The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.
Today’s question:
Do you think more justices should be added to the Supreme Court?
Talk about it….
50 comments
Hell no!! This whole thing is ridiculous.
+1
NO !, but I do think they should have a term limit and not be there for life. They just get older and crankier like the rest of us.😊
NO!
This is becoming as bad of a banana republic as what we left.
No, it was a bad idea when Franklin Roosevelt tried it 1937 and it is a bad idea now.
Each political party in power will add justices to “rebalance” the court and where will it end?
NO! It would only be for Political control & reasons at this point of the Game.
No. This would further undermine trust in the Judiciary as a non-political entity.
Let me put it this way, if they add justices to the Supreme Court, it will lose it’s legitimacy forever. Additionally, the court in its current make up has made very thoughtful, reasonable decisions, often contrary to the political whims of conservatives to whom progressives maintain they are beholden.
The Dems are denying they want to pack the Supreme Court, they are saying they want to reform the Supreme Court….They love to play with words.
Even Ruth Ginsburg was against packing the court. She stated that adding more members would make it look partisan, something that justices should strive to avoid.
It’s all about power and control of American civil liberties, by adding more justices they will have more who would vote the way they want them to.
Ginsburg had noted that with no set number in the Constitution, the court has had as few as five and as many as 10 justices.
“Nine seems to be a good number, and it’s been that way for a long time,” she observed.
Ginsburg explained that expanding the Supreme Court so a president could load the bench with like-minded jurists would politicize the high court and erode its independence.
Yes
1) More justices would mean if one dies it doesn’t become as much of a blood sport to choose the replacement.
2) The Constitution does not specify a number on the Court.
3) For Republicans, when they chose to refuse to meet with and vote on Obama’s pick, they started this Court Packing procedure
By this logic we should add at least 50,001 more justices.
@rob
The number has worked for years. It’s the Demorats way of manipulating the system.
@Rob.. Exactly. But republicans will never admit that.
Dear Rob,
Riddle me this my lefty friend. Do you think that if Dems get the chance to add more justices that any of them would be conservative? Absolutely not. We know this to be true because Dems elects Dems and Repubs elect Repubs. Why is that? Because both parties want judges to side with them. This is nothing more than the left trying to gain the upper hand. Obviously you support that way of thinking. You and your fellow Dems want no opposition to the laws you enact, tax increases you demand, rights you trample on and questionable election “reform” like Pelosi is trying to put in place with her pet bill HR1. Don’t deny it. We all know it’s true. The very least you could do is admit that you know exactly what the people YOU put into office are doing and are ecstatic about it. Well done. One day, when this dystopian nightmare becomes reality and your “one party rule” bites you in the backside and it’s your rights that are taken away etc. I hope you will have the courage of your convictions and admit to yourself that this was exactly what you wanted all along. To be told how much of your income you can keep, where you can go, what you can say and best of all no way to undo it because the election process is a sham and to oppose the leaders is treason. You need a wake-up call.
At one point, the supreme court consisted of one judge from each circuit. There are currently 13 circuits. It would be easy to go back to That model and you would get conservative, liberal, centrist justices based on the current circuit geographies. The court could be more balanced.
Also, no judge in the United States should have a lifetime appointment.
Republicans started this Court Packing procedure when they blocked all of Obama’s picks, including ambassadors. When in the minority the GOP threatened filibusters to prevent those appointments. McConnell blocked Garland’s nomination 11 months before the next election but rushed Amy Barrett nomination 1 week before the election. His inconsistencies show it was all a power grab.
McConnell did not respect the fact the people elected Obama. And McConnell did not do his job. It was McConnell who turned the court into a political football.
@ Doh
Exactly how many of Trump’s nominees were blocked by the Democrats? According to that rightwing political magazine Politico over 100.
So it’s bad with Republicans do it but it is perfectly okay for Democrats? Give me a F’ing break.
Move along people, nothing to see here. Rob and Doh have no idea what court packing means.
By the way, if adherence to the Constitution as written is conservative, color me a card carrying conservative. It’s disheartening to me the number of people who prefer the Supreme Court be populated by activists.
Democrat politicians are power hungry. They are relentless. Most of all they are stupid. They will wreck the country to remain in power. Wake up democrat voters. Please !!
Ricardo, Your plead will most likely fall on deaf ears. Since most people are firm in their beliefs as you, no matter where they are on the political spectrum.
I think the supreme court should stay the way it is.
Hanne
I know many people have bitten into the propaganda of the left. It has happened many times in history with always bad results. I still find it hard to believe they don’t awaken.
