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 .
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?

I think it's an insane idea. If Democrats were to do that, they'd take away one of the reasons to support them.
 
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.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that as a kind of analogy for all of our systems. Legislative, executive, judiciary, media, ect.

Problems are going to arise, like the banking crisis. We then have a choice to make. We can pay the Piper, and lose our competitive advantage through massive banking institutions, or we can kick the can down the road, and do nothing. Both of those options has a cost.

The decision was made in a non-democratic fashion, and behind closed doors, to kick the can down the road. Corruption ensured the systems weren't reformed.

When the next banking crisis comes, we will have a new choice. Allow the banks to establish moral hazard, giving them leverage over the whole world economy as a hostage, or allow the economy to collapse. Both have a cost.

I was trying to convey a point that their is no keeping it together option. Their is a cost to either decision. Corruption and tyranny, or failure and suffering with a potential of re-birth.

I'm not really a binary choice, false dichotomy kind of guy, but sometimes there really is only two paths.
 
I think it's an insane idea. If Democrats were to do that, they'd take away one of the reasons to support them.

What about the other stuff. Is an appointment pretty much 50 votes standard now? Should Dems hold out during election years? Or instances where a liberal justice unexpectedly passes away?
 
Dude you have an expert troll level and you have depth to your posts. I like. @alanb You were right about this guy.

Thanks man, I appreciate that. BTW, as you probably know @alanb is the real deal. He's legitimately one of the country's leading Second Amendment legal experts, confirmed.
 
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."

I don't give a shit about executive actions.

I care about Citizens Untied, and why the court hasn't heard a case on the NSA, or section 213 of the Patriot Act.

People talk about legislating from the bench, but how about just doing your job, and preventing the court from being politicized?

I don't believe for one second that Citizens Untied was a honest judicial opinion, and not corruption.

I don't believe for one second that with no outside influence the court is refusing to hear challenges to section 213 of the Patriot Act.
 
You just told me you weren't gonna do anything about it though.

Choosing to let the economy collapse over bailing out the banks is called voting.

If your question is, am I going to vote? My answer is yes.

If there is an opportunity to oppose our corrupt institutions without attacking institutional power at it's strongest point, which is the use of organized violence, I will participate in that as well.

FYI, I'm not a peacenik. If I thought doing something stupid would actually change anything, I would do something stupid.
 
I feel like all future supreme court decisions will be decided by the bible and major corporations

I 'feel' like you want supreme court decisions based on feelings instead of the Constitution.
 
Can't believe it was 5-4 for immigration ban. Just means there are 4 supreme court justices that don't know or care about the Constitution or federal law.
 
Last edited:
Can't believe it was 5-4 for immagration ban. Just means there are 4 supreme court justices that don't know or care about the Constitution or federal law.
You should read Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Ginsburg. Utter drivel.
 
You should read Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Ginsburg. Utter drivel.

You have a link? I'll get to it eventually. Just too much drivel to sort through. Haven't stopped reading since Trump was elected.
I'll post it if I get there first.
 
I found it. Sotomayor is a piece of work. I'm just baffled by how people find this racist:
Presidential Proclamation No. 9645
 
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that as a kind of analogy for all of our systems. Legislative, executive, judiciary, media, ect.

Problems are going to arise, like the banking crisis. We then have a choice to make. We can pay the Piper, and lose our competitive advantage through massive banking institutions, or we can kick the can down the road, and do nothing. Both of those options has a cost.

The decision was made in a non-democratic fashion, and behind closed doors, to kick the can down the road. Corruption ensured the systems weren't reformed.

When the next banking crisis comes, we will have a new choice. Allow the banks to establish moral hazard, giving them leverage over the whole world economy as a hostage, or allow the economy to collapse. Both have a cost.

I was trying to convey a point that their is no keeping it together option. Their is a cost to either decision. Corruption and tyranny, or failure and suffering with a potential of re-birth.

I'm not really a binary choice, false dichotomy kind of guy, but sometimes there really is only two paths.

This was one of my biggest issues with Obama. Great guy, really charismatic. But bailing out those banks.

It would not have collapsed the economy. It would have made them accountable for just being bad at their jobs.
 
This was one of my biggest issues with Obama. Great guy, really charismatic. But bailing out those banks.

It would not have collapsed the economy. It would have made them accountable for just being bad at their jobs.

It would have collapsed the economy. Trust me, I wanted to just let them fail, more then you can know.

It is absolutely frieghtening listening to the interviews of people behind the curtain, of just how close we got to great depression part 2.
 
I'm not sure about that. I'll never trust an 'economist' or the banking industry again after watching the big short and seeing their opinions on what would happen to the economy if Trump got elected.
 
LOL. Funny idea.

The dems effed themselves by changing the rules in 2013 with the so-called nuclear option.

We are winning and had the media treated Trump fairly he might have appointed someone like Kennedy but now I suspect he'll go right a la Vanilla Ice --to the extreme.
 
Back
Top