SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Ronin786 said:
I do find it funny that Democrats yell hypocrisy at Republicans but then forget that they wanted Obama to be able to choose his nominee during his last year and no longer want Trump to be able to.

Both parties are two sides of the same dirty coin.
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I do think that McConnel and Graham pushed back the frontiers of dishonor from people in leadership a little more this time.
 
Ronin786 said:
I do find it funny that Democrats yell hypocrisy at Republicans but then forget that they wanted Obama to be able to choose his nominee during his last year and no longer want Trump to be able to.

Both parties are two sides of the same dirty coin.
Click to expand...

This feels different. Merrick Garland was nominated in March of the election year. Trump was inaugurated 10 months later. Garland was given no hearings, votes, no action at all. It's now September of an election year. The same guy (McConnell) who ignored a nominee for 10 months now wants to push through a nominee in a couple months. Sorry, it's different.
 
SCOTUS and it’s opinions are a farce.
BLADEMDA said:
But, make no mistake I am predicting a Biden win along with the Dems taking control of the Senate in January 2021.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Biden is not going to win. The Democrats would have had a better chance with Bernie Sanders. Bernie had a clear message, whether you agree or not.
 
BLADEMDA said:
SCOTUS is almost as important as the Presidency IMHO. Replacing RBG with Amy Barrett would be HUGE in terms of shifting the court to the right. SCOTUS would be able to keep AOC and the socialists in check as much of their proposals are unconstitutional if the court agrees with the written version of our founders.

Wealth tax? Gone. Restricting free speech which AOC calls "hate speech"? Gone. Restricting the free press? Nope. Second Amendment? Good luck taking away my guns. Runaway "woke" laws forcing companies to use race as a factor in hiring people? Gone. Race based admissions as the main factor? Gone.

SCOTUS can preserve this nation from the very worst the left has to offer. It's a HUGE deal to get RBG's seat on the court. A conservative court will follow the path of less government intervention and more freedom for the citizens. All of us, regardless of color or creed, are equal under the law. That means special treatment of one group is unconstitutional.

As for restricting abortion, at some point the fetus becomes a living human being with rights of its own. I am not going to derail this thread by going down that rabbit hole but a 6 month fetus deserves to have some protection under our laws. I believe SCOTUS would begin to rule in that direction if Amy Barrett gets confirmed.
Click to expand...
Realistically gay marriage, the ability for non-straight couples to adopt, RvW, various parts of the ADA, and other things will also be gone. I worry that if too many precedents are overturned it will result in court expansion or some other trickery on the part of Democrats that ends up causing a national crisis and possibly the end of America as we know it. The nonsense started with unprecedented obstructionism, which was met with the disregard of precedent, which was further met with more of the same and so on and so forth. I don't see government continuing to function with how polarized things are now for more than another decade or two, tops. At that point, who knows what will occur- could be states blatantly disregarding the federal government or the federal government fracturing into the boogaloo, but it bodes poorly for anyone's children. They're either going to be growing up in a nation with a failed government or one at war with itself, and all of the economic fallout that comes with that. We'll certainly lose our spot on the world stage and China will likely be the major power.
 
NontradCA said:
Where's your source for this? Everything I've seen was pointing to record turnout for both sides. If you look at polls on Abortion, you'd see a sizeable majority favor Roe. v. Wade, which is the forefront of this SCOTUS nominee issue. It sounds like you're just trying to be hopeful.
Click to expand...
I think it might be about which moves more people that aren’t already moving. If you hate trump and might vote democrat, you already are going to do so regardless. There is however a decent amount of religious folks who don’t like trump and might have been willing to sit this out or even vote 3rd party who now have an interesting conundrum to navigate (and that’s assuming you think a roe v wade case will appear or that you can predict scotus response which is a huge leap)
 
Ronin786 said:
I do find it funny that Democrats yell hypocrisy at Republicans but then forget that they wanted Obama to be able to choose his nominee during his last year and no longer want Trump to be able to.

Both parties are two sides of the same dirty coin.
Click to expand...

