One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Will Biden "Pack" The Supreme Court?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 next>>
Oct 18, 2020 02:22:35   #
woodguru
 
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for whatever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 02:55:38   #
PeterS
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for whatever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)

That's what conservatives are doing right now so he's going to have to even it out. The best suggestion I heard was to add 20 new judges bringing the total to 29. The point being is that with 29 judges there is less incentive to add far left or far-right candidates because to gain a majority you would have to work towards the center instead of taking a radical action...such as abolishing RvW.

McConnell has made it so Biden HAS to pact the court. If Biden does it first thing then we will have a proactive administration that can undo much of the damage that Trump and McConnell had done to this nation. I would like to see him do it first thing then redoing Obamacare and turn it into law. From that, he has a base from which to attack COVID on and be successful in taking it down.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 03:14:59   #
PeterS
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for whatever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)

That's true but it's the president who conducts the orchestra. I would like to see it so there is no more incentive to pack the court as McConnell and his cronies have been doing for the last 5 1/2 years. They can do this by putting in enough new members so that the incentive is gone to simply appoint someone as quickly as possible to a lifetime gig that they may or may not be ready for. If the incentive is returned to appointing qualified new members whether they lean left or right will be of less importance and at last, we will have a court that works for the common good of the nation and not what is best for one party or the other.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 03:48:29   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for whatever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)


Then the answer is yes and the Democrats would which is why no one will buy your $ht and no one is bothering to go see the walking corpse.

And if you managed somehow, someway to accomplish that it would lead to nasty consequences for everyone since you wouldn't find it possible to do so under the Constitution as it's written.

No reasonable person would pursue such a stupid course of action and if they tried they'd need to be stopped no matter what.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 03:50:43   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
PeterS wrote:
That's true but it's the president who conducts the orchestra. I would like to see it so there is no more incentive to pack the court as McConnell and his cronies have been doing for the last 5 1/2 years. They can do this by putting in enough new members so that the incentive is gone to simply appoint someone as quickly as possible to a lifetime gig that they may or may not be ready for. If the incentive is returned to appointing qualified new members whether they lean left or right will be of less importance and at last, we will have a court that works for the common good of the nation and not what is best for one party or the other.
That's true but it's the president who conducts th... (show quote)


You have to change the meaning of the word to say so.

Packing the court is adding justices for political reasons.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 04:24:23   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
PeterS wrote:
That's true but it's the president who conducts the orchestra. I would like to see it so there is no more incentive to pack the court as McConnell and his cronies have been doing for the last 5 1/2 years. They can do this by putting in enough new members so that the incentive is gone to simply appoint someone as quickly as possible to a lifetime gig that they may or may not be ready for. If the incentive is returned to appointing qualified new members whether they lean left or right will be of less importance and at last, we will have a court that works for the common good of the nation and not what is best for one party or the other.
That's true but it's the president who conducts th... (show quote)


You people on the left have some serious problems with understanding what court packing is. The way the courts are currently set up, is almost impossible for one President to pack the court. A President can only appoint one justice at a time. A two-term President may get 3 appointments during his time in office. Trump inherited a vacancy from Obama, Justice Kennedy retired, and RBG died. A very unusual circumstance has granted Trump the opportunity to choose 3 justices. If he is reelected, he may have the opportunity to choose one or two more. This is an unprecedented case and is as close to packing the court without it actually being court packing. True court packing is creating new justice positions (FDR proposed adding six new justices) and filling them all at once. Adding them one at a time makes it very difficult to instantly change the balance of the court. Any shift in philosophy from left to right or vice versa is gradual. With the way justices are currently appointed, they are vetted by a number of organizations, both right and left, with probably the most unbiased evaluation coming from the American Bar Association. They do not make judgments on political views of judges, but on their qualifications as a judge. In the case of ACB, they gave her their top rating. There are many on the left for whom the political views of the judges are more important than their political temperament.
Judges should not make policies or laws. They are to apply the law as written, not try and reinterpret it to fit some current social fad. They are to decide if a law violates the Constitution or not. If it is unconstitutional, the law is null and void and Congress needs to go back and draft a new law. As for Roe v Wade, many legal scholars find the decision is poorly written and supported, they make no comment as to whether or not abortion should be legal.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 05:15:32   #
Tug484
 
