Hey Lefties, can we talk about this yet?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

You seem to be looking for some trigger, instead of addressing my proposal and the fact that there are 13 Circuit Courts and only 9 justices.

Fun Fact: Clarence Thomas complains about the workload, compared to the pay. Expanding the court seems to be a fix for that problem.

The only reason to pack the court is a political reason.
Don’t act like its because of some other silly reason like “workload”.

There’s no mandate how many justices on the court but precedent says 9 is mighty fine.
They’ve had more and less at times but all of those times were for completely political reasons.
It’s been 9 for over 150 years, we’re good with 9.
If you pack the court, it undermines their credibility.
No thanks.

ETA: Since you’re so concerned about what Justice Thomas thinks, here’s what he had to say about packing the court…

“You can cavalierly talk about packing or stacking the court. You can cavalierly talk about doing this or doing that. At some point the institution is going to be compromised.”
“By doing this, you continue to chip away at the respect of the institutions that the next generation is going to need if they’re going to have civil society,” Thomas said.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

You seem to be looking for some trigger, instead of addressing my proposal and the fact that there are 13 Circuit Courts and only 9 justices.

Fun Fact: Clarence Thomas complains about the workload, compared to the pay. Expanding the court seems to be a fix for that problem.

yea but there are 50 states, so why not 50 justices?

And we have been a nation for 248 years, why not 248 justices? Why santa clause, why?

a reply to: Vermilion

I didn't say, nor have I ever supported "packing the court".

a reply to: network dude

The Judicial Branch and Congress, in their infinite wisdom, divided the United States of America into 13 legal districts. These are the 13 Circuit districts that 9 Supreme Court Justices oversee, as mandated by Congress.

I agree with poor Clarence, the workload needs to be redistributed. Seems like a good start would be the expansion of court.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So if you had your way, at the end of Trumps inevitable next 4 year term, the makeup of the court would be 10 appointed by R’s and 3 appointed by D’s.
You sure you wanna go there?
That’s Harry Reid levels of buffoonery.

a reply to: Vermilion

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

As far as SCOTUS shooting down Congress, SCOTUS said this is a STATE issue, so yeah, they could shoot down any mandate they don't like. Right now they're poised to overturn EMTALA's authority.

They said it is not an SC issue, it then goes to the state if the fed doesn't do anything about it, and that is what we saw. Liberal Congress kept kicking this down the road, not sure why other than as I said they wanted to keep it one of their issues and now it backfired like it seems they always do. Just like with Ginsburg where she should have retired on Obama's watch being sick and old even back then, but everyone expected Hilary to win and select her replacement.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Public health.
There's nothing public about a women's choice.

So, I can be forced to take a medical treatment that may kill me for public health? How about when they lie it is about public health and it ends up not being?

I really don't care about the whole abortion issue. If you don't like the way a state does it, then move or vote others into office to change it.

originally posted by: Annee
I didn’t know pregnancy was a contagion.

So, for public health, if the population is in decline, then you all agree we should force women to have kids, right?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

The will of Sookie...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

no. the court should interpret the Constitution. The legislators should represent the will of the people. I think I'm starting to understand your confusion.

originally posted by: Vermilion

You seem to be looking for some trigger, instead of addressing my proposal and the fact that there are 13 Circuit Courts and only 9 justices.

If it was 6 liberals and 3 conservatives, she would not be suggesting it needs to be expanded. The deal is Trump might replace 3 in the next 4 years and that would put it at 7 to 2.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

The make-up of the court SHOULD represent the will of the people.

no. the court should interpret the Constitution. The legislators should represent the will of the people. I think I'm starting to understand your confusion.

If the composition of the Supreme Court was not meant to reflect the will of the people, why are they appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate? Why not just have the Judicial Branch promote from within?

The Constitution isn't the Bible. It is a document that is interpreted through the lens of a changing court, appointed by and confirmed by elected officials.

The Supreme Court isn't the final word because they're always right. They are the final word because the people consent to being governed by the people they elect and the justices those elected officials' seat.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If the composition of the Supreme Court was not meant to reflect the will of the people, why are they appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate? Why not just have the Judicial Branch promote from within?

USA is a republic.
Deal with it.

Why should the judicial branch “promote from within” when the other two branches don’t?
Are they special all of a sudden?

t is a document that is interpreted through the lens of a changing court, appointed by and confirmed by elected officials.

And as you are well aware, the court fixed their old erroneous decisions in Roe and Chevron.
They aren’t perfect of course, but the system is set up pretty well to fix things absent of politics.
The Constitution isn’t flawless, yet it’s better than any other form of government ever invented.

a reply to: Vermilion

USA is a republic.
Deal with it.

And yet, The People elect a president every 4 years. They elect Representatives to the People's House and to the Senate. These ELECTED government officials are entrusted, by The People, to create laws and seat justices that will enforce the laws they enact. All of them take an oath to defend the Constitution.

Deal with it.

Why should the judicial branch “promote from within” when the other two branches don’t?
Are they special all of a sudden?

Well, for one thing, most of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected. And, there is a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, so there's that. www.heritage.org...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Well, for one thing, most of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected. And, there is a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, so there's that. www.heritage.org...

Control — Control — Control

Less government my ___________.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, for one thing, most of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected.

That’s why they should “promote from within”?
LoL
That’s an argument why they absolutely should NOT “promote from within”.
The libs would hand off to the most lunatic lefty and so on and so forth.
Both sides.
I know that doesn’t make sense to any honest person.

And yet, The People elect a president every 4 years. They elect Representatives to the People's House and to the Senate. These ELECTED government officials are entrusted, by The People, to create laws and seat justices that will enforce the laws they enact. All of them take an oath to defend the Constitution.

I’m happy that you’re finally recognizing that chevron getting reversed is the correct decision. 👍
You can hold elected representatives accountable, the deep state bureaucrats not so much.
Power to the people not big government.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

You conflated the limits of Roe to allowing abortion of a perfectly healthy, viable fetus, on demand. And then you used that lie to justify a plea for "middle ground".

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Roe WAS middle ground.

Roe was also unconstitutional. It's raining on you Sookie.

a reply to: Vermilion

That’s why they should “promote from within”?

I never said they should. I said the SCOTUS justices represent the will of the people, because the CONSTITUTION dictates that they are appointed and confirmed by elected officials, and you retorted with;

USA is a republic.
Deal with it.

The US also employs democracy as a vehicle to ensure The People's representation in governance. The Founding Father realized that social order depends on a populace that is willing to be governed, not ruled.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

That’s why they should “promote from within”?

I never said they should. I said the SCOTUS justices represent the will of the people, because the CONSTITUTION dictates that they are appointed and confirmed by elected officials, and you retorted with;

USA is a republic.
Deal with it.

The US also employs democracy as a vehicle to ensure The People's representation in governance. The Founding Father realized that social order depends on a populace that is willing to be governed, not ruled.

Look at the founding documents and see if you can find the word 'Democracy' anywhere within. Republic shows up but I can't find 'Democracy.'