Dude, people have already begun voting in this year’s election. The accusation of hypocrisy isn’t about trump naming a nominee- it’s directed toward Mitch and Lindsey bringing up that person for a vote when they wouldn’t do so before.
 
Last edited:
Ronin786 said:
I do find it funny that Democrats yell hypocrisy at Republicans but then forget that they wanted Obama to be able to choose his nominee during his last year and no longer want Trump to be able to.

Both parties are two sides of the same dirty coin.
Click to expand...
The problem is that they claimed it is the Seanate's duty to appoint, which it is by constitutional law. The Republicans made up a rule, then did not stand by the rule when it was convenient for them. They're simply stating "if you are going to make a rule, stick with it." This is clearly partisan BS in the part of Republicans, and is serving to undermine the legitimacy of the court. This will likely result in further breakdown of the court, as Democrats will likely pull their own partisan BS to compensate and could completely unravel the foundations of the republic
 
Mad Jack said:
The problem is that they claimed it is the Seanate's duty to appoint, which it is by constitutional law. The Republicans made up a rule, then did not stand by the rule when it was convenient for them. They're simply stating "if you are going to make a rule, stick with it." This is clearly partisan BS in the part of Republicans, and is serving to undermine the legitimacy of the court. This will likely result in further breakdown of the court, as Democrats will likely pull their own partisan BS to compensate and could completely unravel the foundations of the republic
Click to expand...

It’s gonna be interesting to see how far people want to go with this “well if it’s Constitutional then it’s fair game, so f all these protocols and traditions and norms and the ability to disagree without being disagreeable” line of reasoning. Some norms getting broken (trump not inviting Obama to the WH for his portrait unveiling) could not matter any less. Some (11 SCOTUS justices) are a bit shocking and will have serious consequences. And some...like say the DOJ bringing criminal charges or indicting Kavanaugh because he likely lied under oath a bunch make us more and more like a third world country. But hey, it’s all Constitutional.
 
vector2 said:
Also anyone who thinks the senile angle is a plausible way for trump to beat Biden isn't paying attention to trump or Biden. Watch Biden's debate against Bernie and then watch his recent townhall. Then watch trump try to speak about anything of substance for more than 30 seconds without wandering off into generalities or anecdotes about how he aced his dementia test.
Click to expand...

Since you wrote this, Biden says 200 Million have died from Covid. I guess 2/3 of the US population is now dead.
 
Last edited:
vector2 said:
It’s gonna be interesting to see how far people want to go with this “well if it’s Constitutional then it’s fair game, so f all these protocols and traditions and norms and the ability to disagree without being disagreeable” line of reasoning. Some norms getting broken (trump not inviting Obama to the WH for his portrait unveiling) could not matter any less. Some (11 SCOTUS justices) are a bit shocking and will have serious consequences. And some...like say the DOJ bringing criminal charges or indicting Kavanaugh because he likely lied under oath a bunch make us more and more like a third world country. But hey, it’s all Constitutional.
Click to expand...


Cable News is reporting that the Dems "war room" tactics including pushing through D.C. for statehood next year. This will give the Dems 2 more seats in the Senate. The only one that can prevent this tactic is SCOTUS. A right leaning court may invalidate the statehood of D.C. But, if Schumer packs the court as well then that can't happen.

It appears like 51 senators are going to wreak total havoc on the nation by packing the courts, packing the senate and ending the filibuster rule. I'd say that would be a "game changer" far greater than the GOP trying to nominate a conservative justice.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Cable News is reporting that the Dems "war room" tactics including pushing through D.C. for statehood next year. This will give the Dems 2 more seats in the Senate. The only one that can prevent this tactic is SCOTUS. A right leaning court may invalidate the statehood of D.C. But, if Schumer packs the court as well then that can't happen.