Kickaha wrote:
You people on the left have some serious problems with understanding what court packing is. The way the courts are currently set up, is almost impossible for one President to pack the court. A President can only appoint one justice at a time. A two-term President may get 3 appointments during his time in office. Trump inherited a vacancy from Obama, Justice Kennedy retired, and RBG died. A very unusual circumstance has granted Trump the opportunity to choose 3 justices. If he is reelected, he may have the opportunity to choose one or two more. This is an unprecedented case and is as close to packing the court without it actually being court packing. True court packing is creating new justice positions (FDR proposed adding six new justices) and filling them all at once. Adding them one at a time makes it very difficult to instantly change the balance of the court. Any shift in philosophy from left to right or vice versa is gradual. With the way justices are currently appointed, they are vetted by a number of organizations, both right and left, with probably the most unbiased evaluation coming from the American Bar Association. They do not make judgments on political views of judges, but on their qualifications as a judge. In the case of ACB, they gave her their top rating. There are many on the left for whom the political views of the judges are more important than their political temperament.
Judges should not make policies or laws. They are to apply the law as written, not try and reinterpret it to fit some current social fad. They are to decide if a law violates the Constitution or not. If it is unconstitutional, the law is null and void and Congress needs to go back and draft a new law. As for Roe v Wade, many legal scholars find the decision is poorly written and supported, they make no comment as to whether or not abortion should be legal.
You people on the left have some serious problems ... (show quote)



This packing could go on forever once it's started.
The left just can't stand to lose.
They hate the Constitution.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 05:16:18   #
RandyBrian
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for whatever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)


My friend, you need to retake high school civics. You are correct only in that the President does not initiate legislation. He DOES have a lot of other authority, including that of appointing federal and SC judges. No law has to be written for him to do so. The only (current) limit is that the Senate must confirm with a simple majority vote.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 06:33:59   #
PeterS
 
BigMike wrote:
You have to change the meaning of the word to say so.

Packing the court is adding justices for political reasons.

And you don't think McConnell and Trump have added Judges for a political reason? McConnell was downright gleeful in having blocked two years' worth of Obama's judges including the supreme court. If political reasons is your definition then McConnell and Trump fit it to a tee...

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 06:35:18   #
PeterS
 
RandyBrian wrote:
My friend, you need to retake high school civics. You are correct only in that the President does not initiate legislation. He DOES have a lot of other authority, including that of appointing federal and SC judges. No law has to be written for him to do so. The only (current) limit is that the Senate must confirm with a simple majority vote.

He doesn't initiate legislation? So if it's not Obamacare what is it???

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 06:53:01   #
RandyBrian
 
PeterS wrote:
He doesn't initiate legislation? So if it's not Obamacare what is it???


ACA.
I did not say a president can't propose and push ideas or policies. Of course they can. But the legislation is (supposedly) written by Congress. In reality, it is written by unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. If we are lucky, a Congressman or two may read it before they present it as a bill. They certainly do not study it (or even read it) before voting. They take the word of their assistants.
FYI. My local school district offers a civics course as a night class for adults. One might be available near you, as well. Worth considering.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 07:24:11   #
Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich
 
Correction: The President "offers" nominations to the Supreme court! the Senate either.."acepts, or rejects"...these nomination, after a gruling, & offensive attack on their moral character....{ kavanaugh, & many others}......Packing the Supreme court would destroy the 3 brances of Gbmnt!

Of course Biden is threatening to "pack the supreme court, in hopes of getting *demoncrats to vote for him,, & many are already voting for Trump!...:O}}}

How would you Demoncrats, like it "if" Trump did exactly that?.....:O}}}

{ Better get out your politics "101", & bone up on the truth!...hint: the truth will not be found on the page listing demoncrat ideals, & political intentions}....:O{{{

