Biden wants to secure a one party state

[Offthemat]

Nine is fine no matter how many people are in the country.  We don’t need 81 different opinions on constitutionality, sometimes nine is too many.  We’ve got plenty of lower court judges to hash out all the various theories. 
 

[WrestlingRasta]

Where did you get the number 81?

[Ohio Elite]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Where did you get the number 81?

9 x 9

[Lipdrag]

10 hours ago, jross said:

Would expansion be appropriate in 2025… to handle the caseload?

Some are calling for 27 total

Confession - I did not read the linked article.  But here are my initial questions about the idea:

27 just listening to all the same cases does not seem to pare down the caseload.  Therefore is the proposal to we split up the case load to 3 mini-courts of 9?  Is caseload then random or based on area of the law - criminal, property, administrative, constitutional, etc?  Is there the chance to go 'en banc" and have all 27 hear a case if it is appealed from the sub-set of the court?

The constitutionality of a topic is not dependent upon the number of citizens so any argument that the court be expanded inline with population makes no sense.  However, the case load topic is interesting. 

[WrestlingRasta]

22 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Confession - I did not read the linked article.  But here are my initial questions about the idea:

27 just listening to all the same cases does not seem to pare down the caseload.  Therefore is the proposal to we split up the case load to 3 mini-courts of 9?  Is caseload then random or based on area of the law - criminal, property, administrative, constitutional, etc?  Is there the chance to go 'en banc" and have all 27 hear a case if it is appealed from the sub-set of the court?

The constitutionality of a topic is not dependent upon the number of citizens so any argument that the court be expanded inline with population makes no sense.  However, the case load topic is interesting. 

My though in that was the central idea that is throughout the Constitution, that the government be representative of its people.   An addition of 300 million people certainly equals significantly more diverse population now that it was in 1869.  So it's not so much for a reflection of the population, but of the diversity of the population.  A much more diverse population does call for more diversity in government, again being that representative government is central to the constitution.  

[Lipdrag]

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So it's not so much for a reflection of the population, but of the diversity of the population.

And the 9 member supreme court is fully diversificated.  Jews, Catholics, WASPS, Blacks, Latins, Jews (I know, it is a race and a religion), Men, Women.  I do not know nor care if any of them are homosexual.  I am a bit disturbed that one does not know if she is a woman or not without consulting a biologist.

Not a single bit of that diversificatedness of the court members bears one whit on whether something is Constitutional or not.

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

And the 9 member supreme court is fully diversificated.  Jews, Catholics, WASPS, Blacks, Latins, Jews (I know, it is a race and a religion), Men, Women.  I do not know nor care if any of them are homosexual.  I am a bit disturbed that one does not know if she is a woman or not without consulting a biologist.

Not a single bit of that diversificatedness of the court members bears one whit on whether something is Constitutional or not.

Diversity has to do with a lot more than just biology, religion, place of birth, and sexual preference/identity. And purposely built into the constitution is the ability to adjust, in order to adjust with the population and 'the times' (so to speak).  

The founders were pretty smart people.  

[JimmyBT]

7 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Diversity has to do with a lot more than just biology, religion, place of birth, and sexual preference/identity. And purposely built into the constitution is the ability to adjust, in order to adjust with the population and 'the times' (so to speak).  

The founders were pretty smart people.  

Which is why they allowed us guns. 

[JimmyBT]

8 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Diversity has to do with a lot more than just biology, religion, place of birth, and sexual preference/identity. And purposely built into the constitution is the ability to adjust, in order to adjust with the population and 'the times' (so to speak).  

The founders were pretty smart people.  

Why not two presidents and 200 senators then?  Quotas to ensure that congress is 100% representative of the nations population.  10% should be illegals. Need to adjust right? 

[jross]

Caseload is the surface angle to underhandly pack the court like FDR tried before.

A good justice will interpret the law as intended rather than today's political agenda.  Folks like to believe that the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.  It does not.  
 

Quote

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This phrase excludes certain individuals from automatic citizenship, such as foreign diplomats and their families, who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  It excludes illegal immigrants, tourists, and their families, who owe allegiance to another country.  https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

If expanding the Supreme Court was about handling caseload with strict constitutional interpretation rather than biased ideology, nobody would care whether Biden or Trump picked the next justices.

The left wants to pack the court now with left ideologists the way FDR wanted.  https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2

[WrestlingRasta]

What's also relevant is that at the time it was set at 9, it was to match the number of appeals court circuits at the time.....9.

 

That number has since risen to 13. 

[Offthemat]

I think seven would be a good number.  [sarc]

[mspart]

On 2/4/2024 at 9:00 AM, JimmyBT said:

If the Dems end up with control of all three branches and Biden as a lame duck President it’s over. 

- unlawful immigrants will all be given citizenship    Agree

- the Supreme Court will be stacked     Agree

- DC and Puerto Rico will become states     Agree with PR.   Not DC, that would be an amendment I think. 

- the process of eliminating the electoral college will begin   This has begun with state laws pledging their electors to the national popular vote getter. 

In saying I agree, I don't necessarily think it will happen, but I do think there will definitely be an effort to make it happen.

mspart

[mspart]

On 2/4/2024 at 11:08 AM, WrestlingRasta said:

That may be. And I would still say that has a lot to do with the behaviors and actions of the Republican Party. 

