Discussion: The Supreme Court II

[Schlosser85]

I kind of always figured we had an odd number to avoid a tie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The UK is currently 12. It's kind of an interesting idea, it really forces people to come to a compromise. Unfortunately, the US is not ready for that sort of advanced civility.

Yeah, you pretty much wrote what I was thinking there.

 

[samsnee]

I definitely think the court should be expanded. It scares me though because when Republicans control the Presidency and Congress again, they will also expand.

It’s like when Democrats had to kill the filibuster for lower court nominees during the Obama years because Republicans blocked all his nominees. Then Republicans killed it for the SC which is how we are where we are. You can always expect Republicans to abuse their power to stay in control.

 

[DKDetective]

I definitely think the court should be expanded. It scares me though because when Republicans control the Presidency and Congress again, they will also expand.

It’s like when Democrats had to kill the filibuster for lower court nominees during the Obama years because Republicans blocked all his nominees. Then Republicans killed it for the SC which is how we are where we are. You can always expect Republicans to abuse their power to stay in control.

Which is why I have reached the conclusion that Puerto Rico, DC, and the Virgin Islands all need to be admitted as states and the House needs to be expanded to create more equal districts.. We need to re-set the board to rightly favour the will of a majority of Americans rather than this tyranny of the Republican minority that is undoing any and all progress. The US needs a generation of progressive forward movement and the only way I can see to do that is by changing the rules of the game.

 

[Schlosser85]

Which is why I have reached the conclusion that Puerto Rico, DC, and the Virgin Islands all need to be admitted as states and the House needs to be expanded to create more equal districts.. We need to re-set the board to rightly favour the will of a majority of Americans rather than this tyranny of the Republican minority that is undoing any and all progress. The US needs a generation of progressive forward movement and the only way I can see to do that is by changing the rules of the game.

Everyone paying federal taxes should have representation.

 

[DKDetective]

Everyone paying federal taxes should have representation.

Yeah, didn't you guys go to war and declare independence over that issue?

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[InCali]

Which is why I have reached the conclusion that Puerto Rico, DC, and the Virgin Islands all need to be admitted as states and the House needs to be expanded to create more equal districts.. We need to re-set the board to rightly favour the will of a majority of Americans rather than this tyranny of the Republican minority that is undoing any and all progress. The US needs a generation of progressive forward movement and the only way I can see to do that is by changing the rules of the game.

Exactly what I've been blathering on about for quite some time. There's more than one way to skin a......potato? If Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota can have 8 senators, there's no reason Puerto Rico, DC, and Virgin Islands can't have 6.....except maybe a filibuster? Some senators need remove their heads from their @$$e$.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which is why I have reached the conclusion that Puerto Rico, DC, and the Virgin Islands all need to be admitted as states and the House needs to be expanded to create more equal districts.. We need to re-set the board to rightly favour the will of a majority of Americans rather than this tyranny of the Republican minority that is undoing any and all progress. The US needs a generation of progressive forward movement and the only way I can see to do that is by changing the rules of the game.

Why do the Canadians I know get it but so few Americans do?

 

[InCali]

Everyone paying federal taxes should have representation.

At this time, I believe Puerto Rico does not pay federal income taxes, but does pay other federal taxes. Federal taxes can replace the local Puerto Rico tax. In any case, they shouldn't be treated the way they were when it comes to federal assistance.

 

[InCali]

Why do the Canadians I know get it but so few Americans?

Because we've been indoctrinated by the radical, socialist left to hate America?

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Why do the Canadians I know get it but so few Americans?

Frankly, it's our education, I didn't even realize Puerto Ricans were US citizens until AFTER I was done with high school. Somehow the subject just didn't get brought up in any of my classes over the 12 years I spent in the public education system.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because we've been indoctrinated by the radical, socialist left to hate America?

Damnit, you're right! Or left... wait how does this work again?

 

[InCali]

Damnit, you're right! Or left... wait how does this work again?

I usually use "correct" instead of "right". English......man, someone really boogered things up when they came up with this language

 

[TheGuy]

I disagree. That is far from the norm in the Anglo-American common law tradition. The norm in Western liberal democracies is 9 to 12 roughly. I say that the US Supreme Court be expanded to 11 because it can be justified on the precedent of the composition of the UK House of Lords/Supreme Court.

Speaking from my perspective, 15 seats is a fair number, considering that the US' SC justices are lifetime apointes. Our SC justices have a mandatory age limit of 70, but even with constitutional limits a sitting president cannot really pack courts, unless he is elected luckily where in the beginning of his term there are substantially old justices.

Considering also that the SC will lean 6-3 in favor of conservatives, adding only 2 would shift it to 6-5, with Roberts still the swing vote. Pushing progressive legislation won't be a full success if they have a court that remains willing to gut basic democratic norm like voting. 6-5 is too close for comfort, and is basically democrats admitting that the SC should remain conservative while the country is liberal. And I don't think the UK model should apply to the US, because of population. An apt comparison is India which can have a maximum of 34 justices AFAIK.

 

[DKDetective]

Speaking from my perspective, 15 seats is a fair number, considering that the US' SC justices are lifetime apointes. Our SC justices have a mandatory age limit of 70, but even with constitutional limits a sitting president cannot really pack courts, unless he is elected luckily where in the beginning of his term there are substantially old justices.

