Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

RFO'rourke want to fundamentally change SCOTUS...15 JUDGES..

Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

RFO'rourke want to fundamentally change SCOTUS...15 JUDGES..

 
Old 03-15-2019, 11:33 AM
  #1  
66jack
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
66jack's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 14,759
Thanked 267 Times in 241 Posts
Default RFO'rourke want to fundamentally change SCOTUS...15 JUDGES..

NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!


Beto O’Rourke is open to making drastic changes to fundamentally reshape the Supreme Court -- essentially court-packing, with a twist.


O’Rourke, who officially entered the 2020 race on Thursday, spoke to supporters at a coffee shop in Iowa when he floated the idea of having as many as 15 judges on the bench.


“What if there were five justices selected by Democrats, five justices selected by Republicans, and those ten then picked five more justices independent of those who chose the first ten?” he said.

“I think that’s an idea we should explore.”





https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bet...-campaign-stop
66jack is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:43 AM
  #2  
69L46
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
69L46's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: In the heart of Bulldog territory..
Posts: 26,618
Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts
2015 C3 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17-'18-‘19
Default

Don't like the way the last election turned out? Abolish the Electoral College. Don't like the current and likely future composition of the Supreme Court? Expand the number of justices.

This is the left's approach when they simply can't win through traditional efforts.
69L46 is online now  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:43 AM
  #3  
steve_n_houston
CF Senior Member
 
steve_n_houston's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 17,119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

This would result is a 10-5 liberal majority because Republicans have demonstrated again and again that they have no ability to consistently seat conservative justices. It's always a Republican appointee that's the "swing vote" (see Kennedy and now Roberts) and, in some cases, there are outright defections (e.g., Souter).

Further, I suspect Robert Francis really wants to get sign-off on a 15 judge court and then pull the rug out at the last minute and just say he'll just appoint the 6 new guys.
steve_n_houston is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:47 AM
  #4  
Jughead
Senior Member since 1492
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Jughead's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2000
Location: 1.Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me... 2.Build the WALL!
Posts: 72,696
Thanked 110 Times in 87 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09
Default

He sees that as the most pressing issue facing the nation?

Not border security? Oh wait, he wants to tear down the border wall.


Jughead is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:47 AM
  #5  
su8pack1
CF Senior Member
 
su8pack1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 38,056
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23 Times in 14 Posts
Default

FDR tried to do that.
su8pack1 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:53 AM
  #6  
Mehfoud
CF Senior Member
 
Mehfoud's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 6,797
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

He's actually that dumb.
Mehfoud is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:54 AM
  #7  
69L46
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
69L46's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: In the heart of Bulldog territory..
Posts: 26,618
Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts
2015 C3 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17-'18-‘19
Default

Originally Posted by Mehfoud View Post
He's actually that dumb.
At least he possesses some mad skateboarding skillz.

Last edited by 69L46; 03-15-2019 at 11:55 AM.
69L46 is online now  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:57 AM
  #8  
TBIRD57
CF Senior Member
 
TBIRD57's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,382
Thanked 52 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 66jack View Post
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!


Beto O’Rourke is open to making drastic changes to fundamentally reshape the Supreme Court -- essentially court-packing, with a twist.


O’Rourke, who officially entered the 2020 race on Thursday, spoke to supporters at a coffee shop in Iowa when he floated the idea of having as many as 15 judges on the bench.


“What if there were five justices selected by Democrats, five justices selected by Republicans, and those ten then picked five more justices independent of those who chose the first ten?” he said.

“I think that’s an idea we should explore.”





https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bet...-campaign-stop

He's terrible and imo will be one of the first kicked to the curb!
Looks like a GRUMPY OLD MEN 2020 Presidential election in the end!
TBIRD57 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:01 PM
  #9  
KarlK
CF Senior Member
 
KarlK's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: No, I'm not related to PeterK
Posts: 44,132
Thanked 27 Times in 16 Posts
Default

He was speaking in Keokuk, IA, the sphincter of Iowa. River rat **** hole. Collective IQ of the residents is below freezing.
KarlK is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:20 PM
  #10  
VETTRLZ
CF Senior Member
 
VETTRLZ's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2007
Location: San Diego Ca
Posts: 34,987
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by su8pack1 View Post
FDR tried to do that.
Yep. Basically, if you don't want the court to change in number of judges, be careful about who controls congress.

Here's some history and context on this subject from Constitution Center:

So why are there nine seats on the Court, and who set that precedent?

In this area, the Constitution allows for Congress to decide on how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court’s bench. Article III, Section 1, starts
with a broad direction to Congress to establish courts. “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,” it reads.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first Supreme Court, with six Justices. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August,” the act read.

Since 1789, Congress changed the maximum number of Justices on the Court several times. In 1801, President John Adams and a lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five Justices in an attempt to limit incoming President Thomas Jefferson’s appointments to the high bench. Jefferson and his Republicans soon repealed that act, putting the Court back to six Justices. And in 1807, Jefferson and Congress added a seventh Justice when it added a seventh federal court circuit.

In early 1837, President Andrew Jackson was able to add two additional Justices after Congress again expanded the number of federal circuit court districts. Under different circumstances, Congress created a 10th circuit in 1863 during the Civil War, and it briefly had a 10th Supreme Court Justice. However, Congress after the war passed legislation in 1866 to reduce the Court to seven Justices. That only lasted until 1869, when a new Judiciary Act sponsored by Senator Lyman Trumbull set the number back to nine Justices, with six Justices required at a sitting to form a quorum. President Ulysses S. Grant eventually signed that legislation and nominated William Strong and Joseph Bradley to the newly restored seats.

