Every Prominent Democrat both past and present are calling for President Biden to undo President Trump’s conservative majority, buy packing the SC with several liberal left wing justices .

They are calling for Biden and the Democrats to increase the number of justices from 9, to whatever, in order to give them a solid majority for, well forever.

McConnell isn’t stupid, he knows what’s at stake, he knows how these “people” operate and How they manipulate the system, he knows he cannot defeat them with the gloves on.

Maybe it’s time for McConnell to take the gloves off and beat them to the punch

Maybe McConnell should do now what the a Democrats plan to do in the future, pack the SC, this month, this week.

Increase the number of justices before the a Democrats do.

Short term thats nice, long term will bite you in the ass.

It takes the full congress to change the number of justices. Essentially, it can only be done when a party has both houses and the whitehouse. We won't see it unless the R's regain the house and keep the senate...or if Biden wins and they get the senate.

How so and define long term vs short term.

People are so fundamentally dishonest and dishonorable I wonder why God tolerates us at all.

Once the precedent had been set, as soon as the Democrats had the chance they'd do it again. So if the Republicans increased it to 15, the Democrats would increase it again to 21. Eventually the Supreme Court would have more members than Congress.

Would the Senate require 60, or 51 votes

We'll be lucky to get the one opening filled by January, let alone add 5.

Harry Reid said 51.

Then, what's to stop them from adding another 5 after we add 5? The real question should be, how do we set in stone the number on the Court so this game is off the table?

I must say, I'm LMAO at all that "dying wish" talk from the dhims.


Additionally, the tops of their heads are coming off.


From Huffpost, possibly THE worst commie rag out there.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ruth-bader-ginsburg-filibuster-035120638.html

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ruth-bader-ginsburg-filibuster-035120638.html



What do those azzholes think is going to happen? The GOP just sit by and let this opportunity go to waste because of their threats?

So what? The Dems will do it as soon as they are in power. Beat them to the punch. It's time to quit playing patty-cake and man the eff up.

The only way to set it in stone is a constitutional amendment. As that would take ratification by 75% of the states, the Dems likely couldn't get it done. There are more small red states than large blue one.

The failed to rig the election so they say the electoral system is broken.
A terminally ill justice dies during the term when they don't have their planned ability to appoint, so they want to change the number of Justices.

The pattern is clear even without getting into their lower level issues.

These people need to be purged from freedom loving America.

I think Mitch does get it, but he's got to manage all his members & keep them in line. There are at least 3 automatic defectors, so he really can't afford to lose anymore.

I'll be happy if he can just get one justice through right now.

As far as increasing the size of SCOTUS, I'm not sure that can be done w/o a constitutional amendment which requires 2/3 or 3/4 (can't remember which) of states to approve.

MM

No he did not.

Dingy Harry removed the 60 vote cloture rule for Federal Judges, he kept in tact the 60 vote Cloture Rule for SC Justices.

It was McConnell that remove it in order to confirm Gorsuch.

Even at that, this is a different animal.
Add into more justices is not the same as a confirmation vote.

One woman has a hard time making up their mind in a timely manner. God help us...

I understand but at the same time when dems get control of senate "our" rules will bite us in the ass. Keep it the frick how it is. Get another young constitutionalist and with the "younger " court, we are good.

Keep the Democrat out of power.

It’s the only way

it is the devil doing the tolerating. satan controls the world and it seems god does not do sh it

There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates the number of SC Justices. It has fluctuated over the years.

Democrats are the problem. The only thing needing changing is them breing unable to hold office.

It's not just one. But, one of the two may be out soon, replaced by a dhim.

(Susan Collins)

Packing the court would take a (D) takeover of the Senate and the White House and THEN, they'd have to be able to get nominees through the confirmation process.

Our best tactic is to basically ignore the threat and instead work on getting the traitors out of our midst. I.e., quislings like Mitten, Collins, Murkowski, etc.. Those are the people who pose the most immediate threat, since they will do the bidding of the Dems and confirm justices if the Dems take over (and they'll also try to stymie the replacement of RBG in the next month or two).

Living in MT, though I don't like Daines, he's now going to get money from me because I know that flipping one or two Senate seats is going to make a huge difference and I know the Dems are going to use this as a way to put even more money into Bullock's campaign (and get the liberal base here riled up).

The first order of business should be to provide support to any (R) Senator who is in a close race right now, then work on getting conservative candidates ready for the next Senate election, and of course keep the White House.

Remember, as long as President Trump is re-elected, the Dems can take the Senate and pack the court with open spaces, but President Trump doesn't have to nominate anyone. In fact, the (D)'s are making the case right now that a vacancy doesn't have to be filled by the sitting President. As long as there is not a supermajority of (D)s in the Senate, they won't be able to convict and remove even if the House again impeaches a second term President Trump, so all the cards are in his hands as long as he wins in November.

