I think we should just wait and let the unanticipated consequences hit the conservatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some Democrats are definitely calling for adding justices to the court. Other Democrats or not because they know they would need the House and 60 votes in the Senate to do it.

They do not need 60 votes. That is an arbitrary number. They need a simple majority.

Not according to long standing Senate rules.
Even a few Democratic Senators are against this.

Anonymous wrote:Some Democrats are definitely calling for adding justices to the court. Other Democrats or not because they know they would need the House and 60 votes in the Senate to do it.

They do not need 60 votes. That is an arbitrary number. They need a simple majority.

Anonymous wrote:The depth of understanding of how this all is structured is strong with this post. Bravo!

Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress can increase the numbers of Justice, make the Justice stand for election, impose strict ethical guidelines, randomly assign Justices to cases, etc, etc. SCOTUS has no power to run itself.

Some Democrats are definitely calling for adding justices to the court. Other Democrats or not because they know they would need the House and 60 votes in the Senate to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we follow constitutional law or not?

Start there. If you throw that out then go at it.

Read the actual writings in the meantime; they're doing their jobs following the law.

Politics is not their job. Jackson said so in her depo; now she's tweeting and going to the press with her personal and political views unlike all others. Oh well.

No, they are not following precedent and they are contradicting their sworn testimony around stare decis.

They are following the law. Unlike Biden.
Their job is to determine the constitutionality of actions and laws. And, that is exactly what they have done.
Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean what they are doing is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:Should we follow constitutional law or not?

Start there. If you throw that out then go at it.

Read the actual writings in the meantime; they're doing their jobs following the law.

Politics is not their job. Jackson said so in her depo; now she's tweeting and going to the press with her personal and political views unlike all others. Oh well.

Like fun they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will it take for them to do something? Do not say oh the dems need 60 votes. That is a made up number so no one has to do anything. It is time for action dems.

Like what?

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. Congress has used that authority seven times before.

Anonymous wrote:Should we follow constitutional law or not?

Start there. If you throw that out then go at it.

Read the actual writings in the meantime; they're doing their jobs following the law.

Politics is not their job. Jackson said so in her depo; now she's tweeting and going to the press with her personal and political views unlike all others. Oh well.

No, they are not following precedent and they are contradicting their sworn testimony around stare decis.

If it were me, I would let the Senate go through regular order to conclude that the court should be expanded so there is one justice for each circuit plus the Chief Justice. Each case would have 9 justices hear it, but the selection would be somewhat random. It would force the president and senate to appoint mostly legal centrists instead of the political hacks we have currently.

I would also figure out how to force the Justices to adhere to the same guidelines as other judges and federal employees, where ethics/gifts/disclosures are concerned.

Anonymous wrote:The depth of understanding of how this all is structured is strong with this post. Bravo!

Funny, not funny.

Should we follow constitutional law or not?

Start there. If you throw that out then go at it.

Read the actual writings in the meantime; they're doing their jobs following the law.

Politics is not their job. Jackson said so in her depo; now she's tweeting and going to the press with her personal and political views unlike all others. Oh well.

Anonymous wrote:What will it take for them to do something? Do not say oh the dems need 60 votes. That is a made up number so no one has to do anything. It is time for action dems.

Like what?

The depth of understanding of how this all is structured is strong with this post. Bravo!

What will it take for them to do something? Do not say oh the dems need 60 votes. That is a made up number so no one has to do anything. It is time for action dems.