Democrats To Put Forward Legislation To Pack The SCOTUS

2012Bearcat

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 30, 2010
16,019
12,977
113

We were warned that Democrats would abuse their power in order to take control of every facet of government in order to give them supreme reign and here we are. Democrats accused Trump of being a dictator when in fact it is Democrats that are the ones that desire absolute authoritarian power. This effort is a direct threat to our Republic and should be met with absolute resistance. if Democrats manage to get this legislation through it will cause an even greater divide that will put this country on a path of destruction.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,571
2,403
113

We were warned that Democrats would abuse their power in order to take control of every facet of government in order to give them supreme reign and here we are. Democrats accused Trump of being a dictator when in fact it is Democrats that are the ones that desire absolute authoritarian power. This effort is a direct threat to our Republic and should be met with absolute resistance. if Democrats manage to get this legislation through it will cause an even greater divide that will put this country on a path of destruction.
This is 100% what pisses me off about Republicans. They were so butt hurt that Trump ruined their good old boy system they didn't fight at all to keep up the voting Integrity-knowing that this would happen that the left would do all this.

. Any idiot that's up-to-date on the left knew this is what would happen (Border, pipeline, BLM running wild, pack SCOTUS, Vaccine passports, make DC and PR a state, vote harvesting et al). And yet as usual the Good Ole Boy party let us down and took care of themselves
 

On Tulsa Time

Heisman Winner
Nov 3, 2006
12,199
497
83
This is 100% what pisses me off about Republicans. They were so butt hurt that Trump ruined their good old boy system they didn't fight at all to keep up the voting Integrity-knowing that this would happen that the left would do all this.

. Any idiot that's up-to-date on the left knew this is what would happen (Border, pipeline, BLM running wild, pack SCOTUS, Vaccine passports, make DC and PR a state, vote harvesting et al). And yet as usual the Good Ole Boy party let us down and took care of themselves
There is a reason I became a libertarian many moons ago.
 

2012Bearcat

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 30, 2010
16,019
12,977
113
Watching the press conference was hilarious. Nothing but lies, mischaracterizations and more lies.

You very seldom ever see the leftist judges disagreeing on much but often see the so called conservative judges disagree in their rulings.
 

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,571
2,403
113
There is a reason I became a libertarian many moons ago.
Quit calling myself a Republican when I figured out the "establishment"...Boehner, Romney, Bush, McCain,Cornyn, Ryan, Graham et al...make me sick. Called myself a Trump Republican when they got some balls back under him- now they are as sickening to me as the Dims. Sans Jordan ,MTG, Nunes et al- but overall they suck. I won't donate anything else till it's all fixed which will Prob be never
 
Last edited:

On Tulsa Time

Heisman Winner
Nov 3, 2006
12,199
497
83
Quit calling myself a Republican when I figured out the "establishment"...Boehner, Romney, Bush, McCain,Cornyn, Ryan, Graham et al...make me sick. Called myself a Trump Republican when they got some balls back under him- now they are as sickening to me as the Dims. Sans Jordan ,MTG, Nunes et al- but overall they suck. I won't donate anything else till it's all fixed which will Prob be never
I started to question my allegiance after the Patriot Act and after about a year or two of Obama I realized that Dems and Pubs were really one party and and that party was controlled by corporations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67

Marshal Jim Duncan

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 22, 2013
25,434
26,876
113
I started to question my allegiance after the Patriot Act and after about a year or two of Obama I realized that Dems and Pubs were really one party and and that party was controlled by corporations.
The problem being, of course, that a Libertarian can’t get elected to any meaningful office. That becomes less of a problem when the alternatives from both parties are unattractive, or at least one becomes more indifferent/apathetic.
 

