sturg33
I
Because that was within the rules and McConnell legally played by them.
Dems now plan to change the rules.
Its what they always do
The Debates of 2020
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Because that was within the rules and McConnell legally played by them.
Dems now plan to change the rules.
Its what they always do
57Brave
Well-known member
It's " what they always do"
I think the word is , change
Why if (D) is in the seat of power are they not allowed to change the rules?
Something somethings elections consequences
Besides that,
Why is 9 magic ?
It has been a static 9 since the 1870's or so
I believe US population then was in the 60-70M's
I think the word is , change
Why if (D) is in the seat of power are they not allowed to change the rules?
Something somethings elections consequences
Besides that,
Why is 9 magic ?
It has been a static 9 since the 1870's or so
I believe US population then was in the 60-70M's
striker42
Well-known member
Bad take. You come out against packing the SCOTUS and you take away a major Republican talking point. One that could energize Republican voters and driver moderate or disaffected Republicans to Trump. Saying "everything is on the table" is tacit approval of court packing.
What's wrong with expanding the court? I went over this before. You expand the court to 11 or 13 under Biden then the next time Republicans have unified government they'll up it to 15. The Dems will respond by upping it to 19 and so on. You could end up with a court too large to function.
There are numerous other problems. Increasing the number of justices doesn't spread out the court's work, it increases it. Every justice is involved in every case (unless a justice recuses themselves). They don't assign cases out to single judges or three judge panels like you see at other levels. Combine that fact with the fact that the justices circulate their opinions and redraft before issuing them and you have a huge increase in work. Every justice you add is another justice to write concurrences and dissents that will be circulated, read, and responded to by the other justices.
Then there's the problem with divided opinions. In not every case is the opinion of the court the only one that matters. You can have cases where the opinion of the court controls the ultimate issue but reasoning that will be precedent on lower courts is found in concurrences or even dissents. Not every issue divides evenly into two sides and judges can join opinion in part. I'm not doing a good job explaining this because this is a result that is incredibly confusing, even to attorneys and judges. The more justices the more often you'll have a fractured court with the controlling law found in different opinions based on who joined what.
There's also the issue of cert. Currently you have the rule of 4. This means you only need 4 of the 9 justices to agree to grant cert for a case to be accepted by the SCOTUS. If you go to 11 or 13, you'll need to increase that number so you don't have the court granting cert in more cases than it can hear. So you'll need 5 or 7 justices to agree to grant cert. The more justices necessary to agree for a case to get cert, the more you'll have gridlock on the court. Getting 4 is hard enough. Try getting 7 legal minds trained in argument to agree on granting cert. That process will likely be disrupted.
This is an extremely bad idea. The SCOTUS has been 9 for as long as it had for a reason and court packing has been a gun no one has wanted to fire for a reason. If it was up to me, I'd propose a constitutional amendment setting the number at 9.
57Brave
Well-known member
why 9 -
why not 15?
term limits ?
////////////
it is a bad idea because --- divided opinions ? what is the difference between a coalition of 5v4 and 8v7
If they ( you hypothetical) have the votes they are free to expand to whatever they like
It is not in any way certain (D) has or will have the votes.
" I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat"
-Will Rogers
why not 15?
term limits ?
////////////
it is a bad idea because --- divided opinions ? what is the difference between a coalition of 5v4 and 8v7
If they ( you hypothetical) have the votes they are free to expand to whatever they like
It is not in any way certain (D) has or will have the votes.
" I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat"
-Will Rogers
Last edited:
sturg33
I
If it is no big deal to expand why won't she or Joe answer the question?
They obviously know the answer is unpopular.
But don't the American people deserve to know their plans?
striker42
Well-known member
It's a bad take because you're writing off the issue. If it was a dead issue with no chance, why wouldn't Biden come out against it? If he says he's against court packing, he takes away something that is potentially energizing to Republicans and could serve to help unite more of the party behind Trump. If he comes out for it, he definitely inflames the issue and gets Republicans more enraged.
Why be cagey? It's not a question you've answered. It's clear that the Biden campaign has made a point of not giving an answer on court packing. If it was such a dead issue you say so and put a bullet in it. Instead they say things like "everything's on the table" which shows it's not as dead as you seem to think.
I've also apparently not been clear when talking about divided opinions. I'm not talking about 5v4 vs 8v7. I'm talking about fractured opinions. There's a misconception that whoever is writing for the court is laying out all the only opinion that is binding. That's not the case. You can have other decisions be binding if they gather a majority joining on certain issues.
Suppose you have a case that has 4 questions presented to the court with the case ultimately being about whether a law is valid. They are questions A, B, C, and D. The justice writing for the court writes an opinion ultimately concluding the law is unconstitutional. You have 8 justices sign off on the ultimate holding. However, one justice writes a concurrence saying the ultimate decision was correct but the reasoning on issue C was wrong and a different standard should be used. 5 justices sign that concurrence. Another justice writes that issue A should have been decided differently but the ultimate decision was correct. 5 justices sign off on that concurrence.
In this case, the opinion of the court would control on issues B and D and on the conclusion the law was invalid. But the first concurrence would be binding as to issue C and the second to issue A. You have to go through 3 opinions to find what the binding law is.
The more justices you have on the court, the more viewpoints you have, the more chance for fractured opinions, and even more cases where the court can't achieve a majority but only a plurality which presents another host of issues.
The court settled at 9 as it's the sweet spot of diluting the influence of any one or two judges but also keeping the number small enough that the court is able to operate.
The question is are you kidding? How is ballot harvesting not an issue that needs to be addressed? Gabbard isn't a mindless partisan hack like 95% of other politicians, so I'm not surprised you don't like her.
That sort of debate doesn't benefit Trump, so of course he won't agree to it. Even if Trumptards got their wish and Joe Rogan were moderating it. Trump relies on chaos in a debate. It's the only way he comes out even in a debate, is to bring the whole event down. And if they won't have in person debates, he plays the victim card and says the whole process is rigged.
I liked Gabbard of pretty much all of the options, sans the short time that Amash declared he was running. But I don't know how "electable" she is right now in this current climate.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Bahahaha. I'm shocked, SHOCKED! that a CNN poll showed favorable results for <insert name> (D). That's as stunning as 57s race card echo chamber tweets.
Again, you're better than this.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
So after all the BS from the Trumpeteers that Biden wouldnt debate Trump it is the Don who is refusing to debate. He must have seen the polls after the first debate.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
every pcture tells a story " dont it"
What story do you think this picture tells? Please articulate it in your own words instead of quoting your Twitter echo chamber, and try not to embarrass yourself by using humor my 3rd grader would find immature.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
He's in a tough spot. The optics of doing a remote debate are just devastating for him.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Actually I do.
You may not know this, now that you've voluntarily detached yourself from reality to get back at those mean Trump voters, but that was a CNN viewer poll, and that predetermines that the audience will skew far to the left.