Fresh Start Political Thread

The number of justices has changed several times throughout history but we've somehow survived.

Previous changes weren't normally done for political or policy reasons, this proposal specifically would be for political reasons. If you expand the court for an administrative reason (need to to handle a larger workload) that is one thing, if you expand the court in order to get your policies enacted that is a different animal entirely. These current proposals are for the later and would destroy the court.

The court is already destroyed in our minds. Even if Roberts swings liberal on occasion conservatives have enough votes to enact any policy they desire. Is that a fair representation to the people of America?

We're already looking at a kangaroo court whether you agree or disagree - packing it would only make it official.

Was it a fair representation when there were more liberal judges than conservatives? Or did it just get destroyed in the past few years when Cavanaugh and Barrett got onto the bench?

As I previously stated, I disagree with McConnell and the republican party on how they handled the Garland nomination. That should have went thru the normal process and there was way more than enough time to get it done.

But they absolutely had the right to get Barrett onto the court. And to pretend like democrats wouldn't have done the exact same thing if they could is disingenuous at best.

“When we had the majority on the court it was fair, now it’s not fair because we don’t”

Let’s change laws because we are authoritarian fascists

I'm not talking about the majority, I'm talking about 4 dems, 4 republicans, and 1 moderate - which in this case would be John Roberts. That was as fair as it gets. The highest court in this country is worthless if it's not fair.

Now it's 6-3 - unless you are saying there is twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals there is 0% chance any liberal policy that isn't established by precedent (and even that is not a sure thing anymore) will be entertained.

Going further in this thread out of respect, refer to McConnell as the Apex Predator because he sits on top, alone, of the food chain. There is none higher

Previous changes weren't normally done for political or policy reasons, this proposal specifically would be for political reasons. If you expand the court for an administrative reason (need to to handle a larger workload) that is one thing, if you expand the court in order to get your policies enacted that is a different animal entirely. These current proposals are for the later and would destroy the court.

ACB's nomination was purely political. Garland's denial was purely political. Not issuing an injunction on an obviously political law that will eventually get shot down was purely political.

When we used to play nice and fair - everything was fine. Now we don't. Your side has no respect for the institution anymore and then you ask us to play nice? You reap what you sow.

The court is already destroyed in our minds. Even if Roberts swings liberal on occasion conservatives have enough votes to enact any policy they desire. Is that a fair representation to the people of America?

We're already looking at a kangaroo court whether you agree or disagree - packing it would only make it official.


Liberals controlled the Court from the 50s thru 70s - didn't see Conservatives demanding the destruction of the court.

“When we had the majority on the court it was fair, now it’s not fair because we don’t”

......

Chico is spot on with this comment

All this hot air for something very unlikely to happen.

Liberals controlled the Court from the 50s thru 70s - didn't see Conservatives demanding the destruction of the court.

Remind me again what important decisions were handed down during that time that showed a clear and obvious contempt for established law and/or precedent?