• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Expand The Supreme Court? Your Opinion.

Do You Favor Expanding The Supreme Court


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
The system is supposed to be a logical interpretation of the constitution and yet we have results that border on 50-50 votes. That doesn't suggest to me that the number of votes is the problem. It suggests to me that the constitution is not detailed enough.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Seems that some of the Dem's presidential hopefuls are warming to the idea of expanding the Supreme Court.
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
In the past it was done as an attempt to pack the court with one's chosen judges. The problem is that one could expand the court every time a new regime took over.

I don't see the problems of the court as being either too liberal or too conservative serious enough to mess with it. Perhaps they should instead fight to make it not possible to deny a judge's hearings as the Republicans did. That would go a lot further to solve the problems of a court rather than packing it back and forth with biased judges.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Perhaps they should instead fight to make it not possible to deny a judge's hearings as the Republicans did.
Given that thought would you have a problem if a vacancy happened on the Supreme Court in 2020 and President Trump nominated a candidate to fill that vacancy and the Senate approved that nomination?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The system is supposed to be a logical interpretation of the constitution and yet we have results that border on 50-50 votes. That doesn't suggest to me that the number of votes is the problem. It suggests to me that the constitution is not detailed enough.
Given that thought would you have a problem if a vacancy happened on the Supreme Court in 2020 and President Trump nominated a candidate to fill that vacancy and the Senate approved that nomination?
It needs to go both ways, so yes. If Trump made such a nomination that should have a fair hearing as well. There is no "it is my turn to get back at you first".
 

PureX

Veteran Member
It doesn't matter how big the Supreme Court is if we keep stacking it with deliberately biased judges just so they will decide in favor of our own biased views.

We should be utterly disgusted with ANY politician that dares to suggest he/she would help appoint a Supreme Court Judge that is biased toward OUR preferences and agendas, and against those of our fellow citizens. Because that's a sure way of destroying the fairness and legitimacy of the court, and when it's the highest court in the land, that means we have destroyed the fairness and legitimacy our our whole justice system. Shame on us all for allowing our elected officials to deliberately corrupt and destroy our justice system just to get our own way.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
The Supreme Court needs to be revised to include term limits. That would help fix the issue of stacking the courts without a huge overhaul.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Just to throw a monkey wrench into the system. Add one more judge. No ties allowed. If a decision comes out 5 to 5 the judges would have to go back and deliberate again.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Leave it at 9, then no ties.
No ties in my messed up system either. People are always complaining about 5-4 decisions. It appears that one man may have made the decision to them. I seriously do not think that it would happen, just throwing it out there for discussion.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Merrick Garland. The right started it now wants to make sure the left can't respond.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
The issue is that nothing we are discussing addresses the primary problem. Supreme Court Justices should be unbiased judges in the determination of case outcomes. More recently, however, one can begin to argue that this is no longer the case. Appointments are carried out by selecting someone who walks party lines in an effort to further future legislation. This should not be the case.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The issue is that nothing we are discussing addresses the primary problem. Supreme Court Justices should be unbiased judges in the determination of case outcomes. More recently, however, one can begin to argue that this is no longer the case. Appointments are carried out by selecting someone who walks party lines in an effort to further future legislation. This should not be the case.
Uh, how about the current Chief Justice, seems that he was appointed by a Republican and if my memory serves me correctly he hasn't exactly "walked party lines".
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Given that thought would you have a problem if a vacancy happened on the Supreme Court in 2020 and President Trump nominated a candidate to fill that vacancy and the Senate approved that nomination?

I would, but mainly because it is unfair given what happened previously. if the Republicans hadn't *stolen* a Supreme court seat, I would have no problem. But to have them benefit both coming and going seems, well, not democratic.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
There doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to expand the Supreme Court.

The question is: What is the perfect number of judges to sit on the Supreme Court?

If the answer is: 'as many as it takes to get the court to rule in favor of my particular politics', then it's a non-starter. You don't actually care about appointing the right number of judges.
 
Top