Court Packing

dannyford

All-American
Aug 6, 2010
5,299
6,717
50
Would much prefer term limits for justices. Not a fan of adding to the court.

I would agree. RBG was 87 when she passed. We absolutely shouldn't have someone almost 25 years passed retirement age ruling on some of the most critically important legal disputes for the whole of the nation.

The entire point of the supreme court is to avoid all political and emotional bias when ruling over cases. Adding justices is nothing more than a political stunt to ensure control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SconnyTiger25

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,854
22,541
113
House democrats have formally introduced a bill to pack the court. They want to:
  • Increase the number of justices from 9 to 13
  • Have Biden appoint the 4 new justices
  • Eliminate the filibuster in the senate to get this approved
That is shocking partisanship and a clear attempt to politicize the supreme court, which should remain independent.

To get a sense of how unpopular this extreme legislation is, CNN is barely covering it on their website. Hopefully the pack the court whackos remain on the fringe of the democrat party.
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
31,954
26,379
113
House democrats have formally introduced a bill to pack the court. They want to:
  • Increase the number of justices from 9 to 13
  • Have Biden appoint the 4 new justices
  • Eliminate the filibuster in the senate to get this approved
That is shocking partisanship and a clear attempt to politicize the supreme court, which should remain independent.

To get a sense of how unpopular this extreme legislation is, CNN is barely covering it on their website. Hopefully the pack the court whackos remain on the fringe of the democrat party.
I see this as a trial balloon only for now, but it won't and shouldn't get enough support to get it passed.
 

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,463
13,767
102
House democrats have formally introduced a bill to pack the court. They want to:
  • Increase the number of justices from 9 to 13
  • Have Biden appoint the 4 new justices
  • Eliminate the filibuster in the senate to get this approved
That is shocking partisanship and a clear attempt to politicize the supreme court, which should remain independent.

To get a sense of how unpopular this extreme legislation is, CNN is barely covering it on their website. Hopefully the pack the court whackos remain on the fringe of the democrat party.

Easy drama queens.

1. It was "shockingly partisan" when the repubs refused to hold hearings for Garland because it was an election year (nine months before the election) and then rushed to hold hearings for Barrett a month before the election in 2020. Get out of here with that BS.

2. Nancy Pelosi has already said she has no current intention to take this legislation to the floor. People draft legislation all the time that doesnt get a vote.

3. It is being covered on CNN homepage with about 9 articles.

 

scotchtiger

Heisman
Dec 15, 2005
134,854
22,541
113
Easy drama queens.

1. It was "shockingly partisan" when the repubs refused to hold hearings for Garland because it was an election year (nine months before the election) and then rushed to hold hearings for Barrett a month before the election in 2020. Get out of here with that BS.

2. Nancy Pelosi has already said she has no current intention to take this legislation to the floor. People draft legislation all the time that doesnt get a vote.

3. It is being covered on CNN homepage with about 9 articles.

1. Okay
2. Good for her
3. There wasn't much when I briefly checked earlier. Significantly more prominent coverage about who is attending Price Phillip's funeral.