Is it now time to expand the Supreme Court?

According to CNN, back in the first weeks of December Special counsel Jack Smith made an extraordinary request that the Supreme Court take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.

Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the election subversion trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

CNN

This week the Supreme Court has decided to take up Jack Smith's extraordinary request in a clear attempt to help Donald Trump delay his January 6th Insurrection criminal case.

The courts were never going to save America from Donald Trump

The Supreme Court has ordered the most important of former President Donald Trump’s four criminal trials to be put on hold indefinitely. It’s an extraordinary victory for Trump and a devastating blow to special counsel Jack Smith. The Court’s decision also raises serious doubts about whether these justices will allow a trial to take place before the November election.

Many Court observers, including myself, were shocked by Wednesday’s order because it appeared to rest on the flimsiest of pretexts. The ostensible reason why the Court ordered Trump’s trial paused is so the justices could spend the next few months considering Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” he engaged in while he was still president.

The decision to halt Trump’s trial, however, fits within a different judicial tradition, which is no less robust and no less prominent in the Supreme Court’s history. The judiciary is a weak institution, staffed by political officials who are often reluctant to stand against popular authoritarian policies or movements. Indeed, the justices themselves often belong to those movements.

A written Constitution and the courts that are supposed to enforce it are weak guarantors of a liberal democratic society. The Supreme Court of the United States does not always align itself with authoritarian policies and movements, but it does so often enough that it cannot be counted on as an ally in a conflict between constitutional democracy and something more sinister.

And the Court is particularly ineffective in standing up against figures like Trump, who enjoy broad (if not necessarily majoritarian) political support.

VOX

The Supreme Court, which has a history of aligning itself with authoritarian policies and movements, is now helping Donald Trump avoid justice over his involvement in the January 6th Insurrection. How can the American people stand for allowing this week institution help decide the outcome of the most important elections of our life time? Especially given the fact that the majority on the court owes it's existence to the very person they are sitting in judgment over.

Perhaps it is time to dust off and reinvigorate last years push to expand the Supreme Court. With more justices on the court, selected by the current president and confirmed by the Senate, balance can be reestablish and we can avoid the former president from wielding influence over their decision making.

From Last May

Progressive lawmakers are reigniting a push to expand the Supreme Court, pointing to recent reports on alleged ethics concerns for multiple justices.

Dubbed the Judiciary Act of 2023, the measure would expand the high court by adding four seats to create a 13-justice bench. First introduced in 2021, the measure has added sponsors since it was initially conceived. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), one of the original co-sponsors, said the initial House bill had only two co-sponsors when it was first introduced. Now, the measure is being reintroduced with 56.

Poltico

It's probably to late for such an expansion of the court to help with the current cases against Donald Trump. But there will be more judicial crises as we move forward in this country. The political strife being caused by large minorities of this country is not going away with one election cycle and will likely intensify.

a reply to: Dandandat3

yea whats new? The usual criminals screaming about threats to Democracy cannot stand to see the process actually go forward, and are now screaming that we need to change everything because their criminal abuse of power is not going as they were expecting?

I love that quote about the Constitution and the Judiciary being too weak to guarantee Democracy? Ok, lets tear it up and just start making up our own rules so we can just make sure there is zero challenge to our abuses of power and clamp down on dissent forever!

Why stop at an extra four?? Lets add another four after the next POTUS, and then sixteen more after that. Lets just make the supreme court like the house of congress, and every state and county has a judge in the halls of the Supreme court.

These statements from the usual globalist mouth pieces are just more of the same, desperate gnashing of the teeth in the face of an inevitable demise of their corrupt power structure.

a reply to: Dandandat3

No.

/End thread.

I think there is an argument to be made for expanding the Supreme Court but not for balancing it.

Currently, SCOTUS only works for about half the year and depending on their case load rulings can take months or even up to a year to be issued.

I think SCOTUS could benefit from being modeled off of the appellate courts or some of the European Supreme Courts where the bench is larger but not every justice is ruling on every case.

With a smaller case load, SCOTUS could be in session year round and rulings could be issued in a more timely manner.

Is it now time to expand the Supreme Court?

NO.

Terrible idea.

Even lefty RBG said that packing the court was a bad move.

CNBC - Ginsburg Says She Opposes Expanding The Supreme Court

The left should listen to their RBG hero on this.

I find it funny, when the Supreme court was only ruling in ways that made the left happy I never heard the right scream pack the court.

Now because there is a chance that they might rule in a way they dont like BURN IT DOWN BURN IT DOWN is all we hear from the left.

Yall need to have a drink and chill.

a reply to: Dandandat3

What's the full detailed procedure for expanding The SCOTUS? ❓

This honestly reads like a little crybaby who is far too young to understand how dumb his idea is. How embarrassing and pathetic. If ANYTHING the Supreme Court should be dropped to ELEVEN so you always have a winning voter.

Would the commies be okay with Obama being charged with an actual crime?

Say like murdering an American citizen with no due process?
ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

The killings were part of a broader program of "targeted killing" by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.

Holder: We’ve Droned 4 Americans, 3 By Accident. Oops.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Dandandat3

What's the full detailed procedure for expanding The SCOTUS? ❓

A congratulational act I assume.

a reply to: AlexandrosOMegas

Dropped to 11? There's currently nine justices sitting on the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I find it funny, when the Supreme court was only ruling in ways that made the left happy I never heard the right scream pack the court.

.....

The Right wasn't screaming it, they were just quietly and methodically going about doing it with the assistance of Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the Federalist Society. It wasn't an accident that Trump got to appoint 3 conservative judges, all approved by the Federalist Society in one 4 year term.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Yes. The court NEEDS to be expanded, (not packed).

Currently, there are 13 US Circuit Court Districts and 9 Supreme Court Justices to preside over them. So, some justices are doubling up, and some are not. These districts are like empires for these justices, who have the ability to work agendas through their court systems.

I say we need at least 3 Supreme Court Justices for each district, 39 Supreme Court Justices. Congress would have to pass a bill regulating the timing, perhaps over a few decades, and certain considerations for states' input on nominating and seating these justices, so that one president/party isn't packing the courts with single minded ideologues.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I find it funny, when the Supreme court was only ruling in ways that made the left happy I never heard the right scream pack the court.

.....

The Right wasn't screaming it, they were just quietly and methodically going about doing it with the assistance of Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the Federalist Society. It wasn't an accident that Trump got to appoint 3 conservative judges, all approved by the Federalist Society in one 4 year term.

Ill be nice and take your word for it.

If that happened and it made you up set you should be upset people want to do it now.

a reply to: watchitburn
him, that isn't a threat to Democracy your discussing there is it? No not at all, it is a complete disavowal of ANY semblance of Democratic values, but don't expect the Democrats to ever own up to that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

thats reasonable and your average person would probably be able to get behind, if the house and senate could ever preform a cranial rectal inversion.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
It wasn't an accident that Trump got to appoint 3 conservative judges, all approved by the Federalist Society in one 4 year term.

It wasn't an accident ... it was the fault of RBG who refused to retire when Obama was POTUS.

Or....people could stop trampling in other peoples Constitutional rights



...just a thought.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It's also the fault of McConnell for creating a rule out of thin air that prevented Garland from being appointed and then not applying that rule to Trump.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Dandandat3

What's the full detailed procedure for expanding The SCOTUS? ❓

A congratulational act I assume.

Yes somehow that's the exact answer I was hoping for. 🤣