Is it now time to expand the Supreme Court?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

RGB screwed 'her side' by not stepping down when Obama was in.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she knew something we don't. At any rate, aren't you happy with her replacement, Amy Coney Barrett?

Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch have voted moderately on several issues.

Brown, Kagan, and Sotomayor are 100% leftist groveling sycophants.

I’m quite happy with the ethical, fair track record (actual results) of the first 3.

I laugh at the unprofessional hackery of the latter group.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

I said that SCOTUS justices' districts are like empires in which they can, and do, direct cases toward their agenda goals. I gave an example.
Your skepticism has been noted.

And you failed miserably to cite genuine examples of their "Empires". But that's OK, we all understand. 😀

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, yeah, yeah, according to you. Your skepticism is noted.

You have again failed miserably at proving me wrong.

Yes more republican leaning judges is what we need .democrats screw up everything they touch and ifnot that they give it all away to everyone else.

a reply to: Dandandat3

no, it would take an idiot to do something like this. Even to think it's a viable idea. A DERP of epic proportions.

Each president would follow suit and expand the court to help his causes and the Judiciary would be the joke the left currently is. No vision was used to think about this at all. NONE.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I say we need at least 3 Supreme Court Justices for each district, 39 Supreme Court Justices.

What?!

Throwing more people at it is the absolute wrong way to go here.

I could see maybe going to 13 - one for each district and it remains an odd number which is critical.

However, with the exception of the fewer amount of cases 9 judges can reasonably hear in a session, the current system has served us very well. Rulings should be an "event" anyway.

Cases should have broad national impact and at least a healthy dose of gravitas before even being considered, in my opinion.

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.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but you don't control when someone dies unless you kill them. Are you saying Trump had the justices killed?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm all for the right to choose, but this has to be one of the falsest equivalences I've ever seen. There's nothing about lethal force in the 2nd, which I'm sure you're aware of.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Dandandat3

no, it would take an idiot to do something like this. Even to think it's a viable idea. A DERP of epic proportions.

Each president would follow suit and expand the court to help his causes and the Judiciary would be the joke the left currently is. No vision was used to think about this at all. NONE.

Wow how someone could come up with that statement is beyond me. So if you believe that then why complain? Clarification would be helpful on your part.

a reply to: Hypntick

There's nothing about lethal force in the 2nd, which I'm sure you're aware of.

There's nothing about personal self-defense in the 2nd Amendment either, but SCOTUS found that "the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense."
en.wikipedia.org...

Ever heard the adage, "If you're going to aim a gun at someone, you better be ready to shoot to kill". Lethal force is imbedded in the 2nd Amendment.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

How else do you defend life, liberty and property Sookie?

I think they need 2 fewer seats....

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

How else do you defend life, liberty and property Sookie?

What did you have in mind, JinMi?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: AlexandrosOMegas

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

I know that...I probably just typed it up too fast and 12 is usually the number associated with courts. I am aware the Supreme Court has 9 members. Was simply not thinking.

What a joke ....

Ginni Thomas Didn’t Just Praise MAGA Supporters on January 6. She Actually Attended the “Stop the Steal” Rally


So justice Thomas is part of court that will decide about the stop the steal insurrection January 6 .

He`s wife attended the rally .

Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s “Stop the Steal” Texts

a reply to: Kenzo

Now do Kamala Harris bailing out "summer of love" criminals......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Kenzo

Now do Kamala Harris bailing out "summer of love" criminals......

Thats different... I supported that protest.

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

To Many Cooks Spoil the Pot .

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Hypntick

There's nothing about lethal force in the 2nd, which I'm sure you're aware of.

There's nothing about personal self-defense in the 2nd Amendment either, but SCOTUS found that "the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense."
en.wikipedia.org...

Ever heard the adage, "If you're going to aim a gun at someone, you better be ready to shoot to kill". Lethal force is imbedded in the 2nd Amendment.

You Forgot to Mention that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution Believed and Stated that the Right to Self Defense is a Quote , " God Given Right " .

The odds makers say at least one liberal justice will be replaced by a conservative justice, during President Trump's next term.