• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Shrink the Court - The Perfect Compromise?

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
17,109
6,532
1,555
Remind me again why the court size needs to be changed. Your answer cannot be, "so that liberals can radically change America against the wishes of a majority of Americans." Your answer also cannot be, "So that the Dems can stay in power forever if they ever have the White House and Congress at the same point in time"

It is interesting that you used the word compromise in your topic, since that's what you're trying to do to the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
I mean let's face it: If the situation was reversed, Republicans would absolutely be expanding the bench.

That's why I think the thing to do is to head this off at the pass with a reform plan that just makes each appointment less consequential so we don't have to play stupid games.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
7,875
17,032
630
Isn't it funny that every time Democrats lose they decide the rules of the game aren't fair? They lost in 2016 and all of a sudden, the electoral college was an unfair, outdated dinosaur, despite all the Democrats using the Electoral College tally to predict the winner on election night. Now that they're on the cusp of Trump getting a third justice in, they want to pack the court or shrink the court.

You guys are as transparent as scotch tape.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
17,109
6,532
1,555
I mean let's face it: If the situation was reversed, Republicans would absolutely be expanding the bench.

That's why I think the thing to do is to head this off at the pass with a reform plan that just makes each appointment less consequential so we don't have to play stupid games.
Well no, they probably wouldn't. They've been in the situation before and haven't done it. Quite a few democrats are against it too.

Republicans for the most part want the court to do exactly what it was created to do, which it does just fine regardless of the previous political affiliations of its members. Dems on the other hand want to use the court as another legislature. That's why they need more justices. They're not smart enough to pass legislation in congress so they want a supreme court where they can simply mandate it.

Lastly, time to stop pretending your party is better than the other party if the only thing you need to compromise your morals is "the other team would do it" particularly when the other team wouldn't do it, lol.
 
Last edited:

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
Well no, they probably wouldn't. They've been in the situation before and haven't done it. Quite a few democrats are against it too.
Mcconnell runs his shit like a mafia. There's no principle to any of it, it's winning at any cost.

I just think the crisis is inevitable. Term limits and a rotating bench will make appointments commonplace and they won't be such a life and death struggle. That's non-partisan and better for everyone in the end.
 

Goro Majima

Formerly 'MajimaEverywhere'
Sep 2, 2007
30,565
2,636
1,465
Mcconnell runs his shit like a mafia. There's no principle to any of it, it's winning at any cost.

I just think the crisis is inevitable. Term limits and a rotating bench will make appointments commonplace and they won't be such a life and death struggle. That's non-partisan and better for everyone in the end.
Why did he resist Trump's demands to nuke the filibuster then when the Republicans had the trifecta?

Why didn't Republicans expand the Supreme Court when they had the means to do so?

Why didn't Republicans chop fucking North Dakota into 17 different states to pack the Senate?

Meanwhile I've seen all of the above promoted by progressive thinkers in the past four years.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
9,115
14,692
560
I don't see the current trends toward partisanship as a product of our politics, but how we get our information and how our brains validate information. It's in some ways a technology problem. I do hope we figure it out, but I think it might be a while.
Ah yes the new liberal talking point.

"If it wasn't for that pesky internet, people would think the way we tell them to and vote accordingly."
“We need things to be fair!” says person who kept changing the rules and lost anyway.

Democrats killed the filibuster which allowed for this situation that then fucked them over. RBG chose identity politics over strategic procedural retirement.

No one cheated you, you played the game badly and you lost as a result of your own actions. Reflect on your dumb fuckery rather then asking the same people you’ve been calling Nazis for ten years to “do you a solid.”
Perfect
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
9,115
14,692
560
Mcconnell runs his shit like a mafia. There's no principle to any of it, it's winning at any cost.

I just think the crisis is inevitable. Term limits and a rotating bench will make appointments commonplace and they won't be such a life and death struggle. That's non-partisan and better for everyone in the end.
When was the last time the Republican party ran on expanding the supreme court to 15 seats?
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
Ah yes the new liberal talking point.

"If it wasn't for that pesky internet, people would think the way we tell them to and vote accordingly."
Polarization is not the same thing is a lack of conformity. There was always two sides, but there used to be a gray space in between that is just absent now.

When was the last time the Republican party ran on expanding the supreme court to 15 seats?
When was the last time they had a 3-6 minority?
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,589
3,242
835


behavior that is unprecendented and objectively dishonorable
Like what?

Hold that L and move on with your life.