But that's just it. I don't believe the number of justices are defined in writing in the Constitution. My point was how do WE set in stone the current number of justices? Sounds like it would require an amendment. In the absence of that, politicians will be playing this game forever now that the Dems put it on the table.

Bull Schit

If we play by the rules now, as soon as they gain power they will change the rules to suit their agenda, no matter how we play.

Changing the rules now can only benefit us, cuz anyone with two brain cells left to rub together knows they will change them as soon as they are in power regardless of what we do.

Key always comes back to controlling the Senate. Nice to have the House as well as we would have avoided the hole impeachment drama which wasnt going anywhere. If you keep control of the Whitehouse and the Senate you can control the courts.

What do you think the dimocrats would be doing in this situation, if the scenario were reversed?

They would be pounding in another justice.

They may scream and cry, but they would be doing the same thing.

F' em.

Yep.

The problem is that the (D) leadership controls their individual members and can get near unanimous party line votes. Republicans are getting better at this, but there are still too many Republican Senators who refuse to act in the interest of the country.

McConnell’s job is to bring them in line with the party.

He has done some good work with the judges and justices, be he has yet to unify his people.

Get with it Mitch.

I know they will change the rules. I dont know the answer. Politicians feel they don't work for us and do whatever they want. Short term I want the court in our favor. This election will be contested and will end up at SCOTUS. Get another right leaning justice now. Keep the senate in the R side and go from there.

It's sad to know that decisions coming from the Supreme Court are often based on political leanings rather than law!

Payback for ramming Obamacare down our throats.

Exactly.

So true Don. Right now 9 can't even agree when it comes to the constitution, due to their beliefs. Let's throw 20+, yeah that will work

Indeed.

Bottom line is the Dems just want to create a third legislative body and legislate from the bench.

Their decisions should have absolutely nothing to do with "law" either.

Laws are legislated.

The Constitution was written, adopted and ratified by all states of the Union to limit the powers of federal gov't.

The Constitution is the only document the SC should be concerned with. Ever.

Not legislation. Not partisanship. But 100% US Constitution.

Bingo. One of the things I've wanted to see is a GOP program to go after the lower courts (primarily the federal district courts, but also the appeals courts). The Constitution only establishes the Supreme Court. Congress created the lower courts and Congress can eliminate them. If the GOP really wanted to put nuclear options on the table to counter Nancy's arrows in her quiver, they'd threaten to eliminate lower courts and replace them with a much smaller number of courts that are bound by very strict rules--e.g., no nationwide injunctions, no rulings or orders that impact fundamental rights, etc. It would be perfectly constitutional and it would wipe out the swamp that is federal court activism.

This is not a new idea:



Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
From Wikipedia,

President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His dissatisfaction over Supreme Court decisions holding New Deal programs unconstitutional prompted him to seek out methods to change the way the court functioned.
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan." [2]

Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed

As well as John Thune who is the Party Whip. The whip has as their primary job to make sure they are all in line.

Right per usual.

This is what we need to worry about in November. I fear the Dems will get exactly this and will then run roughshod over everything we've ever known.

The result of activist judges on the federal courts.



The reason we need constitutionalist judges in the federal courts. You can't predict the future but you can anticipate the future and make plans to deal with various scenarios. Some might call this conspiring. I would like to see Trump nominate a replacement tomorrow and have the senate vote by October 1. After Trump wins the election, if Republicans keep control of the Senate, I would like to see him propose increasing the number of justices to 15. He could then place six more justices on the Supreme Court in his next term. There would be ten constitutionalist justices, four activist judges and Roberts. I don't think an effort to increase the number of justices beyond that would gain traction because, as others have said, the court would be too unwieldy. At that point it would take a long time to change the balance of the court.

Ok. I was mistaken.
It is not a new idea.
But an old and over ruled one from a notorious big government proponent.
Thanks Hatari.

True , but most everything they judge and rule on concerns legislation

Their job is to rule on laws and legislation whether they are constitutional or not

Do they cross the line and legislate from the bench, yes since Obama and since Roberts has been compromised, but that doesn’t change the fact that Legislation and laws are their primary concern

They should only concern themselves, or involve themselves with what does or doesn't apply to our Constitution.

Period.

They crossed the line by miles way before Obama and Roberts.

Look at Roe V Wade. (as one example)

That's why abortion is such a sore spot today. It was legislated from the Supreme Court.

It wasn't passed or failed as law.

It's not in the US Constitution.

It was blatantly ruled as law from the bench by the Supreme Court.

The faster we get a nominee named, the faster we go from "should it be done" to "hey this is the candidate, prove that the person isn't qualified".

Mitch ain’t goona do schit.