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 07:27:19   #
PeterS
 
Kickaha wrote:
You people on the left have some serious problems with understanding what court packing is. The way the courts are currently set up, is almost impossible for one President to pack the court. A President can only appoint one justice at a time. A two-term President may get 3 appointments during his time in office. Trump inherited a vacancy from Obama, Justice Kennedy retired, and RBG died. A very unusual circumstance has granted Trump the opportunity to choose 3 justices. If he is reelected, he may have the opportunity to choose one or two more. This is an unprecedented case and is as close to packing the court without it actually being court packing. True court packing is creating new justice positions (FDR proposed adding six new justices) and filling them all at once. Adding them one at a time makes it very difficult to instantly change the balance of the court. Any shift in philosophy from left to right or vice versa is gradual. With the way justices are currently appointed, they are vetted by a number of organizations, both right and left, with probably the most unbiased evaluation coming from the American Bar Association. They do not make judgments on political views of judges, but on their qualifications as a judge. In the case of ACB, they gave her their top rating. There are many on the left for whom the political views of the judges are more important than their political temperament.
Judges should not make policies or laws. They are to apply the law as written, not try and reinterpret it to fit some current social fad. They are to decide if a law violates the Constitution or not. If it is unconstitutional, the law is null and void and Congress needs to go back and draft a new law. As for Roe v Wade, many legal scholars find the decision is poorly written and supported, they make no comment as to whether or not abortion should be legal.
You people on the left have some serious problems ... (show quote)

So you want judges who will apply laws written in 1778 to a people living in 2020? And it doesn't matter that we don't live in 1778 we are to take what was written then and strickly apply it to our laws today?

Okay, let's give it a try. Consider this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the best example of what the founders meant, other than the revolutionary war, was the Whiskey Rebellion where Washington drew on the militia from 4 different states to stamp out and put down the rebellion.

So let's consider what happened--a well-regulated militia--that would be a group that drilled regularly and was organized so that at a moment's need they could be called up to defend the country. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Now the question to be asked is where does this leave our freestanding army. Well if you've read anything about the revolutionary war you will know that the founders did not want a freestanding army of any notable size because they didn't want it misused by a despot to enforce unlawful orders. But you guys are in love with our freestanding army and you are in love with your AR-15's so lets twist the Second Amedment like a pretizel and do what we what to do and not worry about anyone else...

Now there is no question that Washington thought he was correct in his use of the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion. So if he was right doesn't that pretty much throw cold water on what you believe the Second Amendment to mean? A well-regulated militia--similar to the minutemen, who could be assembled and dispatched in a matter of hours. That doesn't fit the thugs and bullies that make-up today's 'militia' who report to no one but themselves and threaten a "free state" not support it...

The thing is, you people don't want the Second Amendment interpreted the way it was written but twisted into a pretzel logic so it will be forever misused to your advantage. So any pretence about original interpretation by judges is just bullshit. You want your AR-15's and the like and you want to run around playing Rambo. And maybe, if you are lucky, you will be placed in a position, like Rittenhouse, where you can kill with abandon and have a half-assed plausible case for self-defence.

But I think ole Kyle is still in Jail so you better think long and hard before you pull the trigger. And don't call anyone right after you killed someone and boast about your accomplishment. That makes it sound more like first-degree murder than justifiable homicide.

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 07:30:40   #
Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich
 
nothing "new" here.....since our Republic, has come into being....presidents, are "obligated", to nominate "persons", to this job, while they are in office! Trump, simply is doing his "job"....{ cudos' to president trump!}....Ginsberg, had the opportunity, to step down so that Obama, could "do this very same thing"....{ she refused, & now, "HERE WE ARE"! :o}}}

*Demoncrats, are not very astute, or intelligent { AS PROOFED BY THEIR ACTIONS}...&, now, by their choice of candidates.....{ hard to find a "honest *Demoncrat, until the swamp is drained!}.....Biden/harris, certainly is not that "Honest man/woman".....America is seeking!

| Reply
Oct 18, 2020 07:33:37   #
Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich
 
PeterS wrote:
That's true but it's the president who conducts the orchestra. I would like to see it so there is no more incentive to pack the court as McConnell and his cronies have been doing for the last 5 1/2 years. They can do this by putting in enough new members so that the incentive is gone to simply appoint someone as quickly as possible to a lifetime gig that they may or may not be ready for. If the incentive is returned to appointing qualified new members whether they lean left or right will be of less importance and at last, we will have a court that works for the common good of the nation and not what is best for one party or the other.
That's true but it's the president who conducts th... (show quote)


Why, would any "sitting" president nominate anyone for this job, that does not believe in the political ideals, of the electorate, that placed that President in to office? Trump, is not "packing anything"....he is doing the job of the electorate that put him there!....{ get it 'right" skippy! }

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.