Mr.OSU

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 18, 2003
4,812
5,121
113
The question is are there two democrats with the sense to vote for what’s best in the long term?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tulsaaggieson

Mr.OSU

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 18, 2003
4,812
5,121
113
They do see how stupid this move is right? Who knows maybe their intent is to open up voting to the extent where they can manipulate wins permanently. If not the court will continue to expand with no end in sight. Before I die I would end up being a Supreme Court justice and I don’t even have a law degree.
 

Sunburnt Indian

All-American
Nov 7, 2001
3,583
9,000
113
Edge of the Comancheria
They do see how stupid this move is right? Who knows maybe their intent is to open up voting to the extent where they can manipulate wins permanently. If not the court will continue to expand with no end in sight. Before I die I would end up being a Supreme Court justice and I don’t even have a law degree.
Who is surprised what the Communist Party (former Democrat Party) has planned for us? And an all time record 81 million Americans voted for this? I think not.

Will we get meaningful voter reform?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

Mr.OSU

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 18, 2003
4,812
5,121
113
Who is surprised what the Communist Party (former Democrat Party) has planned for us? And an all time record 81 million Americans voted for this? I think not.

Will we get meaningful voter reform?
The sad fact is it seems this a power grab with the intent of holding power forever. If they can strip away voting integrity and can win by any means necessary they might never give up any branch of government at the national level. That has to be what they are thinking. Otherwise they have to know they will be creating chaos for eternity related to the Supreme Court. The main reason they are at a 6-3 disadvantage is rbg was selfish and didn’t retire when she could be replaced by a leftist judge. Breyer appears to want to do the same thing apparently.
 

Sunburnt Indian

All-American
Nov 7, 2001
3,583
9,000
113
Edge of the Comancheria
The sad fact is it seems this a power grab with the intent of holding power forever. If they can strip away voting integrity and can win by any means necessary they might never give up any branch of government at the national level. That has to be what they are thinking. Otherwise they have to know they will be creating chaos for eternity related to the Supreme Court. The main reason they are at a 6-3 disadvantage is rbg was selfish and didn’t retire when she could be replaced by a leftist judge. Breyer appears to want to do the same thing apparently.
Worthy of a hundred likes.

Till rbg's death, was it about 5 decades the Dimms pretty much had a Supreme Court majority? Now with change, the Dimms want to pack the court.
 

SSS!!!

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Apr 5, 2011
5,327
5,134
113
I don’t get this move at all. Just put in a clause to take away the lifetime seat. Make it a 25 year term and then they could replace Thomas. It doesn’t need to be lifetime anyways. Justices are getting nominated too young and living too long these days. Pack the court and it will never end.
 

Syskatine

Heisman Candidate
Oct 14, 2018
10,014
4,255
113
Lol everyone's now supposed to forget the garland and comey barret nominations. Just move on and don't do anything, I guess.
 

07pilt

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2012
13,702
5,482
113
The strong do what they will. The weak endure what they must.
 

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,082
16,001
113
They do see how stupid this move is right? Who knows maybe their intent is to open up voting to the extent where they can manipulate wins permanently. If not the court will continue to expand with no end in sight. Before I die I would end up being a Supreme Court justice and I don’t even have a law degree.
Interestingly enough, you don't have to be a lawyer or even have a law degree to be a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution is basically silent on requirements for SCOTUS justices.

They all have had some form of legal education or experience so far, but don't give up hope.
 

Mr.OSU

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 18, 2003
4,812
5,121
113
Interestingly enough, you don't have to be a lawyer or even have a law degree to be a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution is basically silent on requirements for SCOTUS justices.

They all have had some form of legal education or experience so far, but don't give up hope.
Well great. You will beat me to it, but once the Supreme Court expands to 100,000 Supreme Court justices I will be ready to oppose you lol. What are your thoughts on Supreme Court expansion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD

launch

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 12, 2003
7,169
10,126
113
I've been enduring for a long time.

200.gif
 

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,082
16,001
113
Well great. You will beat me to it, but once the Supreme Court expands to 100,000 Supreme Court justices I will be ready to oppose you lol. What are your thoughts on Supreme Court expansion?

