View RSS Feed

James Lateer

Pack The Court

Rate this Entry
This simple concept could provide a miracle cure for the problems that beset our democracy.

Like England, we have an unelected group which has the power to overrule all decisions by elected officials. ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Pretty dumb, huh?

I think this concept could blossom. It would divide the sheep from the goats in terms of Democratic leadership. I'm already going online and looking for a bumper-sticker with the message "Pack the Court".

James Lateer
Share/Bookmark
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. James Lateer's Avatar
    Just ordered my "PACK THE COURT" bumper stickers. This idea will really take off. Some people say that the Republicans would pack it first. Well, if the Democrats had the Presidency and 51% of the House and Senate, they could decrease the number to, say, 5 and then 30 days later, increase it back up to 15.

    All of this would create constructive chaos. It would force the two parties to have a court which is 8 in number with 4 from each party. Or then the 4 Democrats and 4 Republican judges could elect a 9th who was non-partisan. This non-partisan could be replaced if he became partisan after he was appointed.

    This pact or "treaty" would take the Supreme Court out of the political business. It never should have become political in the first place.

    James Lateer
  2. James Lateer's Avatar
    If we "pack the court" every time we have a new president, this will solve much.

    James Lateer
  3. Phil Dagosto's Avatar
    The problem I have with the pack the court strategy the court can be packed (and unpacked) by either party. Once its packed with lifetime appointees by one party the other party, when it gets the presidency, will either unpack it or further pack it with judges that share their ideology. Where does it end? I dunno, maybe having a lot more SCOTUS justices would work out but I fear that we would end up the same way we are now with a one-vote majority favoring the last party that had the opportunity to make the most appointments.

    I would be more in favor of term limits for SCOTUS justices (also for abolishing the Senate and greatly expanding the House - but that's another story).
  4. James Lateer's Avatar
    Mr. Dagosto has hit the nail on the head. We would wind up with a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court created by the last people who had the chance to do the packing.

    The way it is now, we have a majority picked by Presidents like Reagan who has been dead for decades. Having the most recent party in power do the packing would keep the packing current with the most recent thinking of the voters and would thus constantly update the Court for changes in the thinking of the voters. That's what democracy is supposed to be. Not Reagan running the country from the grave.
  5. Phil Dagosto's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by James Lateer
    Mr. Dagosto has hit the nail on the head. We would wind up with a one-vote majority on the Supreme Court created by the last people who had the chance to do the packing.

    The way it is now, we have a majority picked by Presidents like Reagan who has been dead for decades. Having the most recent party in power do the packing would keep the packing current with the most recent thinking of the voters and would thus constantly update the Court for changes in the thinking of the voters. That's what democracy is supposed to be. Not Reagan running the country from the grave.
    Well right now Trump would be packing the court with more people like Gorsuch and Kavanaguh (OK, more sober versions of Kavanaugh). Would you be happy with that? Does Trump's vision represent the "most recent thinking of the voters"? Does the "most recent thinking of the voters" always coincide with what's good?
  6. James Lateer's Avatar
    Yes, Mr. Dagosto, Trump is now packing the Court to his taste. And yes, Trump's thinking was what the voters approved on 11-6-16.

    In 2020, the voters may have different thinking. But Trump's packing will still be in effect, maybe for 30 more years.

    Many of Trump's policies are just for helping rich people like him. But should Trump be able to run the country for the next 30 years, possibly FROM THE GRAVE? This is just not remotely defensible.

    Although you are probably defending the Court as an institution, this whole situation is really not defensible as making any kind of logical sense. The Kavanaugh debacle is just putting the icing on this huge cake of horse ****.

    James Lateer
  7. Phil Dagosto's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by James Lateer
    Yes, Mr. Dagosto, Trump is now packing the Court to his taste. And yes, Trump's thinking was what the voters approved on 11-6-16.

    Umm. no - that was only an artifact of the Electoral College. The popular vote went to Clinton. And no, I am not a fan of the Clintons or the Democrats but your statement is factually wrong. In addition, poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans hold positions on issues that are diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the Trump agenda.

    In 2020, the voters may have different thinking. But Trump's packing will still be in effect, maybe for 30 more years.

    Many of Trump's policies are just for helping rich people like him. But should Trump be able to run the country for the next 30 years, possibly FROM THE GRAVE? This is just not remotely defensible.

    No. I agree with you there but if you read my original reply I advocated term limits for SCOTUS judges. If the Democrats want to shape the SCOTUS they need to win more elections. That means not running lame establishment candidates like Clinton whose agenda is not nearly as far from Trump's as her apologists would have you think. And it also means not pissing away majorities in both houses of Congress like Obama did (along with control of the vast majority of state houses and governors). IIRC the Democrats declined to filibuster the Roberts and Alito nominations. That's where the SCOTUS was lost, probably irretrievably, for many, many years.

    Although you are probably defending the Court as an institution, this whole situation is really not defensible as making any kind of logical sense. The Kavanaugh debacle is just putting the icing on this huge cake of horse ****.

    I am not defending the SCOTUS as an institution. I personally think the SCOTUS is a joke - a completely political institution shrouded in a covering of impartiality and respectability that it does not deserve.


    James Lateer
    My replies in blue.
  8. James Lateer's Avatar
    Mr. Dagosto:

    I think we agree on almost everything. The problem with term limits is that they violate Article 3 of the Constitution and would require a Constitutional Amendment.

    Packing the Court would only require 51% votes in Congress and the signature of the President. That could happen as early as 2021.

    There could also be changes to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress could require that overturning a law could require an ad hoc panel of judges from various
    Federal Appellate Courts including the Supreme Court, maybe a special panel of 13 judges. This enlarged appellate process is done when an appeal is heard en banc from a lower court where all the qualified judges at that level vote.

    Or the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be split into a Social Branch and a Legal Branch like they do in Venezuela.

    James Lateer
  9. James Lateer's Avatar
    Haven't all you folks gotten it yet?

    The Constitution says that Federal Judges serve during good behavior. The question of good behavior could be determined by a vote of the American people.

    If a Democratic Congress wanted to go after the Supreme Court, they have a thousand ways they could do it. The people have just been the victims of a humongous scam.

    Have you got it yet?

    James Lateer
  10. James Lateer's Avatar
    Dr. Christine Ford was raped by "Judge" Kavanaugh. Now everybody in America has been. And it doesn't feel good.

    James Lateer
    Updated 10-07-2018 at 02:11 AM by James Lateer