Since the gop stole a Supreme Court dear and have changed the rules to make it easier for them to pack lower courts I hope when the dems take over they not only restructure the Supreme Court but I hope the expand and pack the lower courts to blunt every judge the gop has confirmed
Different. Better. Civilized.
With voter I’Ds coming I see the Democrats getting crazier.
I can’t help but wonder, what if this was Ted Cruz…
When I read an article about this earlier, I asked, what can the Dems do?
What power do they have over the judiciary?
I am not going to get into a back and forth on this, just want to opine and let it ride.
In 1828, President John Quincy Adams recess appointed, then nominated a certain William Creighton Jr. to be United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Ohio (since subdivided into Northern and Southern districts). The Senate, then under Jacksonian control refused to consider the nomination and went so far to pass a resolution stating that “it is not expedient to fill this vacancy at this session of Congress.” They held the seat for Andrew Jackson.
The United States refused to even consider THREE different nominees under President Fillmore to fill a Supreme Court seat, holding that seat open for President Franklin Pierce.
The United States Senate has, for purely partisan reasons, refused to even consider many nominees since that time.
The Senate is not obligated to vote on any nominee, LONG STANDING precedent indicates they may refuse for even the pettiest of reasons.
So Democrats, stop whining about this and Republicans, do not whine if Democrats do it to you down the row.
And partisans, if you want judges of your choice, you need to win the Presidency and win and hold the Senate. If you cannot do so, just shut the **** up when you don’t get your way. If you want to BE blind partisans, you need to accept that your opposition are going to be blind partisans also.
Now with THAT out of the way.
Any talk of restructuring or expanding the Supreme Court is irresponsible and if they are successful, I guarantee that they will live to regret the day they did so, because once you break the taboo, both sides will respond back and forth in kind.
Just as a practical matter, the Supreme Court with 9 Justices is at the maximum size it can effectively function as an en banc panel. I frankly would like to see it REDUCED in size to 7 Justices, which I believe would be a more collegiate and efficient size.
I oppose and condemn the Senator’s position as reckless.
If he wants Justices of his liking, his party needs to win the Presidency AND the Senate (and subsequently retain the Senate). If his party cannot do so, he simply has to live with the partisan consequences.
BTW, I, Safiel, would have moved forward with a vote on Merrick Garland and would have voted yes. While not my ideal choice, he was an acceptable candidate. However, I am not a blind partisan like so many on both sides. 
But what happened with him is the long standing American Way, a practice that dates back to the early Jacksonian’s.
I won’t whine about, any more than I will whine about the MANY Circuit Judge candidates blocked by filibusters during the George W. Bush presidency.
**** happens, and **** happens both ways.
Live with it.
4 Likes
So they only want to take that a step farther. Cool. What’s the quota for liberals on the court?
1 Like
Thus sayeth the Safiel, thus sayeth us all.
I just had blood work done. The check-in process required me to scan my drivers license. And it made me wonder what all those ID-challenged voters out there would do in that case.
The fear of voter ID is irrational.
1 Like
So if we don’t get our guy in the White House, we’re going to restructure the court to suit our desire to see it make liberal decisions all the time.
What rules did Republicans change regarding the approval of lower courts? Democrats (Harry Reid) had already ended the filibuster for lower court seats. Republicans expanded this to the Supreme Court.
1 Like
They must have peaked in the Clown ChooChoo and think they’re going to lose.
Be interesting to see Roberts’ response.
apples to oranges.
If it was a poster who had found only their posts from the own board and were posting them . . . .
That wasn’t the case.
Yeah, it was republicans that started the en masse blocking of nominees… you must have forgotten 2006-7.
I never claimed that they were the ones that started it.
The thing is… it isn’t going to ever end.
It will only get worse.
Dems can end it when it’s their turn.
Who said they wouldn’t even consider any Bush nominees except in extraordinary circumstances… was that McConnell?
You are trying to pick a fight where there is none to be had.
I must have missed the dem outrage over blocking all of Bush’s picks.
Hell… go all the way back to Bork if you want.
The politics of grievance will end up making the issue worse and worse.
But… it is what this country seems to want.