Funny, everything Trump warned us about the Democrats doing, they are doing. We thought he was being the usual Big mouth New York businessman, but he was right! It’s going to get much worse with idiot Biden and evil Harris. I’m prepared for the economy to tank, millions of unemployment, more homeless than ever, sky high crime and probably another war breaking out plus it wouldn’t surprise me if we had a new terrorist attack at home by isis.
And republicans are not power hungry? I would venture to say most politicians are power hungry, does not mean they don’t want go do what is right. JFK admitted power was part of the lure of the presidency.
Haha, Republicans “power hungry”??? Please. ON THE WHOLE, i.e. speaking generally, at most levels and ESPECIALLY Congress, Republicans are the most weak-kneed, spineless jellyfish you can find…they THRIVE on being in the minority, that way they get to talk tough, generate bills they know have no shot of passage, and basically do nothing but still get all the perks and stay on the invitee list for the Beltway cocktail party circuit.
But “power hungry” on the scale of Democrat ruthlessness? Have you happened to notice over the past year who the vast, and I mean OVERWHELMING majority of politicians and “health officials” who are drunk on the POWER they have with mask mandates, lockdowns, school closures, etc? FFS, prior to 2020 election in Georgia the Republican Guv and SoS caved to Stacy Abrams fat a** with nary a whimper, entering into an unconstitutional consent decree that effectively enshrined voter fraud. “Power hungry”…HILARIOUS!! Unless if by “power hungry” you mean “wanting to have the NY Times, WAPO, and CNN occasionally say nice things about me”, then yeah okay.
Absolutely not!
no way… they’re trying to stack the deck behind Trump… it’s been good for how many hundred of years? … don’t buy the argument – “they’re too busy” …. can’t believe the ridiculousness coming out of the wood work now 🙁
I would say yes if the new additions actually upheld the text of the constitution. Until we get a true textualist majority the end result will always be less liberty and more government. The Supreme Court’s main function is to uphold Article 1, Section 8, and check the power of the federal government. Time and time again the Supreme Court has failed to uphold the basic text of the constitution.
Over the past 10 years Chief Justice John Roberts has been instrumental in turning the court into a rubber stamp for government growth and control. Their decisions, or lack there of, on Obamacare, Gay Marriage, the Presidential election of 2020, and the Covid lock downs have paved the way for an unchecked all powerful federal government that will continue to encroach on our civil liberties.
I would support an age limit of 85 or 90, but the constitution would have to be amended to remove the lifetime appointment statute.
I would also support fixing the number of justices at 9, but that would also require an amendment to the constitution.
The “new additions” especially Kavanaugh and ACB have been disgusting COWARDS, voting to not even hear cases relating to election fraud…using the crutch of “no standing”, so afraid of Woke Twitter and NYT Op/Ed page they can’t even summon a modicum of courage to at least listen to the merits of the MULTIPLE cases.
That’s why Democrats are just piling on at this point in trying to pack the court, because Keegan/Sotomayor/Breyer are a bloc, and with Roberts, Kavanaugh and ACB desperate for leftist affection/approval, Dems are going to get favorable decisions at least 75% of the time.
absolutely over 80 million voted for it
they knew he was going to so yes absolutely
and we should get rid of term limits for prez too
lets have the bigon biden lead us into servitude to china like you all wanted
just get it over with …..lets be free …well not
but at least you decided for us all that we need to be under communist rule
too bad for the millions who died for freedom
they will be erased by dem loyalists and lost to time
just wish it was not so easy for the dems to wreck america this easy
No. There have been 9 Justices since 1869 (?), long enough to make this a standard. The reason crooked Nadler and Markey have proposed adding 4 more is simply because the anti-Constitutionists/anti-originalists have held the majority in the SCOTUS for what, 5 decades? All of a sudden, they think the balance has shifted toward the originalist side (not sure it has, Kavanaugh and Barrett have not demonstrated themselves as one way or the other, though Kavanaugh seems less so), so these cretins want to pack the court so that it remains compliant to their anti-Republic, anti-Constitutional wishes. What should be implemented, as mentioned by many before me, are term-limits. Rehnquist, Scalia and Ginsberg had been on so long, there was no reason they should have died while on the bench (it is not like they were too young).
No
No. The Supreme Court has a job to do and does it. This aspect of the judicial branch should not be played as a fool by the executive/legislative branch. There will be an opening in the next 4 years – there always seems to be at least one for one reason or another.
It’s amazing and frightening that, in a time when the country has never been more polarized and in conflict with itself, Democrats would seriously push such a blatant power grab. With almost a 50/50 balance in congress no less. There is hardly a mandate for this, but they don’t care, because all they want is power.