It's changed in size over the years...6 to 7 to 9 to 10 to back down to 7, settling on 9 by legislation.

It's been there for something like 150 years.

So I don't think there is anything particular sacred about 9.

At the same time, I recognize that Dems don't have the votes to pack the Supreme Court and this is all just political theater anyways.

I would be more interested in what I call "cascading term limits".....basically pass legislation setting term limits for future Justices of the same term, but having the sitting Justices time out of their present term longest sitting term limiting out first with the next rotating out in say the next 3 years until they're all gone. If you did that, then basically you would have a rotating bench where a new justice would term limit out every three years or so (not saying that the term limit should be 3 years, but because you cascaded the present judges out...whatever the term limit for the new guys is, you would see one term limiting out every three years or so).

If you put the term limit at the same number of justices (9) basically each elected President would get at least one appointment during their term. If you make the term limit longer, there will be gaps where certain Presidents won't get an appointment unless someone retires or resigns, but when the terms started cascading again, those Presidents would get at least on appointment during their term.

There's an argument that such a law wouldn't even require an amendment to the Constitution. I haven't really looked at that issue to have a strong opinion one way or the other.
 

Mr.OSU

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 18, 2003
4,812
5,121
113
It's changed in size over the years...6 to 7 to 9 to 10 to back down to 7, settling on 9 by legislation.

It's been there for something like 150 years.

So I don't think there is anything particular sacred about 9.

At the same time, I recognize that Dems don't have the votes to pack the Supreme Court and this is all just political theater anyways.

I would be more interested in what I call "cascading term limits".....basically pass legislation setting term limits for future Justices of the same term, but having the sitting Justices time out of their present term longest sitting term limiting out first with the next rotating out in say the next 3 years until they're all gone. If you did that, then basically you would have a rotating bench where a new justice would term limit out every three years or so (not saying that the term limit should be 3 years, but because you cascaded the present judges out...whatever the term limit for the new guys is, you would see one term limiting out every three years or so).

If you put the term limit at the same number of justices (9) basically each elected President would get at least one appointment during their term. If you make the term limit longer, there will be gaps where certain Presidents won't get an appointment unless someone retires or resigns, but when the terms started cascading again, those Presidents would get at least on appointment during their term.

There's an argument that such a law wouldn't even require an amendment to the Constitution. I haven't really looked at that issue to have a strong opinion one way or the other.
That’s a reasonable argument. I hope they don’t somehow expand it or I think it would just erode confidence all together in the Supreme Court. The tactic that was used to deny Garland has been used a lot in the past. 3 or 4 year(mid president term) rotating end of terms sounds like it something that could work. I also like the idea of the sixty vote approval for justices, but you can only deny x amount of potential justices. I think it is important to have moderate representation on the Supreme Court. I think it should be looked at as more than a political tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD and launch

2012Bearcat

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 30, 2010
16,019
12,977
113
It's changed in size over the years...6 to 7 to 9 to 10 to back down to 7, settling on 9 by legislation.

It's been there for something like 150 years.

So I don't think there is anything particular sacred about 9.

At the same time, I recognize that Dems don't have the votes to pack the Supreme Court and this is all just political theater anyways.

I would be more interested in what I call "cascading term limits".....basically pass legislation setting term limits for future Justices of the same term, but having the sitting Justices time out of their present term longest sitting term limiting out first with the next rotating out in say the next 3 years until they're all gone. If you did that, then basically you would have a rotating bench where a new justice would term limit out every three years or so (not saying that the term limit should be 3 years, but because you cascaded the present judges out...whatever the term limit for the new guys is, you would see one term limiting out every three years or so).

If you put the term limit at the same number of justices (9) basically each elected President would get at least one appointment during their term. If you make the term limit longer, there will be gaps where certain Presidents won't get an appointment unless someone retires or resigns, but when the terms started cascading again, those Presidents would get at least on appointment during their term.