It appears like 51 senators are going to wreak total havoc on the nation by packing the courts, packing the senate and ending the filibuster rule. I'd say that would be a "game changer" far greater than the GOP trying to nominate a conservative justice.
Click to expand...
All of these tactics would be the answer to current GOP tactics. It's been very tit-for-tat for a while. As much as they say the Garland situation had precedent, it absolutely did not, and if they wanted to create a precedent it is convenient that they are ignoring it now. What amounts to theft of the SCOTUS will result in an attempted Dem theft of every bit of power they can manage, followed by the same on behalf of republicans, and so on and so forth until our republic crumbles
 
BLADEMDA said:
Cable News is reporting that the Dems "war room" tactics including pushing through D.C. for statehood next year. This will give the Dems 2 more seats in the Senate. The only one that can prevent this tactic is SCOTUS. A right leaning court may invalidate the statehood of D.C. But, if Schumer packs the court as well then that can't happen.

It appears like 51 senators are going to wreak total havoc on the nation by packing the courts, packing the senate and ending the filibuster rule. I'd say that would be a "game changer" far greater than the GOP trying to nominate a conservative justice.
Click to expand...

Threatening to do something is not the same as actually doing it. Call back if/when Democrats take the Senate and the Whitehouse and the Senate and actually try to advance this.
 
NontradCA said:
Where's your source for this? Everything I've seen was pointing to record turnout for both sides. If you look at polls on Abortion, you'd see a sizeable majority favor Roe. v. Wade, which is the forefront of this SCOTUS nominee issue. It sounds like you're just trying to be hopeful.
Click to expand...

I'm more of a glass-half-full optimist who likes to play devil's advocate and argue with vector (though I agree with him on most things).

Lots of sources have reported less enthusiasm for Trump this time around, especially from suburbs. The theory is that the white middle class vote (lots of independents) that went for him in 2016 aren't as happy with what they got as they expected.

Record turnout for the left, absolutely, but I think they were already there before RBG died. As for record turnout for the right, I think Trump's base is just as fired up as ever, but those independents who went for him in 2016, especially in the WI MI PA OH IA area ... I'm just skeptical.

I'm not really "hopeful" of one winner or the other. I'm a pro-gun pro-abortion libertarian who's wary of the Democrat nanny state and the Republican science-haters. I'm a 3rd party voter in a non-swing state. I favor conservative judges, in general. I think they leave plenty of room for progressive legislatures and presidents to enact Constitutional laws for liberal policies. I think liberal judges are far more likely to rule based on what they think the law should say, as opposed to what it does say. Others disagree.

The outcome I think I'd be happiest with is if the parties split the White House and Senate, and Trump nominates and confirms another Justice (win or lose in Nov).
 
Oligarchy, autocracy and totally unfair system are the end results of capitalism. That does not mean Chinas /Pakistan’s military dictatorships are any better Or less corrupt. Americas Elite , greed have created complete destruction of the middle class and the bankruptor in chief is no better than the democratic thief/thug
In the glory days, capitalism would extract from distant lands by threat of military and covert jackals, now in the final stages, this is being unleashed on its own people. patriarchal society Cannot be just nor be imposed through tyranny even in a small family.
 
pgg said:
Lots of sources have reported less enthusiasm for Trump this time around, especially from suburbs. The theory is that the white middle class vote (lots of independents) that went for him in 2016 aren't as happy with what they got as they expected.

Record turnout for the left, absolutely, but I think they were already there before RBG died. As for record turnout for the right, I think Trump's base is just as fired up as ever, but those independents who went for him in 2016, especially in the WI MI PA OH IA area ... I'm just skeptical.
Click to expand...

I agree here and I think it’s base more on a poor economy/pandemic-economy than anything else. I think even suburban independents are too smart fall for the “they’re coming to destroy your neighborhoods” dog whistle.

pgg said:
The outcome I think I'd be happiest with is if the parties split the White House and Senate, and Trump nominates and confirms another Justice (win or lose in Nov).
Click to expand...
Based on your political description of yourself we’re very similar and I’d take this outcome as well. I have a feeling the Senate will flip but I’m not so sure they’ll cause the pandemonium as described above. I know DC statehood could be a Democrat power play but a case can be made for DC statehood. I dont know ALL the politics behind it but I’m sure that’s why they haven’t made DC part of Maryland or VA as a compromise.
 
