the only opportunity to regain a liberal majority on the court. A packing approach, in proponents’ view, is justified by the need to “fight dirty” in exigent times. The equally vociferous refrain of anti-packers worries about protecting the integrity of court: It’s not worth compromising the institution, they say, for a temporary policy result.

The battle over court packing is being fought on the wrong terms. Americans of all political stripes should want to see the court expanded, but not to get judicial results more favorable to one party. Instead, we need a bigger court because the current institutional design is badly broken. The right approach isn’t a revival of FDR’s court packing plan, which would have increased the court to 15, or current plans, which call for 11. Instead, the right size is much, much bigger. Three times its current size, or 27, is a good place to start, but it’s quite possible the optimal size is even higher. This needn’t be done as a partisan gambit to stack more liberals on the court. Indeed, the only sensible way to make this change would be to have it phase in gradually, perhaps adding two justices every other year, to prevent any one president and Senate from gaining an unwarranted advantage.

 

More here

 

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/?fbclid=IwAR0sf4XZgIUhWDptxjkghme4odBWDLyFVhKBrUnfwS-qpBTPickm3C97Fm0

 

Dave P8

With 27 they would have time to hear maybe 1 or 2 cases per year.

BOGEYSBGONE

From: BOGEYSBGONE

Sep-23

Ridiculous.

You will have 27 times the same problems you have now in confirmation b/c of  the way SCOTUS is chosen today - by the Congress that is in place today.

The problem is our political divide in Congress   Whether it's 9 or 11 or 27 - same challenges.   No different.

Change the selection process or change Congress - and you have a better chance with choosing SCOTUS - regardless of the number.

Robb

Hammer Dog (jaime59)
Host

The focus on the Court shows it has become way too powerful, primarily because Congress has abandoned it responsibility to govern and the "Lawfare" types have used the legal system to wage war and achieve their goals without legislation.

Arguably Trump's biggest accomplishment has been replacing activist judges at all levels.

BOGEYSBGONE

From: BOGEYSBGONE

Sep-23

Hammer Dog (jaime59) said...

 

The focus on the Court shows it has become way too powerful, primarily because Congress has abandoned it responsibility to govern and the "Lawfare" types have used the legal system to wage war and achieve their goals without legislation.

 

I would amend your statement to say that they are not too powerful - they have always had that power - but that Congress is becoming too dependent on SCOTUS to make policy and abrogating their jobs to execute legislative process.   Likewise the SCOTUS is being seen more politically rather than independent.

Again IMO it's Congress which is the problem.

Robb

Hammer Dog (jaime59)
Host

robb,

I don't think the Founders ever envisioned the courts becoming as powerful as they have.  Congress is partly to blame, but so is the rise of activist judges and the strategy of using the courts to achieve policy objectives that would not pass Congress.

BOGEYSBGONE

From: BOGEYSBGONE

Sep-23

Hammer Dog (jaime59) said...

 

robb,

I don't think the Founders ever envisioned the courts becoming as powerful as they have.  Congress is partly to blame, but so is the rise of activist judges and the strategy of using the courts to achieve policy objectives that would not pass Congress.

 

I would agree - but who knows that the Founders actually thought?   The problem is entirely Congress IMO.   They are the ones that make it political.    Once they make it political - you get judges who start to realize that they need to play politics in order to get the job.  Case in point - Roberts.   He said all the right things - and from the reactions of the public - he isn't really voting conservative all the time as the public wanted.   Maybe Roberts was a neutural thinker all along - but it is without question he played the game well and won the appointment.

Who chose him?   Congress.

Robb

Hammer Dog (jaime59)
Host

Bush chose Roberts, not Congress.  The Senate just ratified him.

BOGEYSBGONE

From: BOGEYSBGONE

Sep-23

Semantics - he doesn't get seated without Senate.

And he doesn't get seated if he doesn't say the right things to Senators.   It is clear that when he votes liberal it sets conservative heads on fire.   I have met Roberts a bunch of times - he is engaging and a politician...he has proven he knows how to play the game.

To me the problem is Congress.

Period.

 

Robb
 

TOP