I don't think so really.   I think it has to do with the education system teaching our kids that America is evil, that socialism is the way to go.   Rs are not generally supportive of socialism so that gets them axed.   Look at what is going on in the public schools and on college campuses.   There is no doubt indoctrination going on that discredits the value of the USA.   We are raising a generation that hates or dislikes the USA and they naturally vote D straight ticket because it is socialist.   That is how we have the squad.   That is how we had a socialist city council in Seattle.   It has become so bad there that they were all voted out but one.    Granted all are democrats  but not as crazy as the socialists that have ruined the emerald city turning into a turd city. 

Example:   I have two sons that are in this direction right now.   Openly hostile to any R or R idea.  Even in the face of facts and data, they will eschew that for their favored talking points and say they are absolutely correct by doing so.   To the credit of the older one, my wife presented him with refutation of what he was saying and he actually thought about it and said that maybe there is more to this.    They can still be taught.  

mspart

[Offthemat]

#mspart:  This has begun with state laws pledging their electors to the national popular vote getter. 

Watch those states spin when Trump wins the popular vote. 

[uncle bernard]

10 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

#mspart:  This has begun with state laws pledging their electors to the national popular vote getter. 

Watch those states spin when Trump wins the popular vote. 

Third time's the charm?

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

Third time's the charm?

81million votes my ass. 

[Bigbrog]

Here is my take on this issue, the first question I would ask before expanding the Supreme Court is what problem is it trying to solve by doing so?  If there is good reason and expanding the court is the solution to the root cause of the problem than I would be for it.  If it is for political reason's...absolutely not!  And as an "average" American, nothing in my life is effected, adversely, by the current number of justices.

[Paul158]

17 hours ago, Offthemat said:

81million votes my ass. 

I wouldn't be surprised if of the so called 81 million votes that only 65 million were LEGAL votes.

[Offthemat]

35 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if of the so called 81 million votes that only 65 million were LEGAL votes.

I agree with your assessment and if he makes it to November, I believe he’ll get fewer votes than last time.  

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I agree with your assessment and if he makes it to November, I believe he’ll get fewer votes than last time.  

President whose popularity plummets after he's elected is going to get fewer votes the next time around? Stop the presses!

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Here is my take on this issue, the first question I would ask before expanding the Supreme Court is what problem is it trying to solve by doing so?  If there is good reason and expanding the court is the solution to the root cause of the problem than I would be for it.  If it is for political reason's...absolutely not!  And as an "average" American, nothing in my life is effected, adversely, by the current number of justices.

The problem it solves is that the court is not functioning in a politically neutral manner and the composition of the court does not reflect voter will. Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once this century. It functions as a way to enforce conservative minority rule. 

The reality is that the court was always a political entity and the idea that it was an independent branch meant to regulate the government was always one of many myths about our "great" political system.

The result of packing the court is to delegitimize it which I think would be a good thing. Why should 9 unelected, highly partisan judges on lifetime appointments get to have such a large impact on our "democratic" system?

[Offthemat]

15 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The problem it solves is that the court is not functioning in a politically neutral manner and the composition of the court does not reflect voter will. Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once this century. It functions as a way to enforce conservative minority rule. 

The reality is that the court was always a political entity and the idea that it was an independent branch meant to regulate the government was always one of many myths about our "great" political system.

The result of packing the court is to delegitimize it which I think would be a good thing. Why should 9 unelected, highly partisan judges on lifetime appointments get to have such a large impact on our "democratic" system?

You suggest that the court is illegitimate because the president isn’t elected by popular vote - which would be unconstitutional - then support packing it to delegitimize it.  Illogical.

[Bigbrog]

11 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The problem it solves is that the court is not functioning in a politically neutral manner and the composition of the court does not reflect voter will. Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once this century. It functions as a way to enforce conservative minority rule. 

The reality is that the court was always a political entity and the idea that it was an independent branch meant to regulate the government was always one of many myths about our "great" political system.

The result of packing the court is to delegitimize it which I think would be a good thing. Why should 9 unelected, highly partisan judges on lifetime appointments get to have such a large impact on our "democratic" system?

So again, what is the problem??  How is your life adversely effected?  Because YOU feel there is a political majority??  You are right the idea is that the court should be an independent branch meant to regulate the CONSITUTION and when a courts decision goes against what you personally believe it does not mean the decision made was done for political reasons.  And why do you want to delegitimize it??  That is an asinine way to think of it no matter what your political lean is.  Would you feel this way if the majority was "left" right now?  I think we all know the answer.  To me if it was...again,  would it effect me personally...nope!

As for it not reflecting voter will...what, you want to have the Supreme Court changed every election period??  Seriously??   SMH

Still waiting to hear what problem the current system is and how changing the number is a solution to any sort of root cause other then someone's political believe.  If you can argue the LEGALITY of any of the Supreme Court decisions and how they are completely wrong....LEGALLY...go for it...we all will wait!

[WrestlingRasta]

15 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

 when a courts decision goes against what you personally believe it does not mean the decision made was done for political reasons. 

I mean...in all fairness....that depends on who you ask.  

(jokes)