TLDR

Made it halfway through, but I didn't get to any personal attacks or rhetoric. You guys are being way too civil- Your age is showing. C'mon, keep up with the times
 
pgg said:
. I think liberal judges are far more likely to rule based on what they think the law should say, as opposed to what it does say. Others disagree.
Click to expand...

I think this is pretty easily disprovable just from a sheer statistical likelihood standpoint since pretty much every single case in the modern era - irrespective of what the case was pertaining to- has liberal judges handing down liberal votes and conservative judges going conservative, with really just a swing justice in between deciding a lot of these cases. Very, very few decisions really have had much to do with the letter of the law or the Constitution because there are so many specific challenges and situations which are not explicitly handled in the original text, and thus each justice’s personal jurisprudence supersedes.

As an example, please refer to the DACA ruling from earlier this year. It is an archetype for the statement you made about which side of the court is following the letter of the law. Roberts probably has no love for DACA, but that wasn’t what the case was about. It was pretty clear cut- trump and DHS could rescind DACA but because they’re stupid and didn’t follow proper procedure, their move had no standing. As Roberts said “the dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so..."

It could not be more clear cut. And yet the decision was 5-4.



Going forward Roberts will be that swing vote now. I fully expect Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will move right as they build a voting record.

6438261D-7458-4EB8-A318-26AD66E15DFD.jpeg
 
Last edited:
BLADEMDA said:
Cable News is reporting that the Dems "war room" tactics including pushing through D.C. for statehood next year. This will give the Dems 2 more seats in the Senate. The only one that can prevent this tactic is SCOTUS. A right leaning court may invalidate the statehood of D.C. But, if Schumer packs the court as well then that can't happen.

It appears like 51 senators are going to wreak total havoc on the nation by packing the courts, packing the senate and ending the filibuster rule. I'd say that would be a "game changer" far greater than the GOP trying to nominate a conservative justice.
Click to expand...
All the Democrats scorched earth talk is likely to push senators like Murkowski and Collins back to the right.

Trump has every right to nominate a justice late in his term, just like Obama did. What happens next is anyone's guess. There's to many pieces in play to make any sort of accurate prediction of the end result.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Cable News is reporting that the Dems "war room" tactics including pushing through D.C. for statehood next year. This will give the Dems 2 more seats in the Senate. The only one that can prevent this tactic is SCOTUS. A right leaning court may invalidate the statehood of D.C. But, if Schumer packs the court as well then that can't happen.

It appears like 51 senators are going to wreak total havoc on the nation by packing the courts, packing the senate and ending the filibuster rule. I'd say that would be a "game changer" far greater than the GOP trying to nominate a conservative justice.
Click to expand...

I guess “it is what it is.” You saw the graph from earlier about which party kept escalating new peaks of filibuster usage. You’re familiar with the Mitch quote about how the GOP’s most important priority was making Obama a one-term President. If you keep indiscriminately throwing grenades then it shouldn’t be too surprising when some start getting thrown back.
 
jwk said:
All the Democrats scorched earth talk is likely to push senators like Murkowski and Collins back to the right.

Trump has every right to nominate a justice late in his term, just like Obama did. What happens next is anyone's guess. There's to many pieces in play to make any sort of accurate prediction of the end result.
Click to expand...

Well once we accept this as the new standard expanded the scotus and creating new states to inflate the senate are also ok per the letter of the law, not scorched earth.
 
vector2 said:
I guess “it is what it is.” You saw the graph from earlier about which party kept escalating new peaks of filibuster usage. You’re familiar with the Mitch quote about how the GOP’s most important priority was making Obama a one-term President. If you keep indiscriminately throwing grenades then it shouldn’t be too surprising when some start getting thrown back.
Click to expand...


The Senate was always the chamber for the adults in Congress. I am still hopeful Mitch and Schumer make a deal. D.C. was a part of Maryland which was removed to make our nation's capital. There is constitutional justification for refusing D.C. statehood and I expect a conservative SCOTUS to rule as such.

