Balancing the Supreme Court

C

Concart

Well-known member
Contributor
Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.
 
Concart said:
Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.
Click to expand...


There are a lot of things wrong with the Supreme Court. We have to end lifetime appointments. There is no reason for this.

Second, Biden should appoint at least one judge for the court.
 
votebiden said:
There are a lot of things wrong with the Supreme Court. We have to end lifetime appointments. There is no reason for this.

Second, Biden should appoint at least one judge for the court.
Click to expand...

Correct. Here is my justification. The Senate failed to do their constitutional duty and consider Garlands nomination. Therefore anything that subsequently occurred (i.e. the Gorsuch appointment) was fruit of the poison tree. Trump got a free pick. We make that up by giving Biden a free pick. And then we consider the Garland nomination. Barrett, as much as I hated the process, was nominated and confirmed following the constitutional process. So filling that seat was a legitimate exercise. But Garland/Gorsuch is not, and that should be corrected.
 
Concart said:
Correct. Here is my justification. The Senate failed to do their constitutional duty and consider Garlands nomination. Therefore anything that subsequently occurred (i.e. the Gorsuch appointment) was fruit of the poison tree. Trump got a free pick. We make that up by giving Biden a free pick. And then we consider the Garland nomination. Barrett, as much as I hated the process, was nominated and confirmed following the constitutional process. So filling that seat was a legitimate exercise. But Garland/Gorsuch is not, and that should be corrected.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is the least respected branch of government. Dominated by ideologues.

The future of our nation is to have a strong--Democratic--Congress which can basically ignore the Supreme Court
 
votebiden said:
The Supreme Court is the least respected branch of government. Dominated by ideologues.

The future of our nation is to have a strong--Democratic--Congress which can basically ignore the Supreme Court
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. I think it's important that we have a body that will thoughtfully evaluate laws passed (especially by STATE legislatures BTW) that may run afoul of the Constitution. A Democratic Congress isn't enough to prevent abridgement of Constitutional protections. They can do absolutely nothing about an archaic voter suppression law passed in Alabama. Someone has to call the balls and strikes. We just need a process that will appoint less partisan umpires.
 
Concart said:
I disagree with that. I think it's important that we have a body that will thoughtfully evaluate laws passed (especially by STATE legislatures BTW) that may run afoul of the Constitution. A Democratic Congress isn't enough to prevent abridgement of Constitutional protections. They can do absolutely nothing about an archaic voter suppression law passed in Alabama. Someone has to call the balls and strikes. We just need a process that will appoint less partisan umpires.
Click to expand...

Umpires don't determine the outcome of games. Congress can rewrite a law if judged a foul by the court.
 
Concart said:
I disagree with that. I think it's important that we have a body that will thoughtfully evaluate laws passed (especially by STATE legislatures BTW) that may run afoul of the Constitution. A Democratic Congress isn't enough to prevent abridgement of Constitutional protections. They can do absolutely nothing about an archaic voter suppression law passed in Alabama. Someone has to call the balls and strikes. We just need a process that will appoint less partisan umpires.
Click to expand...

Try not being a partisan in your own life first.
 
Weird that a political party that has only won one single national election since the 1980s, has nonetheless been able to dominate and shape the nature of the nation's highest Court
 
is there a constitutional guarantee of balance between political parties?.......I think the only balance the founders were concerned with was the balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.....
 
votebiden said:
Umpires don't determine the outcome of games. Congress can rewrite a law if judged a foul by the court.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's being an umpire. You are correct, Congress or States can at times correct issues that render a law unconstitutional, but there has to be a body that makes that determination. That's ALWAYS true. The Constitution can also be amended. The courts do not legislate, they decide specific controversies that are brought before them.
 
Concart said:
Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I grew up with a kid like you. Everybody hated him because he was a whiny pussy but we tolerated him because we needed him to have even teams when we played baseball. The problem was every time his team lost he wanted to keep playing. What a fucking a cunt he was. He sounds just like you pig fucking leftist queers
 
Concart said:
Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

That ain't going to happen, well, unless the Democrats win both the Presidency and the Senate, and even if they did, I think Biden's move is correct, wait and watch, if the Court becomes overtly politically partisan, appoint new Justices, there is nothing in the Constitution nor precedent that prevents it
 
Concart said:
Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

9 + 1 = 10
6 + 5 = 11

Discuss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top