Should the US Supreme Court be Enlarged?

[_Icarus]

TUCSON, Ariz. — Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh. In all, Ducey has appointed five of the seven justices on the state court, taking a personal interest in vetting candidates with questions designed to ferret out a fidelity to textualism and an inclination to uphold, rather than overturn or tinker with, the law. His appointments, including the addition of the two new justices, have eliminated the court’s progressive caucus and swung it from a more moderate conservative tilt to one that emphasizes libertarianism, populism, and law and order, in line with Ducey’s own views. And the ages of its younger members mean the court likely will stay that way for years. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ing-428601

[_Themis]

The Constitution allows the President to nominate a judge for a vacancy in Supreme Court, no matter when said vacancy occurs. Trump and the Senate did not seek to create more vacancies just to "pack" the court. They allowed for the status quo of 9 justices to prevail for the current term. "Packing" the court is what the Democrats seek to do as a continuation of their 2016 tantrum. While provided for by the Constitution, the Democrats seek to change the status quo of 9 justices to some other number of justices which would benefit them directly - thus creating vacancies of whatever number they desire (if they hold power to do so).
Even you can see the difference for how the term "pack" is being used here. And while both party's strategy are completely legal by the laws of the land, it is only the Democrats that seek to "pack" in the spirit of being butt-hurt for 4 years.

Like I said, don't cry when the democrats play by the same rules republicans are. You want to play apologetic with republicans not breaking the law in how they are stacking the court, but then complain about the democrats suggesting they may also not break the law and stack the court in their favor. Reality is republicans would increase the size of the court to get an advantage, They didn't do it in 2016 because they already had the advantage with 4 years possibility of adding to that advantage. They argued it was wrong to nominate during an election year, yet did so this year with weeks to go before the election. You are a hypocrite.

[_ajax18]

Right now they're just redefining the term, "court packing," instead of simply answering whether or not they intend to do so.

Kamala tried to claim not appointing enough black judges is court packing in the debate.

[_subgenius]

[_Themis]

Right now they're just redefining the term, "court packing," instead of simply answering whether or not they intend to do so.

I don't recall the republicans saying they would nominate in an election year back in 2016 if they had a republican president. LOL Your hypocrisy is showing again.

[_Gunnar]

Let's just hope that Amy Coney Barrett is not the thoughtless, servile sycophant that Trump is counting on her being. I still find it hard to believe that any self respecting, well informed woman, conservative or not, with her educational background and intelligence can fail to see how severely flawed and immoral a human being Trump is. I would not be greatly surprised to find out that even she voted against Trump, despite accepting his nomination of her to Supreme Court.

She has repeatedly claimed during her approval hearing that she harbors no hostility against Obamacare. I hope that means that she is not inclined to strike it down, and agrees, as even many other conservatives do, that the current lawsuit against it before the court is inherently very weak and nonsensical, not to mention purely partisan and political, especially with the mandate provision removed (but even were it still in effect).

[_Some Schmo]

I hope the Democrats sweep and have full control, and then just lay on the judges. Pack away! Let's make the Trumptards cry. Then, at least, they'll have a reason to complain for once in their pathetic fu-cking lives.

[_subgenius]

The Constitution allows the President to nominate a judge for a vacancy in Supreme Court, no matter when said vacancy occurs. Trump and the Senate did not seek to create more vacancies just to "pack" the court. They allowed for the status quo of 9 justices to prevail for the current term. "Packing" the court is what the Democrats seek to do as a continuation of their 2016 tantrum. While provided for by the Constitution, the Democrats seek to change the status quo of 9 justices to some other number of justices which would benefit them directly - thus creating vacancies of whatever number they desire (if they hold power to do so).
Even you can see the difference for how the term "pack" is being used here. And while both party's strategy are completely legal by the laws of the land, it is only the Democrats that seek to "pack" in the spirit of being butt-hurt for 4 years.

Like I said, don't cry when the democrats play by the same rules republicans are. You want to play apologetic with republicans not breaking the law in how they are stacking the court, but then complain about the democrats suggesting they may also not break the law and stack the court in their favor. Reality is republicans would increase the size of the court to get an advantage, They didn't do it in 2016 because they already had the advantage with 4 years possibility of adding to that advantage. They argued it was wrong to nominate during an election year, yet did so this year with weeks to go before the election. You are a hypocrite.

No one is crying about playing by the same rules...I just do not understand why your team does not want to admit they are playing by the rules or why they are condemning the other team for playing by rules. You seem to have an odd idea about how that cliché' works.

[_Themis]

No one is crying about playing by the same rules...I just do not understand why your team does not want to admit they are playing by the rules or why they are condemning the other team for playing by rules. You seem to have an odd idea about how that cliché' works.

They are not my team, but they are complaining about republicans not following their own rules, so don't complain if Democrats follow suit.

[_ajax18]

Let's just hope that Amy Coney Barrett is not the thoughtless, servile sycophant that Trump is counting on her being.

That's the difference between the right and the left on the Supreme Court. Conservative justices are constitutionalists that do not legislate from the bench, but rather leave it to the legislature. Roberts and Gorsuch have gone against the right in several of their rulings. Liberal justices do whatever the left wants and rarely deviate from the party line.