NY Times pushes idea of enlarging SCOTUS

[ChicosBailBonds]

I love this one  .   They don't like Alito or Roberts so now they're pushing the idea for the Democrats to "rectify" the court by enlarging it if they get the Presidency in 2008.  By enlarging it to 9 or 13 justices, they can then appoint the folks they want to fill in the vacancies.

Moving the goalposts...reminds me of the 2000 election.

[mu_hilltopper]

Didn't read that, (link?)  but regardless of your political persuasion .. I get very nervous about all these 5-4 decisions on major topics, going either direction.

Our judicial system is beginning to look less like a bastion of lady justice, where prudence, wisdom, and law reign, and more like a political arm, where but for one vote, the law of the land can be radically changed, just because one vote couldn't be flipped.  Consensus be damned.

I, of course, don't know how that's fixed, as even if you double the SC, it all depends on the vulturous politicians and who they appoint.  -- Which is probably the biggest problem.  Now, every President must pick a SC member as a "solid" conservative or liberal.    No one wants to pick a guy who will surprise them and be, horror of horrors, a moderate.

[Pakuni]

I love this one  .   They don't like Alito or Roberts so now they're pushing the idea for the Democrats to "rectify" the court by enlarging it if they get the Presidency in 2008.  By enlarging it to 9 or 13 justices, they can then appoint the folks they want to fill in the vacancies.

Moving the goalposts...reminds me of the 2000 election.

Actually, it was an op-ed piece by Marshall University professor and biographer Jean Edward Smith.
God forbid the Times allow itself to be a forum for people's viewpoints.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I love this one  .   They don't like Alito or Roberts so now they're pushing the idea for the Democrats to "rectify" the court by enlarging it if they get the Presidency in 2008.  By enlarging it to 9 or 13 justices, they can then appoint the folks they want to fill in the vacancies.

Moving the goalposts...reminds me of the 2000 election.

Actually, it was an op-ed piece by Marshall University professor and biographer Jean Edward Smith.
God forbid the Times allow itself to be a forum for people's viewpoints.

It's funny, I don't recall a similar op-ed piece say during the Clinton years to expand the court when a Republican took over at POTUS. 


What I find always funny about this stuff is that people are concerned about the 5 that are making decisions when it's the same 5 but they never look on the fact it's the same 4 on the other side. 


Here's the link    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The fact that this is even brought up, let alone published in the Times is scary.  It's a silly idea...you expand to 11 and then when the Republicans get control again (which eventually happens) they would expand and back and forth.  Its silly.

Quite frankly, I've been thinking for years about writing a book about a renegade political group that assasinates several Supreme Court justices so their side can stack the court.  Purely fiction, of course, but I think it would make for a good story that could happen.

I would add Hilltopper that at least in my recent memory, the SC nominees put in by Democrat Presidents usually get approved with 90+ votes.  A Republican nominee is usually fought to the bitter end (Bork, Thomas, Alito)....exactly who is the more partisan group in these exchanges?

[Pakuni]

Quite frankly, I've been thinking for years about writing a book about a renegade political group that assasinates several Supreme Court justices so their side can stack the court.  Purely fiction, of course, but I think it would make for a good story that could happen.

Been done, more or less, by John Grisham in "The Pelican Brief." Evil corporation kills two justices who would block plans to drill for oil in Lousiana nature preserve. Corporation hopes President, who is in its pocket, would nominate replacements more affable toward their cause.

I would add Hilltopper that at least in my recent memory, the SC nominees put in by Democrat Presidents usually get approved with 90+ votes.  A Republican nominee is usually fought to the bitter end (Bork, Thomas, Alito)....exactly who is the more partisan group in these exchanges?

I don't know if I'd say Republican nominees are "usually" fought to the bitter end. Since 1980, only one Republican nominee (Bork) was rejected and only one other (Thomas) was close. and in Thomas' case, even excluding the Anita Hill thing, there were good reasons to question his qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court ... like the fact he had less than one year judicial experience at the time.
Regardless, that's two out of nine. Four of those nine received more than 90 votes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah, but the Pelican Brief comes from the angle of evil corporation.  I want it to come from the angle of delusional activist gone...more delusional.   


I think you proved my point though didn't you...2 of 9 were highly highly contentious.  5 of 9 didn't even get 90 votes.  Hell, some didn't even get 60 votes (Alito, Thomas).  Roberts didn't get 80 votes.

Now look at the Dems....Ginsberg, 97 votes.  She was everything a Conservative isn't, but she got 97 votes.  Breyer got 87 votes.