The filibuster is likely going to be removed by Schumer so Biden can pass his agenda through Congress. 51 votes means just 2 moderate Democrats need to join with the GOP to prevent any far left ideas from becoming law but I suspect that tax increases and the tinkering with the ACA to garner all 51 votes.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Cable News is reporting that the Dems "war room" tactics including pushing through D.C. for statehood next year. This will give the Dems 2 more seats in the Senate. The only one that can prevent this tactic is SCOTUS. A right leaning court may invalidate the statehood of D.C. But, if Schumer packs the court as well then that can't happen.

It appears like 51 senators are going to wreak total havoc on the nation by packing the courts, packing the senate and ending the filibuster rule. I'd say that would be a "game changer" far greater than the GOP trying to nominate a conservative justice.
Click to expand...
I don't see Biden letting this happen. Biden’s message is unity. It’s plain as day. It’s crazy how much the media is spinning people up. Violence? Most Americans don’t know what violence is. People aren’t about that action. There’s no existential threat to them other than politics. People aren’t going to resort to violence when their bellies are full and their family is safe. I’ll worry when McDonalds closes and the trash isn’t picked up.
 
Twiggidy said:
Some have even said North and South California which was actually floated I believe
Click to expand...

I could get behind this. I think the prior proposal was actually a 3 way split. I don’t care, just so long as you guys get stuck with LA.

In fact, maybe LA and the Bay are one state, and the rest of CA is another.
 
SaltyDog said:
I could get behind this. I think the prior proposal was actually a 3 way split. I don’t care, just so long as you guys get stuck with LA.

In fact, maybe LA and the Bay are one state, and the rest of CA is another.
Click to expand...
That's basically what it is right now lol
 
SaltyDog said:
I could get behind this. I think the prior proposal was actually a 3 way split. I don’t care, just so long as you guys get stuck with LA.

In fact, maybe LA and the Bay are one state, and the rest of CA is another.
Click to expand...

They could split it north, south, and Central Valley which is deeply red Devin Nunes country.
 
SaltyDog said:
I could get behind this. I think the prior proposal was actually a 3 way split. I don’t care, just so long as you guys get stuck with LA.

In fact, maybe LA and the Bay are one state, and the rest of CA is another.
Click to expand...

"Flush twice, LA needs the water."

- sign in a restroom at a resort in the Sierras
 
nimbus said:
They could split it north, south, and Central Valley which is deeply red Devin Nunes country.
Click to expand...
Just let them secede altogether.
 
Democrats are now threatening:

1) To “pack the Court” if they don’t like the makeup of it

2) Bring in Puerto Rico and DC if they don’t like the makeup of the Court or for preserving future potential for Senate control

3) To impeach the President AGAIN (for a yet-to-be disclosed “offense”, if they don’t like what the President does/to retain control of the Court

4) To completely eliminate the filibuster, if they can’t get what they want

Does this sound like “shared power” or “compromise”??
 
DirtDocMD said:
Democrats are now threatening:

1) To “pack the Court” if they don’t like the makeup of it

2) Bring in Puerto Rico and DC if they don’t like the makeup of the Court or for preserving future potential for Senate control

3) To impeach the President AGAIN (for a yet-to-be disclosed “offense”, if they don’t like what the President does/to retain control of the Court

4) To completely eliminate the filibuster, if they can’t get what they want

Does this sound like “shared power” or “compromise”??
Click to expand...

It sounds like an eye for an eye.
 
dr doze said:
It sounds like an eye for an eye.
Click to expand...

Who poked first??

Did the GOP eliminate the 60 vote rule for judicial appts??? Nope, the Dems did that, and the GOP simply used it when THEY gained the majority. (OK, McConnel was doing all he could to block Obama’s appts.)

Is a GOP President the only one to nominate a Justice the same year as a Presidential election? Nope, Obama did the same (Garland). It’s just that THIS time, the GOP happens to have control of the Presidency AND the Senate.

Take a look at some old footage of how the Dems treated Bork. Look at how they treated Thomas. Look at how they treated Kavanaugh. They were attempts at slash and burn personal destruction. It was not “polite” or “respectful”...
 