Let’s war game this out a little if they got their way. They overnight tip the SCOTUS back to a Democrat super legislature that will rubber stamp all their laws, whether they are constitutional or not. With the barest of majority in congress, they then churn out their unconstitutional nationalization of voting laws to make the 2020 mail-in election permanent, with all its room for fraud. They pass an unconstitutional ban on whatever guns they don’t like. They legalize tens of millions of illegals to ensure new voters. They bring on new states like DC and PR to bolster their congressional majority, and perhaps move to eliminate the electoral college through their unconstitutional popular vote compact work-around. Now that they are sure they have a permanent majority, they eliminate the filibuster for everything else so the can ram through whatever they want regardless of what the other 49% of the country wants. Their new politicized supreme court rubber stamps all of this, because the “living constitution” has emanations and penumbras that allow it, we conservatives are just too stupid to see it.
Does anyone think the nation stays together for very long after this? How long until a red state or states just says no, we are not enforcing, and will not allow you to enforce, one or all of these new laws? What happens then? Federal agents fighting state law enforcement? Send in the guard to arrest the state government?
There was a very good reason for the filibuster, and no it’s not racism. It’s because bare majority rule is a recipe for tyranny and revolution, and a legitimate Democracy requires very broad buy-in, not just 51%. If Democrats think that they can just keep changing rules until they get what they want and then everything will be rainbows and sunshine, they are lunatics.
Yep…. that’s the Democrat recipe for success… if you can’t win fairly, just change the rules.
Remember Harry Reid using the nuclear option back in 2013?
Once you start cheating it’s hard to stop…
Let’s see what else we can get away with!
No. If the court is packed by each change in administration when does it end? If the Democrats do this, rest assured the next Republican administration will do it.
(Interesting that it is really all about abortion…Wow. What does that say about us as a people)
Yes. There should be 69 justices on the Supreme Court. Because it represents what the dems are all about.
Please allow me to answer your question with a question. Will the Democrats believe that Court packing is a good idea when they are no longer in power? As the obvious answer is no, then no should be the obvious answer to court packing. The only people that benefit from this is the party currently in power, and by the party I mean the politicians, not the people.
The Dems believe they will forever remain in power. Their plan is to grant citizenship to all illegals and refugees, and push for Puerto Rico, and Washington DC statehood. This will give them the majority of the votes for a very long time.
No and there is good reason for no more than nine than just ideology. When the Supreme Court makes a decision they write out the reasoning to guide lower courts should similar issues come up. Occasionally the court renders a decision, but cannot agree on language to use so there are multiple opinions. With 4 additional justices there would be many more cases where the majority opinion would not be clear setting up further litigation in the lower courts.
Well said.
What scares me most is the four picks will not be chosen for their skill or experience. It will be quota based, and we’ll be stuck with lifetime incompetence. They might as well pick four of the five members of the village people. No disrespect to the Village People………
No.
And if for some reason they decide to in this power grab… Dems should nominate 2 and Repubs should be able to nominate 2… fair.
Fat chance.
“Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Officer during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Okay, Let’s pack the Supreme Court under condition that the “inferior Courts” be abolished.
See how that works out!!
AD
NO! – Any way for these idiot politicians to spend more of our money.
Number of Justices is just fine.
pelosi, her fellow swamp dwellers and THEIR propaganda apparatus called the media are doing their utmost to distract from what is close to theft giving your grandchildren’s tax dollars to grossly mismanaged blue states and those who regularly give them campaign contributions.
I saw a while back where somebody had proposed legislation saying that any change in the number of Supreme Court justices should take effect 10 years after such a change was enacted, when the party making the change may or may not be in power. In other words, if you think a change in the number of justices is a good idea, you should still think it’s a good idea when your political party is not in power.
It’s funny how Democrats didn’t seem to care about the court being imbalanced when it was tilted in their favor. Now that it actually IS pretty balanced (the newest “conservative” justices seem to side with the liberal justices as often as not), there’s an uproar about it.
Spot on. The “conservative” justices side with the “liberal” justices far more often than the inverse happens.
No.
NO! I agree with young Joe, who stated it was a big mistake, when he could reason. Old Joe is reading the script that is handed to him, without fully grasping the situation. Shall we review the first months of Joe’s term as it relates to the Democratic Party:
1- Pack the Court to gain an advantage over Republicans.
2- Statehood to the DC and Puerto Rico +4 dem senators
3- Open the border to allow enough illegals in, then grant citizenship so the
Dems can flip Texas and Arizona
4- Objection to voter ID in Georgia to flip it.
5- Continue the war on police including de-funding. Civil unrest is what the
Dems want
If accomplished, the Republicans will never win another national election.
Comments are closed.