Since then, aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat to support an effort to add new Justices (who sympathized with his policies) to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable. In 1937, Roosevelt had won a second term in office, but the makeup of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court hadn’t changed since he took office four years earlier. Roosevelt supported a Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 to add as many as six new Justices.

The legislation struggled to gain traction, and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by the liberal Justice Louis Brandeis. Soon, changing voting patterns on the Court along with vacancies made the Court Packing plan a moot point.




VETTRLZ is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:21 PM
  #11  
jasper711
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific N.W. Warshington
Posts: 14,169
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

What is sad to observe of these air heads, is that the conservative judge appointments actually benefit all people. Liberals cannot seem to advance beyond infantile 'win-loose' mentality wherein they cannot recognize a beneficial judgement made by someone "their friends didn't appoint".

Case in point would be that a conservative judge generally follows legislature, and doesn't attempt to reinterpret laws to the effect of rewriting the laws. It is the difference between serving with humility, vs. serving with self centeredness. Serving with humility works even to the benefit of liberals.

Last edited by jasper711; 03-15-2019 at 12:22 PM.
jasper711 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:22 PM
  #12  
VETTRLZ
CF Senior Member
 
VETTRLZ's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2007
Location: San Diego Ca
Posts: 34,987
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 69L46 View Post
Don't like the way the last election turned out? Abolish the Electoral College. Don't like the current and likely future composition of the Supreme Court? Expand the number of justices.

This is the left's approach when they simply can't win through traditional efforts.
What he's actually asking for is to allow the supremes to pick more supremes. Totally unconstitutional.
VETTRLZ is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:32 PM
  #13  
BobG
CF Senior Member
 
BobG's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: kalifornia
Posts: 12,291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 69L46 View Post
Don't like the way the last election turned out? Abolish the Electoral College. Don't like the current and likely future composition of the Supreme Court? Expand the number of justices.

This is the left's approach when they simply can't win through traditional efforts.
Evil will stop at nothing to force it's oppression, perversion, slavery, and misery on the masses. How can people be so blind to support it?
BobG is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:33 PM
  #14  
BobG
CF Senior Member
 
BobG's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: kalifornia
Posts: 12,291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by VETTRLZ View Post
What he's actually asking for is to allow the supremes to pick more supremes. Totally unconstitutional.
Liberals only care about the constitution when they've either dropped a zerobuma in the toilet, or want to use it to destroy freedom, force perversion, or oppress the masses. Otherwise, it doesn't exist.
BobG is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:33 PM
  #15  
694speed350
CF Senior Member
 
694speed350's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: vonore Tn
Posts: 16,827
Thanked 30 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 66jack View Post
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!


Beto O’Rourke is open to making drastic changes to fundamentally reshape the Supreme Court -- essentially court-packing, with a twist.


O’Rourke, who officially entered the 2020 race on Thursday, spoke to supporters at a coffee shop in Iowa when he floated the idea of having as many as 15 judges on the bench.


“What if there were five justices selected by Democrats, five justices selected by Republicans, and those ten then picked five more justices independent of those who chose the first ten?” he said.

“I think that’s an idea we should explore.”

tps://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-orourke-says-drastic-supreme-court-changes-worth-considering-during-early-2020-campaign-stop
sounds like FDR in the 30s

Last edited by 694speed350; 03-15-2019 at 12:35 PM.
694speed350 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:50 PM
  #16  
Mr turbo rotary
CF Senior Member
 
Mr turbo rotary's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Va. Beach Va.
Posts: 45,636
Thanked 19 Times in 7 Posts
Default

When the left loses they try and cheat or change the system. Make up a false Russian narrative to stop Trump from becoming President, get rid of the Electoral College, pack the Supreme Court, let illegals in, no let illegals vote!
Mr turbo rotary is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:03 PM
  #17  
mrscott25
CF Senior Member
 
mrscott25's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2013
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Posts: 1,282
Thanked 25 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Crazy thought. What if we just have 9 justices whose political beliefs are irrelevant because all they do is interpret what is WRITTEN in the constitution. Political affiliation would not matter, current events would not matter. The only qualifying requirement is an ability to read what is in the constitution apply it to the case before them.
mrscott25 is online now  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:05 PM
  #18  
CJ Willys
CF Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2019
Posts: 72
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Why don't the Libs just go buy some land in say, Venezuela, China, Middle East, Canada or whatever, start their own country and then then can have everything they desire?
CJ Willys is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:20 PM
  #19  
glbeauchamp
CF Senior Member
 
glbeauchamp's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Douglas County WI
Posts: 1,713
Thanked 102 Times in 96 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BobG View Post
Evil will stop at nothing to force it's oppression, perversion, slavery, and misery on the masses. How can people be so blind to support it?
They either don't think it will affect them, don't know or believe it, or think there is something in it for them (free ****)
glbeauchamp is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:22 PM
  #20  
glbeauchamp
CF Senior Member
 
glbeauchamp's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Douglas County WI
Posts: 1,713
Thanked 102 Times in 96 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CJ ****** View Post
Why don't the Libs just go buy some land in say, Venezuela, China, Middle East, Canada or whatever, start their own country and then then can have everything they desire?
Even if they did, they would demand somebody else pay for it. Which I guess would be OK if it got rid of them permanently.
glbeauchamp is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: RFO'rourke want to fundamentally change SCOTUS...15 JUDGES..


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: