General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Will the Democrats pack SCOTUS?

Asked by crazyguy (1085points) 1 week ago

If the Republicans perform as poorly as indicated by most polls in November, the Democrats will enjoy a trifecta, with full control of the House, Senate and the White House. However, SCOTUS will be indelibly right-wing for decades. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the next oldest justice is a Clinton appointee, Stephen Breyer. Then come two Bush appointees, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

If the Democrats do not want conservatives keeping them honest, do they have any choice other than packing the Supreme Court?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

88 Answers

kritiper's avatar

No more than the Republicans will.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@crazyguy Tell me the mechanics to “pack” the the SCOTUS !

If Trump gets his way it will be 6 Conservatives to 3 MODERATES !

elbanditoroso's avatar

Funny that a guy who backs two thefts of supreme court seats is worried about the Dems.

Turnabout is fair play, buster.

Although I doubt the Dems would. They have more respect for history than the Repos do.

Demosthenes's avatar

The number of justices has been set at 9 since 1868 so it’s hard to imagine it being upended now, but anything’s possible I guess.

lastexit's avatar

The conservative Senate blocked Obama from a Supreme Court pick. They claimed it was too close to the election seven months out. Now they are shoving through another judge while voting is actually taking place What a pack of hypocrites. With a six to three majority women are in danger of losing reproductive rights. If they have any guts I hope they do expand the court.

crazyguy's avatar

@Demosthenes If the Democrats do not win the Senate, then of course, they cannot do anything. If, however, they do win the Senate, why would they not increase the number of justices to 13 so Democrat-leaning justices can have a 7–6 majority?

I think Biden slipped up today when he stated his own position. He said he personally is not a big fan of packing the court. If the Dems do it anyway, it will be confirmation that Biden’s strings are being pulled by somebody else.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan If they don’t, the trifecta will be barred from doing anything extra-constitutional. I guess that will be a good thing.

crazyguy's avatar

@lastexit Whether you believe it or not, the same thing would have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. If Trump had slightly better chances of being re-elected, the Republicans may have been a bit more careful. But now the attitude is basically, let’s leave a mark while we still can.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Waiting – – – > “Tell me the mechanics to “pack” the the SCOTUS !”

lastexit's avatar

@crazyguy I find that to be very unlikely. They’re too damn polite. I wish they’d fight a little harder.

seawulf575's avatar

The number of justices on the SCOTUS is not set by any law and is not spelled out in the Constitution. The number has been changed a number of times in our nations history. @Tropical_Willie Since you obviously don’t know how to do research, the answer is that Congress would pass a law that says the new number is X. They could make it 23 justices if they want. The Democrats and their big money handlers would benefit from this by putting as many justices in position that they would be able to pass any law they wanted and the SCOTUS would never vote against them as being unconstitutional. They could pass a bill that said the only allowable political party was Democrat since any others would be considered seditious. If you have a court that backs you up, how do you lose? Will they do this? As unhinged as the Democrats have become, yes, I believe they will. They have been pushing to destroy our sovereignty for several decades now. This would allow them to do it in rapid fashion. And if it caused a civil war, that would be okay with them as well since that would only speed up the destruction.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Democrats have about as much chance of stacking the court as the Republicans have of overturning Roe vs. Wade or Obamacare. It ain’t gonna happen. Just as Obama didn’t confiscate the guns from crazy crackers, the appointment of a papist zealot to the Supreme Court will not motivate a Democratic majority to pack the court. If the most popular President in the history of the country was unable to pull it off, what chance in hell has Biden even with a Democratic majority Congress? As it is, even with a courtload of stick up the ass conservative justices, the court failed not only failed to overturn the Social Security Act and most of Roosevelt’s revolutionary social mandates, but oversaw the most aggressive extension of social progressivism in the history of the country. The depression and Second World War were the twin demonstration projects assuring the age of big government was here to stay. No court or conservative majority is going to shift this fact any more than flying a 747 is going to require less expertise than a Sopwith Camel. These discussions are around asinine suppositions, where the hype is pretty much ridiculous. For example, Democrats are terrified that idiot Republican legislators will do what they scream and threaten but are not quite stupid enough to actually attempt—eliminate Obamacare. There isn’t a chance in hell of them pulling it off, which is why it is hoped that they might get the court to do it for them. But the truth about Obamacare is that there would be no catastrophe in the history of this country that would match the repeal of Obamacare with nothing to replace it. It’s a false and impossible threat and certain political death for anyone responsible for its implementation—which is EXACTLY why it ain’t gonna happen unless the truth is recognized, and universal single payer healthcare becomes the law of the land. The same is true for abortion. Outlawing abortion is about as useless a proposition as banning marijuana in a society where the burden of child rearing is increasingly a surefire ticket to destitution. The ridiculous political landscape in this country of blockheads makes me want to throw my hands up in despair.

JLeslie's avatar

Doubtful.

LostInParadise's avatar

It is more likely that the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster and move bills through Congress.

Response moderated (Spam)
crazyguy's avatar

@lastexit You say the Democrats are “too damn polite” to attempt to pack the court? LOL

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. Tell me, do you think we have any chance of averting disaster with 20 days to go to the election?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Trump is THE disaster. And the rather obvious aversion would be to vote his flabby ass into the oblivion of the prison he deserves.

crazyguy's avatar

@stanleybmanly The stats around Obamacare:
Percent of population insured under Obamacare = 22/330 = about 7%
Percent of population with no insurance = 30/330 = about 9%.
Percent of Obamacare insured without government aid = 13% (87% have expanded medicaid)

Unsubsidized cost of an Obamacare bronze plan (the cheapest tier) in 2019 was over $1,000 per month. See

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/affordable-care-act/much-health-insurance-cost-without-subsidy

The total cost of Obamacare to the Government in 2019 was over $1.3 TRILLION! See

https://www.debt.org/medical/obamacare/

Now you tell me “that there would be no catastrophe in the history of this country that would match the repeal of Obamacare with nothing to replace it. ” I feel sorry for our politicians who don’t have the guts to vote it out of existence.

However, if the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, I will not shed a tear. And nor should anybody else who doesn’t directly benefit from the subsidy. As somebody who had to purchase an Obamacare plan for my wife for one year (thanks God it was just one year) I know just how much cheaper insurance could be without government interference.

By the way did you realize that health insurance stocks have outperformed the S&P 500 for the four years starting March 2014 by a mind-boggling 106%? see https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Profitability-of-Health-Insurance-Companies.pdf

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie That is the shortest answer I have ever got from you. Are you ok?

crazyguy's avatar

@augieLemmon I agree that ACB is excellent. I was impressed by her calm demeanor in not allowing any emotion to cloud her predetermined strategy of not giving away any indication of how she may rule on major cases. That, along with her superlative memory, will make her a successful member of SCOTUS.

crazyguy's avatar

@canidmajor “Packing the court” had a very specific meaning – until this week. Now it has been given different connotations by the Democrats.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Not the first time I’ve had a one word answer and won’t be the last.

lastexit's avatar

@crazyguy Gee, I really hope you’re right and that they aren’t too polite to do so.