I also said in recent memory...the last Republican nominee to get numbers like Ginsberg got?  Ronald Reagan was President.


Who exactly is being partisan, again I ask.

[mu_hilltopper]

I'll bet you a donut that there will never be another 70+ vote for another SC nominee ever again .. (caveats, as long as there's president who is an R or D, and neither party has more than, say +20 majority in the Senate.) .. The amount of rancor and poison has increased exponentially each year with no end in sight.  Pleasing the "base" is tantamount.

Let's have this conversation again when President Hillary puts up her first nominee.  See how genial the Republicans are then.  (god forbid that happens.)

There's plenty of blame to go around.  Neither party is clean.

On the other topic, I've said it before, I'm shocked beyond belief that there aren't any assassination attempts on officials in the US.  Whether by loonie with a gun, activist gone nuts, angry partisan, or Pelican Brief corporate collusion.  Just flabbergasted. 

[Murffieus]

The people have elected Republican Presidents for 20 of the past 28 years----as such they deserve and indeed should have a conservative court!

[mu_hilltopper]

If you want a political judiciary, then yes, you are entirely correct.

[Chili]

The people have elected Republican Presidents for 20 of the past 28 years----as such they deserve and indeed should have a conservative court!

Are you mad? That is the most anti-American thing I have heard. Remember Justice is blind and the people do not decide it. What you just said spit on the Constitution and all that is great in this country. I think it is time for you to re-read the documents that our soldiers fight to protect. You are the type of person that is ruining this country. Everything has to be politcal - nothing can just be American.

[gjreda]

The people have elected Republican Presidents for 20 of the past 28 years----as such they deserve and indeed should have a conservative court!

Are you mad? That is the most anti-American thing I have heard. Remember Justice is blind and the people do not decide it. What you just said spit on the Constitution and all that is great in this country. I think it is time for you to re-read the documents that our soldiers fight to protect. You are the type of person that is ruining this country. Everything has to be politcal - nothing can just be American.

Well said, Chili. 

[Murffieus]

You're wrong----not well said at all, Chili!

The same LAW is there for a conservative court or a liberal court to interpret----however the perception/interpretation of that SAME law will be different depending which persuasion is in control!

Why do you think the founding fathers had the President appoint federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices)----it's because the president is going to follow the will of the people who elected him and appoint judges that he feels are going to "interpret" the law the same way he (the President) perceives it.

The founding fathers knew this would be the way it played out----so it's not  "unAmerican" as you cite and Murf isn' "mad" at all-----it's the way it's set up in the constitution (that is unless you think the Constitution to be "unAmerican")!

[gjreda]

You're wrong----not well said at all, Chili!

The same LAW is there for a conservative court or a liberal court to interpret----however the perception/interpretation of that SAME law will be different depending which persuasion is in control!

Why do you think the founding fathers had the President appoint federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices)----it's because the president is going to follow the will of the people who elected him and appoint judges that he feels are going to "interpret" the law the same way he (the President) perceives it.

The founding fathers knew this would be the way it played out----so it's not  "unAmerican" as you cite and Murf isn' "mad" at all-----it's the way it's set up in the constitution (that is unless you think the Constitution to be "unAmerican")!

Oh yea, I forgot the President is supposed to follow the will of the people.  That's been tough to realize over the past 7 years.

Apparently you and the founding fathers were good buddies though.

So what happens when a Republican president fills the Court with Republican justices and then a Dem takes office four years later?  Is it TS for the Dem since presidents only serve for four years where as a SC term is for life?  The way it is set up is basically luck of the draw and if you don't have luck... well then you are screwed.

You defeat your own argument for a Court that matches the views of the people when you state that Republican presidents have been elected 20 of the last 28 years.  8 of those years it was a Dem.  Does that mean those 8 years we still should have had a Republican court even though it obviously is not the will of the people?

[Murffieus]

The President follows the will of the electorate---not the polls----governing by polls isn't leadership---it's hindsight!

Don't argue with me with the way the constituion was set up-----the founding fathers set up the structure of the supreme court membership in a residual manner so as to avoid dramatic and sudden shifts in the way the law is interpreted.

The founding fathers could have set it up so the new president could clean the old justices out and put in all nine new ones----but they chose not to do that as they wanted a more gradual shift in legal perception!

So it isn't the way Murf set it up----if you have a beef take it up with Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison!

[mu_hilltopper]

The law should be the law, plain and simple.  It shouldn't ebb and flow on the whims of who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania, nor the people who elect them.  Justice should be above politics.  It should be a blind seeking of truth with finality.   

We are in the middle of an era where that is no longer so, which devalues us as a society.

