0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
i think having the justices pick the justices is a great ideai dont want any more of them tho
Quote from: puniraptor on March 25, 2019, 08:22:01 PMi think having the justices pick the justices is a great ideai dont want any more of them thoI haven't really formed an opinion on it myself one way or the other, but I'm just curious: What's your thought process for the second point?Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Quote from: Spracne on March 25, 2019, 08:29:32 PMQuote from: puniraptor on March 25, 2019, 08:22:01 PMi think having the justices pick the justices is a great ideai dont want any more of them thoI haven't really formed an opinion on it myself one way or the other, but I'm just curious: What's your thought process for the second point?Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalkthe fewer there are, the more you can get to know each of them and it makes it more fun. If there were 15, I wouldnt know the name of a single one or care even a little bit about their appointments or opinions
it should really be sized on workload. each case normally has 2 opinions. how many cases do we want a year and how many justices does it take to hear them and generate the necessary opinions.
I am not opposed to the idea of more judges, but I don't want it to happen because of some power grab, which is the most likely scenario. I'm also a fan of 9 judges at 16 year terms, 2 appointed each presidential term
I’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.
Obama had Scalia murdered.
Quote from: catastrophe on March 25, 2019, 10:39:42 PMI’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.
Quote from: sys on March 25, 2019, 10:46:21 PMQuote from: catastrophe on March 25, 2019, 10:39:42 PMI’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.the seal has already been brokenthere have been 6, 7, 9, and 10 justice courts. the constitution does not define the size of the court
Quote from: puniraptor on March 26, 2019, 12:50:15 AMQuote from: sys on March 25, 2019, 10:46:21 PMQuote from: catastrophe on March 25, 2019, 10:39:42 PMI’m against appointing more justices because once that seal is broken it would just keep going up. Every president campaigning would be like, and we’ll take control back of the Supreme Court by appointing X more justices, and then you’ll end up with like 400 justices and omg can you imagine oral argument then? It would just be ridiculous. Anyway 9 seems like a good number.before we get to that point, some smart president will figure out that it's more efficient and better p.r. to just assassinate the opposing party's justices.the seal has already been brokenthere have been 6, 7, 9, and 10 justice courts. the constitution does not define the size of the courtI already made that point. But the status quo is pretty relevant in the least-understood branch of government. How long has it been since there have been not 9 Justices? Rhetorical question. I know the answer. You know who doesn't want a shake up in the high court? The high court, because it would undermine their legitimacy as an independent and coequal branch of government. Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
thinking back, i think gillibrand did indicate an openness to consider removing existing barriers on the border. so that's two. pretty sure no one else has. i know when harris was pressed on it she was a hard no and talked up a bunch of trump reinforcing crap about border security.please do link me up if there are other candidates pushing back on continuing to have a militarized southern border forever. i'd be very happy to know of them.
what if each dying president gets to appoint a justice with his or her last breath