Considering also that the SC will lean 6-3 in favor of conservatives, adding only 2 would shift it to 6-5, with Roberts still the swing vote. Pushing progressive legislation won't be a full success if they have a court that remains willing to gut basic democratic norm like voting. 6-5 is too close for comfort, and is basically democrats admitting that the SC should remain conservative while the country is liberal. And I don't think the UK model should apply to the US, because of population. An apt comparison is India which can have a maximum of 34 justices AFAIK.

But the size of a Supreme Court is not directly tied to population, nor should it. It is not a representative or democratic institution. The court is already politicized enough, and a larger bench makes it harder to come to a workable majority and to agree on legal doctrine. Court decision making processes have important rule of law implications. It is not just about the ultimate decision reached, but also the reasoning and how the judges got there. If you have a bench of 35 and a majority of 20, but that majority is split into 4 different concurring opinions supported by 5 judges each, neither the government, the legal profession, nor the people will know what the law is or how to structure their affairs accordingly. Also, like I said, a more moderate expansion in accords with the precedent set by more similar countries in terms of history and legal traditions will be more defensible to the public. Expanding to 11 sets right the wrong of the seats stolen by the Republicans. Going much beyond that arguably looks too much like political tinkering with the Court.

 

[TheGuy]

But the size of a Supreme Court is not directly tied to population, nor should it. It is not a representative or democratic institution. The court is already politicized enough, and a larger bench makes it harder to come to a workable majority and to agree on legal doctrine. Court decision making processes have important rule of law implications. It is not just about the ultimate decision reached, but also the reasoning and how the judges got there. If you have a bench of 35 and a majority of 20, but that majority is split into 4 different concurring opinions supported by 5 judges each, neither the government, the legal profession, nor the people will know what the law is or how to structure their affairs accordingly. Also, like I said, a more moderate expansion in accords with the precedent set by more similar countries in terms of history and legal traditions will be more defensible to the public. Expanding to 11 sets right the wrong of the seats stolen by the Republicans. Going much beyond that arguably looks too much like political tinkering with the Court.

I agree that the SC size shouldn't be proportional to population, but it still is a political branch (no matter how much the justices shy away from that label). The three branches should in theory be representative of the population. But I'm not arguing for 20+ seats either. Unless there's evidence that a 15-sized court is detrimental to legal precedent, like having too many concurring opinions, Democrats must consider expanding the court to that size. 15 is a good balance IMO. The US is a special case that warrants a more aggressive response from the liberal side. You have Trump appointing 3 justices. One of them as a result of so called "precedent". Another is a rapist. The next one is about to break that "precedent". He will be appointing another justice as an impeached president. This is unprecedented times. If they go nuclear, why not go all the way?

 

[Sithborg]

Boy, would her confirmation hearing be... interesting...



I do wonder how much of her rulings are in line with these thoughts...

 

[mclay18]

It's time to pack the Court. Biden and the Dems need to go nuclear after the election. #electionshaveconsequences, mutha****as

They have to, but “packing the SC court” isn’t a good rallying cry for voters. Keeping healthcare intact and honoring RBG’s dying wish is more potent.

Eliminate the legislative filibuster and pack the court after you win, not before.

 

[samsnee]

Boy, would her confirmation hearing be... interesting...



I do wonder how much of her rulings are in line with these thoughts...

I agree about West Virginia

 

[Snow Queen]

Boy, would her confirmation hearing be... interesting...



I do wonder how much of her rulings are in line with these thoughts...

There's also the matter of her being in a cult. I want to know how she squares being a judge with being in a cult where one of the central tenants is that a woman must not hold authority over men and must concede to her husband on all matters, as being a judge requires holding a lot of authority

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Boy, would her confirmation hearing be... interesting...



I do wonder how much of her rulings are in line with these thoughts...

Republicans only find women and other ethnicities when they’re anti-civil rights and equality.

 

[DKDetective]

There's also the matter of her being in a cult. I want to know how she squares being a judge with being in a cult where one of the central tenants is that a woman must not hold authority over men and must concede to her husband on all matters, as being a judge requires holding a lot of authority

Anyone remember the good old days when Republicans questioned whether JFK could properly execute the office of President as a Catholic out of concern that Catholic dogma regarding the temporal powers of the Pope could result in the Pope mandating how JFK could act as President? The fact that Barrett is in a group where her spiritual advisor is required to counsel her on everything from whom to marry to what house to buy is legitimately concerning.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Boy, would her confirmation hearing be... interesting...



I do wonder how much of her rulings are in line with these thoughts...

Originalism is just... I cannot begin to wrap my head around how so many people take seriously the idea that men who died 200 years ago intended for the future of their nation to be indefinitely forced through the lens of a stagnant, willfully vague 18th century document. Or that we would ever WANT that, considering most of them were terribly racist and sexist.

And yeah, she's in a cult, so there's that, too.

 

[Calvin Ellis]

Republicans only find women and other ethnicities when they’re anti-civil rights and equality.

As oppose to Dems who only us when they need the votes to win?