That's why these split decisions concern me so.

[gjreda]

The law should be the law, plain and simple.  It shouldn't ebb and flow on the whims of who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania, nor the people who elect them.  Justice should be above politics.  It should be a blind seeking of truth with finality.   

We are in the middle of an era where that is no longer so, which devalues us as a society.

That's why these split decisions concern me so.

Agreed hilltopper.

Murff, the fact that you feel the SC should all be of the same political affiliation of the president is absolutely ridiculous.  Politics should never come into play when interpreting law, but unfortunately, it seemingly does sometimes.

[Murffieus]

you aren't factoring in the human element here----2 justices can look at the same law and while being very honest with themselves come up with very different intrepretations of that law----it's called perception----always was and always will be that way (human nature is human nature)-----have to look at that not as you think it should be, but as how things really are!

[tower912]

Chili was right.  You're mad (crazy) on so many things.

[Murffieus]

"You're mad (crazy) on so many things".

Tower----see what I mean----it's all in the perception. You look at the same thing and see it 180 degrees differently than I----but that doesn't make you right and me wrong----only time will tell on Iraq!

[gjreda]

"You're mad (crazy) on so many things".

Tower----see what I mean----it's all in the perception. You look at the same thing and see it 180 degrees differently than I----but that doesn't make you right and me wrong----only time will tell on Iraq!

So it would be OK if everyone on the SC was conservative because, while they have the same political beliefs, they might view a law differently... rightttttt.

A variety of beliefs assures differing perceptions... which is the way it should be.  Law should never be biased.

And Murff, no one was even talking about Iraq in this thread.  I understand you are using it to show an example of differing perceptions, but it also continues to emphasize how truly mad you are in regards to the war.  We have differing beliefs in regards to it, but your enthusiasm for the war is somewhat disturbing.

[Pakuni]

Why do you think the founding fathers had the President appoint federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices)----it's because the president is going to follow the will of the people who elected him and appoint judges that he feels are going to "interpret" the law the same way he (the President) perceives it.

The founding fathers knew this would be the way it played out----so it's not  "unAmerican" as you cite and Murf isn' "mad" at all-----it's the way it's set up in the constitution (that is unless you think the Constitution to be "unAmerican")!

The Constitution does not give the president the power to appoint judges. It gives the president the power to nominate them. That nomination must then be confirmed by the Senate.
And that certainly wasn't done because it would reflect the will of the people. The occupant of the White House no more reflects the will of the people than do the occupants of Congress. Perhaps even less so since Congressmen are populary elected, unlike the president, and their makeup can change every two years, not four like the presidency.

It's funny ... whenever there's a hard-fought confirmation process, one side or the other acts as if the Senate is doing something improper or unfair. In reality, they're doing exactly what the Constitution says they should.
Now, it may be fair to argue that the Senate at times has politicized the confirmation process, but I highly doubt the founders were unaware of this possibility. In fact, I suspect they expected it and wanted it.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni you are correct as "nomination" is the correct word, but 90% of the nominations to the supreme court get confirmed----so the current electorate does get a voice (congress).

Of course the president and elected congressmen reflect the will of the people as they are elected by the people----so how can it be otherwise? When I voted for GWB in 2004 I knew that there would be at least one vacancy if not two and one of the reasons i voted for GWB is because I thought he would appoint conservative judges that would intrepret the law and not make law. I'm sure I wasn't alone in that thinking.

Eagle-----you bet I'm very interested in this war----I was of the age of reason throughout World War 2----learned from my DAD (first hand) about the causes of and reason for World War I----lived through the Korean War----the Vietnam War----the Gulf War and now Iraq----plus i have read the history books. And through all this I learned one thing----and that is if you fight a war against an "ambitious" enemy-----you had better win----because if you lose you embolden that ambitious enemy and your going to have to fight them again when they are even in a stronger position and many more lives will be lost-----the lesson pre World War II taught us that beginning with the Neville Chamberlin Munich pact of 1936!

I ask you Eagle----is there any doubt in your mind that Radical Islam in it's various forms isn't an "ambitious enemy"??????

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

It's funny ... whenever there's a hard-fought confirmation process, one side or the other acts as if the Senate is doing something improper or unfair. In reality, they're doing exactly what the Constitution says they should.

I think the problem is more around the litmus test around certain issues by certain Senators.  They really are not looking for an individual to look at the facts of the cases as they come up but to already have the "lockstep" viewpoint on these issues.  Abortion comes to mind.  If a nominee is personally against abortion even if they have never ruled on the issue, a majority of Democrats would refuse to even consider them