Should a president biden expand the supreme court

[WuWei]

Yes. Please.

[moonshine]

@Snowfinch

I don’t support expanding the court. Too bad the structure wasn’t spelled out stronger in the constitution.

In any event, the remedy for an out-of-proportion action like expanding the court is the ballot box not a revolution.

The mistake being made in this thread is assuming that red/blue is binary and everyone is critically hyper-partisan. Society punishes partisan indulgences at the ballot box. It happened with the ACA, may happen with the current administration and would happen with SC/statehood expansion.

That said, the well-tuned proportional tit for tat does not arouse the public’s ire and the spiral down the drain of unstable government continues.

its to late.
The GOP declared war.
its time for the dems to scorch the earth to win

[Oldandtired]

Now here we go again making up another fairy tale about what really happened.
Glad you found the a party that match’s what you really believe in. The GOP is not for everyone that’s why there is another party full of hatred and dirty politics for people who like that kind of thing.
Believe me the GOP will be just fine without you.

[DougBH]

@moonshine

its to late.
The GOP declared war.
its time for the dems to scorch the earth to win

An attitude for Republicans to remember if Biden is elected and Republicans retain the Senate. How many judicial appointments does the Constitution require the Senate to vote to confirm?

[highroller]

@DougBH

An attitude for Republicans to remember if Biden is elected and Republicans retain the Senate. How many judicial appointments does the Constitution require the Senate to vote to confirm?

We are already used to this attitude from GOP. So it would be nothing new. They were on record saying that they would leave the seats open for 4 years if Clinton won. So if Biden wins and the GOP holds the Senate. I expect them to approve no one and pass nothing.

[Samson_Corwell]

@tzu

It’s not a res publica once it’s been sold off and privatized.

What did he say? His post is no longer there.

[LeroyBrown]

I am fine with one per regional court which would put us to 11… 12…? Too lazy to look it up. The court should not be a branch of government swayed by political agendas. It is to serve as a brake should one branch start with power-grabbing shenanigans.

[Munimula1]

@LeroyBrown

I am fine with one per regional court which would put us to 11… 12…? Too lazy to look it up. The court should not be a branch of government swayed by political agendas. It is to serve as a brake should one branch start with power-grabbing shenanigans.

13 regions

[LeroyBrown]

Thank you!

[Safiel]

Again, I will say that the optimum size of the Supreme Court would be seven Justices, a number that is used in most States. It is the most efficient and collegial size.

[DougBH]

@LeroyBrown

I am fine with one per regional court which would put us to 11… 12…? Too lazy to look it up. The court should not be a branch of government swayed by political agendas. It is to serve as a brake should one branch start with power-grabbing shenanigans.

Great. Why wait? Lets do it before January.

No? Of course not. Its a political ploy to pack the court, not to reach some magical number to tie to the number of regions…for…reasons.

[WuWei]

@Safiel

collegial size

Hardly beneficial to We…the People.

[highroller]

@Safiel

Again, I will say that the optimum size of the Supreme Court would be seven Justices, a number that is used in most States. It is the most efficient and collegial size.

It’s a shame that I have heard this explanation from conservatives for a long time, but they finally could have had it and they kept the number the same. AND they wouldn’t have been hypocrites about the appointing a justice in an election year.

AND they would still have the majority.

[biggestal99]

@Safiel

Again, I will say that the optimum size of the Supreme Court would be seven Justices, a number that is used in most States. It is the most efficient and collegial size.

Well in American history we have 6,7,8 (temp left vacant for a year) 9 and 10.

I actually like 10 myself.

Allan

[WuWei]

No concept of odd and even numbers when requiring a majority. Astounding.

[biggestal99]

@WuWei

No concept of odd and even numbers when requiring a majority. Astounding.

Me and honest Abe.

Do you not know SCOTUS number was adjusted to 10 during the civil war?

I am one up on you today.

Allan

[biggestal99]

@biggestal99

Me and honest Abe.

Do you not know SCOTUS number was adjusted to 10 during the civil war?

I am one up on you today.

Allan

Of course the radical republicans were in charge then.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall hereafter consist of a chief justice and nine associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum; and for this purpose there shall be appointed one additional associate justice of said court, with the like powers, and to take the same oaths, perform the same duties, and be entitled to the same salary, as the other associate justices.

— Tenth Circuit Act of 1863”

Allan

[zonulet]

After Trump wins election, he should take the Dems advice and expand the court. Then they will be against it.

[highroller]

@zonulet

After Trump wins election, he should take the Dems advice and expand the court. Then they will be against it.

Brilliant troll. Trump won’t be able to expand the court without the house.

[zonulet]

@highroller

Brilliant troll. Trump won’t be able to expand the court without the house.

Never say never