Absolutely nothing. That said, with this current group of Republican Senators, they might do it anyway, whether Democrats did it or not. I just fail to see what rationale they would put forward.
Balancing the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Concart
- Start date
Absolutely nothing. That said, with this current group of Republican Senators, they might do it anyway, whether Democrats did it or not. I just fail to see what rationale they would put forward.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
you're an idiot.
I disagree. Senate failed to do their constitutional duty. I guess you don't much care about the Constitution unless it supports your partisan view. I get it.
Agreed.
They are stuck on wanting what they want and grasping for rationalizations. Thats just too much "me" and not enough "we".
The argument is that if the Court becomes overtly partisan political it needs to be checked, and the easiest avenue to do that would be adding Justices, perfectly legal and not unconstitutional. Keep in mind that these last three Justices were approved with only a majority vote, the minority who have always had a say in such an important decision, purposely to avoid a partisan choice, was eliminated
Wow, scathing rebuttal. How long did you work on that one?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch Uncle,
I guess that's why the framers understood that a legislative body which could create new laws as time passed would be necessary.
I certainly have the impression that Republicans look for loopholes, and the responsibility to close them falls upon Democrats.
"We're a nation of laws". If people want something to be within the "spirit" of an idea, they need to pass a law. That's the entire job of the Legislative Branch. The "spirit" part is left up to individuals to decide.
Example; I think "balancing the Supreme Court" violates the spirit of the Constitution. Prove me wrong.** YMMV
**Nor can I prove you wrong since it's a matter of interpretation. Belief.
I guess that's why the framers understood that a legislative body which could create new laws as time passed would be necessary.
I certainly have the impression that Republicans look for loopholes, and the responsibility to close them falls upon Democrats.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
rationale is a fast and loose concept in your world of make believe.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
you're a cretin.
Yakuda
Verified User
First I have seen no compelling argument that the court has become "overtly partisan political". I am not arguing justices cant be added I am am arguing why they would be added especially since no compelling argument for the court being "overtly partisan political" has been offered. It is interesting how in some cases you are worried about what the minority opinion is but not so much in others.
BTW thank you for a reasoned response without hyperbole.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
it just came to me. I'm a genius, unlike you.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You claimed you didn't care about my answer so why do you keep asking for one?....especially one that is so self-evident?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch Uncle,
The needed SCOTUS amendment that will never pass in the current partisan climate.
The needed SCOTUS amendment that will never pass in the current partisan climate.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. The best solution, IMO, is to keep rotating the bastards out of office until leaders who put the country first are elected.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. Both sides have become so partisan, very little is getting done. It's like being the children of two bickering, selfish parents forced to watch as they destroy the family and send it into so much debt there is no money to raise the children.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed on the reason for a Legislative body. Disagreed on giving the Democrats a pass. They elected a draft-dodging liar as President and the country has been going to hell ever since. Not that it was Clinton's or even the Democrat's fault alone, but it certainly proves they are part of the problem.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's one solution. Another is to dissolve and reform the Court.
OTOH, you are constructing a hypothetical problem since SCOTUS isn't "politically partison". Note how Roberts ruled. Follow the Justices in their legal rulings. Are they just ruling as a political party wants or are they ruling because their view of the law is based upon a certain philosophy that isn't politically partisan such as "originalist"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Does Orginalism follow the Republican party or does the Republican party follow Orginalism?
Both I think. Scalia was an originalist. Thomas is a partisan hack. Kavanaughs opinion on Wisconsin should disqualify him as a judge. He literally parroted Trump describing the counting of votes after election day as 'flipping' the result. That is a shameful rhetorical statement that has no business in the highest court in the land.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch Uncle,
I see it as the desperate Republican party has become partisan, and Democrats have reacted by standing up for what they believe in, family values, serving the United States, and serving their corrupt super-rich donors.
The corruption is easily solvable; the only drawback there is getting enough people to recognize the obvious solution, being the American Anti-Corruption Act.
I see it as the desperate Republican party has become partisan, and Democrats have reacted by standing up for what they believe in, family values, serving the United States, and serving their corrupt super-rich donors.
The corruption is easily solvable; the only drawback there is getting enough people to recognize the obvious solution, being the American Anti-Corruption Act.
Trouble with that is we are only getting more and worse.
Blue team has done nothing but double down on it.