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy Do I think we have a chance of averting disaster? I think it will be an amusing election. I think the media is in full hype mode right now, which is the only unknown on how the public will vote. There are lots of Trump supporters out there…more than the polls reflect, more than are out at the rallies. There are a lot of people that just don’t like Biden or Harris, but don’t run around screaming it. I remember seeing one poll recently that was taking a view of how people would vote during the election. It showed about a dead heat with Biden and Trump…Biden had a slight lead. But then they asked a question that was something like “would you openly tell someone how you will vote?” The response was that something ridiculous like 65% or 70% said they would not. In other words, most people will not say one way or the other. So all the polls are bogus. Just as they were in 2016. So yeah, I think much of the hype we are hearing is complete crap and I think there is a good chance we will avert disaster.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 That is extremely good news. I was hoping that by now Biden would have put both feet in his mouth, and the polls would show him losing badly. A close election will drag on as late-arriving mail-in ballots or even on-time, uncounted mail-in ballots are counted. I really cannot understand why counting mail-in ballots take any longer than counting in-person ballots, after the initial signature match is done.

crazyguy's avatar

@lastexit Given recent dirt on Biden, that eventuality may not come to pass.

Strauss's avatar

@crazyguy Which dirt do you mean? This or this?

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy and that is why the Senate Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena for Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, to appear and explain why they feel it is okay to try burying this story and targeting anyone that tries to mention it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Here’s hoping Dorsey takes a page from the Trump playbook and ignores the subpoena. You
conservatives looking for the “hail mary” play that might pull
Trump from the toilet should notice the Forbes take on the NY Post fabrication. What you folks regard as suppression of the news is nothing more than rejection of typical wing nut electoral disinformation for which the right is notorious. Of course any obvious attempt to “swift boat” Biden is going to be viewed with the skepticism it deserves, and the fact that it is the Trump organization trying to whip up traction on this nonsense is the final nail in the coffin of credibility around this “story”. It’s a good sign that media outlets as well as the internet platforms are finally stepping up to their responsibility and refusing to allow babble to establish currency as legitimate news. At last no one cares when you clowns yell “fire!”

LostInParadise's avatar

It looks like something was learned from the Mueller investigation and Trump’s impeachment.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 @stanleybmanly I do not think Dorsey or Zuckerberg will ignore the subpoenas. Dorsey has already admitted that Twitter handled the story suppression wrong; what we have to find out is if he thinks the story should have been suppressed or not.

As to the merit of the story, I find it a little more credible than the Trump dossier. For one thing, the purported laptop has stuff you would hopefully not find on anybody else’s computer, like Hunter having sex. I guess it is possible that the Russians were able to hack Hunter’s computer and leak the info to the NY Post. What gives that story a little more credence is the fact that the FBI has supposedly had Hunter’s laptop since December 2019. While Government is slow, and investigations are even slower, it is highly unlikely that these emails have not been fully investigated by the FBI in over 10 months.

JLeslie's avatar

Biden basically said last night he would be very reluctant to do it, because where would it end. Republicans would retaliate when they had the chance.

Republicans were a piece of garbage when Scalia died. That’s enough to make me never vote for another Republican again, or not until they have a big movement coming out and saying they were wrong about that and doing something about the propaganda on Fox News. At least a few Republicans are out there today saying QAnon is crazy ass dangerous traitor territory. Maybe Republicans will come back around.

Trump said last night that one of the reasons they are pushing a candidate through was because Democrats were horrible to Kavanaugh. Give be a break. They could have been all rises and sunshine about Kavanaugh and still they would be putting in a Justice right now. Democrats would do the same.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Since you admit “Democrats would do the same.”, I am not sure why you are angry with the Republicans doing it.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Democrats would do the same now and push through a justice. I do not believe Democrats would have completely refused to put a hearing on the calendar when Scalia died. That was disgusting. Has anything like that ever happened before in history? Completely refusing to hear a nominee selected by a president? The Republicans have probably permanently changed the viciousness of the advisory relationship that has happened in politics.

Trump tried to blame the Democrats for Kavanaugh, I believe Kavanaugh was an asshole when he was a teenager, I grew up where he was partying and scaring girls. That doesn’t necessarily mean 30 years later he doesn’t deserve to be on the court, but his total denial was bullshit.

