Current Events > If Democrats pack the Supreme Court, don't complain if Republicans do the same.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because at that rate, once each party keeps putting in enough Justices to swing decisions in their favor, we'll have a bajillion Supreme Court Justices in due time.

---

Yeah, let's hope it doesn't come to that. But JFC the republicans should've just honored their word for once about not filling a seat at the end of a term.

---

Republicans have already packed the courts.

This would be a return to balance.

EvilutionV316 posted...

once each party keeps putting in enough Justices to swing decisions in their favor, we'll have a bajillion Supreme Court Justices in due time.

good

---

*puts in 3 supreme court justices in 4 years*

"GUYS I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEING UNFAIR WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM"

---

GregShmedley posted...

If Democrats back off of gun ban talks, they'd never lose an election again thus we wouldn't need to worry.

---

Godnorgosh posted...

I'm ready for the Galactic Senate version of the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court will be reorganized into the first Galactic Court!"

---

I wouldnt be mad if there were like 50 justices on there. Let multiple people argue the case and make decisions instead of the 9 cool kids club.

---

Master_Bass posted...

"The Supreme Court will be reorganized into the first Galactic Court!"

"For a safe and secure, CONSTITUTION"

---

The best thing would be if the republicans won the presidency and the senate and proceeded to pack the courts anyway just to troll the dems.

i should we should open up the justice system to the masses and use social media to vote on cases, eliminating the need for supreme court justices at all

---

The flaws of a lifetime appointment.

---

Annihilated posted...

and proceeded to pack the courts anyway just to troll the dems.

again

this is what they've already been doing for the last 4-6 years

---

Doom_Art posted...

Republicans have already packed the courts.

I don't think you know what that phrase actually means.
---

Doom_Art posted...

again

this is what they've already been doing for the last 4-6 years

...do you know what words mean?

The Trent posted...

i should we should open up the justice system to the masses and use social media to vote on cases, eliminating the need for supreme court justices at all

Oh God. I couldn't imagine that world

---

shockthemonkey posted...

The Republicans will already do whatever fucked up shit they can to maintain power. The Democrats need to stop being passive little fuckwads about it.

Yeah I don't how people can bitch about "both sides" when one side tries to be cooperative to a fault. It's actually infuriating how much of a doormat the fucking Democrats are.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

I don't think you know what that phrase actually means.

Funny, you just confirmed that you dont know what it means.

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Oh God. I couldn't imagine that world

the roe vs wade re-visit memes would be both abhorrent and amazing

---

What Democrats do has very little influence on what Republicans do. Republicans dont need precedent or a good reason, they just do whatever the fuck they want, so this is a non issue

---

Annihilated posted...

...do you know what words mean?

refusing to seat any of the previous president's judicial picks for any court (SCOTUS or lower) then absolutely going wild filling the resulting vacancies when they control the WH sure seems like packing the courts to me

---

Im open to an expanded SC. I also think there needs to be some sort of maximum term length or mandatory retirement age. Having the most important issues in the country decided by nine corpses seems wack as fuck.
---

Mezcla posted...

*puts in 3 supreme court justices in 5 years*

"GUYS I THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEING UNFAIR WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM"

Fixed for accuracy.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

I don't think you know what that phrase actually means.

Annihilated posted...

...do you know what words mean?

unjustly blocking an appointment for most of a year, only to rush a candidate through with no debate during a national crisis instead of voting on bills to handle said crisis. its not adding more justices to the court, which is coincidentally a legal action done 6 times in the past, but it clearly is packing the court with partisan hacks...

---

that would require republicans to get a majority after failing to impeach trump and trump fucking up covid so much that 220 thousand and counting americans are dead. That's 20% of the global deaths coming from a country that accounts for 3% of the global population.

"republicans" will be the good old catholic boys of the bidens against the liberals' of AOC

---

Dems should do it. Right now they have house majority and possibility senate majority after the election. It'll be awhile before Republicans will get to do it and they will do it regardless whether Democrats do so or not.

Ideally we never have a Republican president again so it wont be a problem

---

Democrats should put one more for the seat the thug Republicans stole.

---

Having more justices means one dying/retiring is far less of an issue.
---

Doom_Art posted...

refusing to seat any of the previous president's judicial picks for any court (SCOTUS or lower) then absolutely going wild filling the resulting vacancies when they control the WH sure seems like packing the courts to me

Except it's not. Packing the courts means adding more seats, not filling vacant ones. Remember when FDR tried to do this in 1937 and Joe Biden called it a "bonehead idea" in 1983?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_lBVmrLfeQ

Annihilated posted...