DirtDocMD said:
Democrats are now threatening:

1) To “pack the Court” if they don’t like the makeup of it

2) Bring in Puerto Rico and DC if they don’t like the makeup of the Court or for preserving future potential for Senate control

3) To impeach the President AGAIN (for a yet-to-be disclosed “offense”, if they don’t like what the President does/to retain control of the Court

4) To completely eliminate the filibuster, if they can’t get what they want

Does this sound like “shared power” or “compromise”??
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like Republicans need to nominate presidents who can stay elected and not lose the Senate.

With regard to PR and DC, I am 100% sure you’d want statehood (and the senators that come with it) if you could round up a couple more Red places.
 
DirtDocMD said:
Take a look at some old footage of how the Dems treated Bork. Look at how they treated Thomas.
Click to expand...

Bork was an extreme extremist if such a thing exists. Clarence Thomas was/is a joke. Anita Hill was much more believable than him.
 
Southpaw said:
How the Dems treated Kavanaugh? Christine Blasey Ford was invited to a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe Lindsey Graham chairs that committee.
Click to expand...

So what would you be saying if he DIDN’T let her testify?? That it was a GOP cover up??
 
Southpaw said:
Sounds to me like Republicans need to nominate presidents who can stay elected and not lose the Senate.

With regard to PR and DC, I am 100% sure you’d want statehood (and the senators that come with it) if you could round up a couple more Red places.
Click to expand...


Puerto Rico has validity as a state. If the people of PR want statehood let them in. DC was never supposed to be a state. It was part of Maryland. I’m against DC for statehood based on the very purpose for creating a capital city.
 
DirtDocMD said:
Who poked first??

Did the GOP eliminate the 60 vote rule for judicial appts??? Nope, the Dems did that, and the GOP simply used it when THEY gained the majority. (OK, McConnel was doing all he could to block Obama’s appts.)

Is a GOP President the only one to nominate a Justice the same year as a Presidential election? Nope, Obama did the same (Garland). It’s just that THIS time, the GOP happens to have control of the Presidency AND the Senate.

Take a look at some old footage of how the Dems treated Bork. Look at how they treated Thomas. Look at how they treated Kavanaugh. They were attempts at slash and burn personal destruction. It was not “polite” or “respectful”...
Click to expand...
The GOP refused to consider even bipartisan issues for years because of the McConnell obstruction strategy, which has been well documented by GOP strategists. This disrupted business as usual by grinding government to a complete halt and resulted in the most unproductive federal goverent in a genration. Even federal judges, which normally were not a gridlock issue, were refused appointments entirely, a substantial deviation from historical precedent. Historic obstructionist tactics were met with historic destruction of the filibuster, which was countered with continued obstruction and what is by far the most egregious theft of a SCOTUS seat in the entirety of US history as well as packing the previously obstructed federal judiciary positions with comservatives and likely taking this SCOTUS spot. The next move will likely be more brash, and met with a counter that is even mlre extreme. This is a fairly predictable spiral in the death of a two party system, it can't be stopped and absolutely will destroy the country. That's just the inertia of things.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Puerto Rico has validity as a state. If the people of PR want statehood let them in. DC was never supposed to be a state. It was part of Maryland. I’m against DC for statehood based on the very purpose for creating a capital city.
Click to expand...
I'm also not thrilled at people being disenfranchised by their location desoite being US citizens. We can cerainly find a way to make it work, the question is do we reincorporate into Maryland with regard to voter registration but have the city's infrastructure function autonomously or do we make DC a state. I think the former is more reasonable.
 



Lotta people saying if dems were in power they'd pull a Merrick Garland. I highly doubt it when you have fools like Feinstein in power who still believe in decorum. And btw, shes hilariously wrong wrt to the assertion that the filibuster was more prevalent when she first joined the senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

neuroride
Trying to reason increase in stipend to hospital...
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
addoncase
A
BLADEMDA
Scotus 2023
2 3 4 5
Replies
244
Views
11K
pgg
pgg
C
POETIC JUSTICE
2
Replies
71
Views
3K
GravelRider
GravelRider
abolt18
Where Will Craig Kent Go Next?
Replies
6
Views
1K
abolt18
abolt18
nimbus
Other SCOTUS news
Replies
1
Views
706
deleted875186
D
Top