How Dems take back the supreme Court post Trump. Court packing, and FDR.

Is adding additional justice seats a good idea?

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
VivaRevolution said:
I think it is a crying shame we don't use our states as laboratories of policy testing.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with this more. A national policy should be able to point to successful programs states launched before doing something themselves. There is evidence you can gather from other countries but I think a successful state run system has far more chances of succeeding then just pointing to an outside countries program and trying to implement it here.
 
VivaRevolution said:
The foundation is still there. Our nation is stronger then our institutions.
Click to expand...

We are polar opposites here. I believe the masses at this point are toxic for a variety of reasons and our institutions are the only thing keeping things together. 2016 to now should be proof of that. But institutions will only last so long once the public stays this erratic and uncivil.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I pretty much agree with Viva about nothing, and I do not respect him.
Click to expand...
Seems like an unnecessary shot at another human being. I was asking your opinion on the idea of packing the Court, FDR-style.
 
Last edited:
Lead said:
We are polar opposites here. I believe the masses at this point are toxic for a variety of reasons and our institutions are the only thing keeping things together. 2016 to now should be proof of that. But institutions will only last so long once the public stays this erratic and uncivil.
Click to expand...

Failure is how you get new growth.

It made sense to bail out the banks once, to stave off total economic collapse. We should have then shattered those banks into pieces that could fail.

If we have another banking crisis, we should let the entire economy collapse.

Our other choice is to live on our knees.

I would rather die on my feet, with a chance that future generations can live free. There are some hills worth fighting and dieing on.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Failure is how you get new growth.

It made sense to bail out the banks once, to stave off total economic collapse. We should have then shattered those banks into pieces that could fail.

If we have another banking crisis, we should let the entire economy collapse.

Our other choice is to live on our knees.

I would rather die on my feet, with a chance that future generations can live free. There are some hills worth fighting and dieing on.
Click to expand...

We can handle "too big to fail" issues with legislation in our current system. Like I mentioned to luckyshot, I think the only danger of unbalance our country is facing is with larger companies making industries less and less easy to enter and take control over. The new growth and chaos you seek should happen in our private sector and stability in our public sector. The problem is the private sector is continuing the risk it's meant to do but is being protected afterwards. Either put laws in place that don't allow them to grow too large or limit the types of decisions they can make if they are in that "too large" category.
 
luckyshot said:
The problem all stems from the Conservative’s ridiculous extension of personhood to corporations and speech to money.

Corporations aren’t people. Money isn’t speech. End of fucking essay.
Click to expand...
Sounds right to me. Freedom to spend is not free speech, imo. But even if it is, it doesn't preclude common sense limits on campaign spending and rules to prevent corruption of the democratic process. When the average citizen is relegated to bystander while a few mega-rich "people" choose their candidates for them, something has gone very wrong. I seriously doubt the writers of the constitution were envisioning anything like that.
 
waiguoren said:
Seems like an unnecessary shot at another human being. I was asking your opinion on the idea of packing the court, FDR-style.
Click to expand...

It's necessary so you don't continue to ask if I agree with his harebrained ideas. Presume I don't.
 
JamesRussler said:
...and by then, Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito may be ready to retire. If Democrats ever gain enough public support to pack the Courts, they'll also have enough support to appoint new SCOTUS judges in the normal course of business.

BTW, FDR lost a ton of public support over his court packing plan. The optics were terrible. It is viewed as third-world banana republic-style move. I personally wouldn't talk about it if I were you. It can be used to campaign against you.
Click to expand...

Holy shit you're this right leanin and you're in LA. Fuckin' Christ that sucks.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Or it goes down like with FDR, where the court does the right thing, before they are castrated.
Click to expand...

The Court in FDR's time was acting very badly, e.g. by not respecting the separation of powers, obstructing legislation geared toward fixing socio-economic issues (this is the proper function of the legislature) based on legal doctrines constructed out of whole cloth (e.g. "economic due process," whatever the fuck that means). Thankfully, the Court changed its tune, due in part to the influence of one of our nation's greatest judges. FDR's court packing legislation, while objectionable on its face, was an equivalent response to a Court which refused to stay in its lane. By contrast, Liberals today are upset that the Court refuses legislate from the bench. The Court is not here to obstruct Donald Trump just because you find his executive orders objectionable (It is alarming that 4 of 5 Justices were actually willing to do so). On the contrary, the Court is here to make sure nobody stops Donald Trump from issuing lawful executive orders, just because they may be objectionable to some.

I urge you to read up on the views of one Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's a hero not just for progressives, but for jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary. To borrow his phrasing, this newfound Liberal affinity for court packing, "if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end."
 
Jack V Savage said:
I pretty much agree with Viva about nothing, and I do not respect him.
Click to expand...
1509958350_shocked-spit-out-drink.gif


But back to what Waiguoren said, what's your thoughts on adding Justices and if not pursuing that, what is the new precedence the democratic party should take with regards to appointments? Nuclear option should now be assumed? How about in regards to hold outs?
 
VivaRevolution said:
Failure is how you get new growth.

It made sense to bail out the banks once, to stave off total economic collapse. We should have then shattered those banks into pieces that could fail.

If we have another banking crisis, we should let the entire economy collapse.

Our other choice is to live on our knees.

I would rather die on my feet, with a chance that future generations can live free. There are some hills worth fighting and dieing on.
Click to expand...
You just told me you weren't gonna do anything about it though.
 
JamesRussler said:
The Court in FDR's time was acting very badly, e.g. by not respecting the separation of powers, obstructing legislation geared toward fixing socio-economic issues (this is the proper function of the legislature) based on legal doctrines constructed out of whole cloth (e.g. "economic due process," whatever the fuck that means). Thankfully, the Court changed its tune, due in part to the influence of one of our nation's greatest judges. FDR's court packing legislation, while objectionable on its face, was an equivalent response to a Court which refused to stay in its lane. By contrast, Liberals today are upset that the Court refuses legislate from the bench. The Court is not here to obstruct Donald Trump just because you find his executive orders objectionable (It is alarming that 4 of 5 Justices were actually willing to do so). On the contrary, the Court is here to make sure nobody stops Donald Trump from issuing lawful executive orders, just because they may be objectionable to some.

I urge you to read up on the views of one Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's a hero not just for progressives, but for jurists who understand the proper role of the judiciary. To borrow his phrasing, this newfound Liberal affinity for court packing, "if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end."
Click to expand...

Dude you have an expert troll level and you have depth to your posts. I like. @alanb You were right about this guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,131
Messages
55,469,038
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top