There's an argument that such a law wouldn't even require an amendment to the Constitution. I haven't really looked at that issue to have a strong opinion one way or the other.

The term of a SCOTUS Justice is not the problem, it's the terms of Congressman and Senators.
Under your proposal I can see the SCOTUS turning substantially more political and that's the last thing we need.
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
776
573
93

We were warned that Democrats would abuse their power in order to take control of every facet of government in order to give them supreme reign and here we are. Democrats accused Trump of being a dictator when in fact it is Democrats that are the ones that desire absolute authoritarian power. This effort is a direct threat to our Republic and should be met with absolute resistance. if Democrats manage to get this legislation through it will cause an even greater divide that will put this country on a path of destruction.
More lies. Can you not attempt the truth? Fascism is the right wing goal.. You want absolute control with no freedom of choice except for your group. And as for the supreme court issue, well republicans cheated and stole nominations so use fire against fire.
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
776
573
93
Who is surprised what the Communist Party (former Democrat Party) has planned for us? And an all time record 81 million Americans voted for this? I think not.

Will we get meaningful voter reform?
Study a little history, the court has been changed 7 times I believe I read. And you are right probably more voted for Biden, or rather against Trump, but you guys stole votes and switched them....See how stupid that sounds?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

osuintx

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 31, 2004
4,571
2,403
113
I started to question my allegiance after the Patriot Act and after about a year or two of Obama I realized that Dems and Pubs were really one party and and that party was controlled by corporations.
Yes- McCain vs Hussein........Romney vs Hussein = same choice
 

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,082
16,001
113
The term of a SCOTUS Justice is not the problem, it's the terms of Congressman and Senators.
Under your proposal I can see the SCOTUS turning substantially more political and that's the last thing we need.

Do you think term limits for Congress would make it less political?

I certainly don’t.

I also disagree that my proposal would turn SCOTUS more political. I think it would become more balanced and we’d eventually see a more balanced court.
 

Medic007

MegaPoke is insane
Sep 25, 2006
26,408
35,231
113
Do you think term limits for Congress would make it less political?

I certainly don’t.

I also disagree that my proposal would turn SCOTUS more political. I think it would become more balanced and we’d eventually see a more balanced court.
I really like your proposal. In essence, the votes of the people will moderate the court choices and thus moderate the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,082
16,001
113
That’s a reasonable argument. I hope they don’t somehow expand it or I think it would just erode confidence all together in the Supreme Court. The tactic that was used to deny Garland has been used a lot in the past. 3 or 4 year(mid president term) rotating end of terms sounds like it something that could work. I also like the idea of the sixty vote approval for justices, but you can only deny x amount of potential justices. I think it is important to have moderate representation on the Supreme Court. I think it should be looked at as more than a political tool.

Agreed.

Regarding filibuster rules, I think we should go back to a talking filibuster rule.
 

CowboyJD

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2002
29,082
16,001
113
I really like your proposal. In essence, the votes of the people will moderate the court choices and thus moderate the court.

Thanks.

That’s exactly the intent. That’s why I believe it would be less political under such a system. You wouldn’t see justices hanging on for political purposes until a President of their choice was elected. You also wouldn’t have as much chicanery with filibusters, refusing to hear a nomination, etc. IMO. And even if Presidents nominated extremely political justices, it wouldn’t unbalance the court unless that much unless one party had a LONG run of Presidential wins.
 

Medic007

MegaPoke is insane
Sep 25, 2006
26,408
35,231
113
Thanks.

That’s exactly the intent. That’s why I believe it would be less political under such a system. You wouldn’t see justices hanging on for political purposes until a President of their choice was elected. You also wouldn’t have as much chicanery with filibusters, refusing to hear a nomination, etc. IMO. And even if Presidents nominated extremely political justices, it wouldn’t unbalance the court unless that much unless one party had a LONG run of Presidential wins.
You're brilliant. I don't say that lightly.
 

Latest posts