The Constitution should probably be amended to permanently set the number of justices at 9. But given the high bar for approving a Constitutional amendment that would be highly unlikely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

Petey-o

Member
Nov 17, 2019
304
358
290
If you want no one to ever take the court seriously again, sure.
I feel like the way it's been politicized already means it's a joke.

Republicans decided they didn't want a new SC justice during a election year until it suited them, so why shouldn't Democrats just do as they see fit as well if it's within the rights of the constitution? Sure, it'll probably just mean Republicans will do the same once they regain power, but that seems preferable for Dems than having a heavily conservative court.

It's a mess of a system either way.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
9,115
14,692
560
Polarization is not the same thing is a lack of conformity. There was always two sides, but there used to be a gray space in between that is just absent now.
Blaming polarization on the internet is just an excuse to ignore the blatantly partisan behavior of your party since the start of Trump's term.

No website on the planet forced the democratic party to call the president and his supporters traitors to America for 4 years straight
When was the last time they had a 3-6 minority?
I'll take your deflection as " no, O oagboghi2 , they've never ran on on that before. Thanks for pointing that out."
 

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
421
554
480
Should ACB be confirmed and the Democrats gain the Presidency and control of the Senate, strong consideration should be given to shrinking the SC to 7 justices.

ACB and Kavanaugh get booted. This penalizes behavior that is unprecendented and objectively dishonorable. Because it's not a naked attempt to forcibly hand control of the SC to liberals and restores the balance to a much more reasonable 4-3, there may even be bipartisan support for this. Though Gorsuch stays and Dems/libs don't get the majority, we have proof that this isn't the end of the world.


In concert, undoing Reid 2013 and McConnell 2017 and restoring the filibuster for federal and SC appointments is likely the right move to once again encourage bipartisan picks. (We'll still have to look out for the brand of blatant and baseless obstruction Obama suffered through.)

Shrinking the court isn't unprecedented, and has been considered as recently as during the last administration.

The only thing dishonorable about Kavanaugh’s confirmation was the horrible way it was handled by the democrats on the judiciary committee. The claims against him were completely unsubstatiated. They were worse than unsubstatiated because every single piece of evidence that actually did come out cast further doubt on the original claims.

As for ACB , the biggest problems that democrats have with her are completely unrelated to her role as a judge. Her political views on abortion, global warming, and the ACA are irrelevant to her ability to be a judge. In fact, when the democrats completely violated the so called Ginsburg rule that was put into place by then senator Biden specifically stating that political views are irrelevant to the judicial confirmation process. In the end, when democrats actually discussed relevant facts, they tended to be impressed by her and the ranking Democrat in the committee actually congratulated Graham onhow well he ran the confirmation.

People decrying these two justices and their confirmations really need to step back and take another, unbiased look at them.
ACB’s confirmation is set to take about as long as Ginsburgs as well as plenty of others so it’s hard to say it’s rushed.
More than 25 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in the year of an election, so it’s hard to say it’s illegitimate in that since.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,047
2,551
620
Blaming polarization on the internet is just an excuse to ignore the blatantly partisan behavior of your party since the start of Trump's term.
The polarization trend in American politics did not begin in the Trump era, it's been steadily happening since the Clinton era, around the time of onset of the information age.
 
Last edited:

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
1,421
2,984
745
I feel like the way it's been politicized already means it's a joke.

Republicans decided they didn't want a new SC justice during a election year until it suited them, so why shouldn't Democrats just do as they see fit as well if it's within the rights of the constitution? Sure, it'll probably just mean Republicans will do the same once they regain power, but that seems preferable for Dems than having a heavily conservative court.

It's a mess of a system either way.
The standard was started by Democrats (Biden) in the 90’s. Obama put forward a candidate, but did not control the Senate. He put forward someone who was not going to be confirmed. If Dems wanted the seat filled they should have nominated someone more conservative.

The reality is, is that RBG should have stepped down during Obama. I believe she was actually pushed to do this, but didn’t. Dems then lost the Senate in 2014, lost everything in 2016, and lost even more of the Senate in 2018. This whole thing is a failure on the part of Dems both strategically and electorally. Democrats have been the one to politicize the court. Democrats have been the ones threatening a 150 year old precedent. Democrats are the ones that removed the judicial filibuster. This is on Democrats, and no one else.

And I think you misunderstand, if Dems touch this court like they’ve threatened, the court will be ignored. Republicans are not going to wait to stack it to their side, they will ignore it. You will be better off abolishing that branch of government, because nothing it says will ever matter again. Rule on the 2nd? Ignored. Try and give illegals voting rights? Ignored. Try and limit free speech? Ignored.

Stacking courts is some third world despot shit, and there are far too many patriots in this country to play that retarded game.