Except it's not.

Eh, agree to disagree.

Fact is the GOP has ruined the judiciary and it's gotta be fixed up

---

Annihilated posted...

Except it's not. Packing the courts means adding more seats, not filling vacant ones. Remember when FDR tried to do this in 1937 and Joe Biden called it a "bonehead idea" in 1983?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_lBVmrLfeQ

It's ridiculous that someone in office in 1983 can still be in office almost 40 years later. This is the same reason we should end lifetime justice appointments so Republicans can't try to force America backwards into Christian conservatism for the next 50 years.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

It's ridiculous that someone in office in 1983 can still be in office almost 40 years later. This is the same reason we should end lifetime justice appointments so Republicans can't try to force America backwards into Christian conservatism for the next 50 years.

Considering that things have gotten so much worse now, "backwards" is probably the right direction to go.

Annihilated posted...

Considering that things have gotten so much worse now, "backwards" is probably the right direction to go.

wtf is this shit

---

The goal for packing the court is adding new justices, its not really adding new seats. Adding new seats is the means to add new justices. If you created new seats and then didnt fill them, would it really be packing the court? Arguable, but I would say its not. Know how you add new justices without adding new seats? Fill vacancies, or create vacancies by a process like impeachment and then fill them. That achieves the goal but allows you to do things in a subversive manner like stalling appointments. That fits the idea of the packing the court in laymans terms: you specifically planned to fill/pack a designated body with people that you desire.

This is also completely ignoring the smaller scale court packing that has occurred recently, done by Republicans. They have packed the courts by adding seats in some states and then filling the new seats. They have packed courts by kicking justices out and trying to deal with vacancies in manners that benefit them explicitly. They do both of those, whether you agree with the definition or not.

Doom is right, cultists are wrong.

---

If ACB gets the spot and the dems do not pack the court after Biden wins then the dems are completely useless.
---

Annihilated posted...

Considering that things have gotten so much worse now, "backwards" is probably the right direction to go.

Yeah I'm sure discriminating against people that aren't straight, white, male Christians would fix all of our problems. Shut the fuck up.

Anyway, I thought liberals were pretending America is so bad? I thought this was the greatest country in the world?

---

Nah.

stack it fo 11 for 6-5, pass 11 is the max, and pass term limits

done

Smashingpmkns posted...

If ACB gets the spot and the dems do not pack the court after Biden wins then the dems are completely useless.

100%. 6-3 stack literally defeats the point*

*could argue the point is already beaten since whats supposed to be nonpartisan is highly partisan

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

pass 11 is the max, and pass term limits

done

Your understanding of the law is equal to the cowboys understanding of defense.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Anything the dems do at this point would be actively unpacking the court.

Neither you nor anyone else has the right to redefine well-established terms at their own leisure. "Packing the court" has always carried the implication of expanding the court when the term was first coined by Edward Rumely in 1937 as "court-packing plan" in reference to FDR's plan to expand the court in order to guarantee his New Deal would not be rejected by the courts once again (soon rendered unnecessary by "the switch in time that saved nine").
---

I Like Toast posted...

Your understanding of the law is equal to the cowboys understanding of defense.

For the Supreme Court there is currently no legislation that dictates how many judges sit. You can make that happen after restoring balance. Term limits further guarantee an 80 something dying a natural death doesnt throw the whole country in a tizzy again

there is literally proposed legislation for this

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

I Like Toast posted...

Your understanding of the law is equal to the cowboys understanding of defense.

For the Supreme Court there is currently no legislation that dictates how many judges sit. You can make that happen after restoring balance. Term limits further guarantee an 80 something dying a natural death doesnt throw the whole country in a tizzy again

There's no Constitutional mandate that determines how many supreme court seats there are as the authority has been left to Congress, but the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the current number of seats to 9 with a minimum of 6 needed to constitute a quorum (number of justices that need to be present in order to hear a case).
---

Paragon21XX posted...

the authority has been left to Congress

and it's about damn time they use it

---

Paragon21XX posted...

There's no Constitutional mandate that determines how many supreme court seats there are as the authority has been left to Congress, but the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the current number of seats to 9 with a minimum of 6 needed to constitute a quorum (number of justices that need to be present in order to hear a case).

Which means if Dems get the Senate, they can and should change the size of the court (11 minimum, but I have heard reasonable arguments for 13 or 15), and then fill them. As long as Dems put a specific number on the law, GOP can't change it unless they win the House.

---

This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to solve this.

Luckily it's something both parties can get behind because there is a risk of either party putting in infinite justices in the Supreme Court when they have full control of Congress.


---