The outright lies these Republicans have told. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz justifying refusing Garland and defending what is happening now. Have you seen what Graham said? Or, is your news source completing omitting that? Let’s make sure, here it is https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hP7PSE1CSTk

Is that what they teach their children? Only Cruz has children I think. Oh yeah, after that Christmas commercial Cruz did with his kids, I guess he does teach his children to lie and name call and do anything it takes to win. I think they both claim to be Christians, and use it to market themselves. Disgraceful. Until I moved to the South did I understand how political candidates use religion as part of their advertising. It was literally like nothing I had ever seen before.

We need a law that the Senate must put a nominee on the calendar within 90 days to solve the problem.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@crazywulf why not just face the fact that this particular attempt at inventing a scandal fell flat. No one required to even acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a story, cares to validate even the chance that it is legitimate. You lost this one, but I’m sure the next invention is right in the hopper. You’d better get to work. Time is running out.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie “I do not believe Democrats would have completely refused to put a hearing on the calendar when Scalia died.” All I can say is that you believe wrong. Read the history. One link I can give you is:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/icymi-history-side-republicans-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-2020

But there are plenty of others.

As far as religion and politics goes, I have just one comment. Wasn’t Bill Clinton an extremely religious person?

@stanleybmanly Wrong question.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I see. Thanks

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Clinton was religious, but he didn’t Lord it over people and put it into the government. He didn’t run on Christianity, he didn’t say he was better because he was a Christian, or more honest, or run on family values or being a perfect man.

Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated (Spam)
seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie And which politician is doing that? Lording their religion over others and pushing it into government? I haven’t seen one yet.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Politicians in the Bible Belt say in their commercials they are Christians or have Christian values. The first time I saw that (when I was in my 30’s) I thought, what country am I in?

Plenty of Christians don’t flaunt or use their religion, but some definitely do. Catholics, Mormons, I don’t see it, but maybe Mormons do in Utah? Up north I never saw it no matter what denomination. They just use it when it might be persuasive I would guess. Marketing like I said. We all certainly knew Cruz and Rubio were the Christian candidates. I don’t think Clinton ran as a “Christian” candidate, did he? He just is a Christian, just like Romney did not run as a “Mormon” candidate. Maybe I didn’t see those ads if they did, because ads are targeted in areas.

As far as pushing it into government, pushing overturning Roe v. Wade is partly religious. Some religions don’t view an embryo as a life. Some religions value the mother’s life more than the fetus.

Pushing legislation for religious exceptions for doctors and pharmacists giving out birth control is another.

Voting against gay marriage. Even some closet gay politicians have been publicly against gay marriage, and they were getting blow jobs on the down low. Or, how about, and this sort of thing bothers me a lot, against gay marriage until they find out a family member is gay. I guess I should be happy they came around.

Voting against LBGT in the military.

Wanting prayer in school is another, although I don’t hear that from a lot of politicians, just a few loud ones, I do hear it from lay people though.

Even school voucher is arguably government money for religious schools. Religious schools are not like a charitable organization (which also bothers me) the schools actually teach their doctrine.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie How is saying you are a Christian or have Christian values “lording” it over others? How is it really pushing it into government? If more people had Christian values, the world would be a much better place!
You talk about RvW and pushing to overturn RvW is partly religious. There are religious views that believe in the sanctity of life and see abortion as an affront to that. But by your own words, some religions don’t view an embryo as a life and they value the mother’s life more than the fetus. So which is it? Are religions against RvW or are they for it?
Pushing for religious exceptions for doctors and pharmacists giving out BC is not about pushing religion into government, it is about enforcing the laws that were there from the beginning…the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not believe that government had to be void or religion…quite the opposite. But they believe that the government should not push one religion or sect or make a national religion that everyone had to follow. They believed that everyone should be allowed to seek their God in whatever way they like.
Voting against gay marriage isn’t really even a religious thing, though in some instances (just like with doctors and pharmacists) being forced to actively support gay marriage goes against the 1st Amendment again. Gay marriage is funny since marriage started off as a religious thing. God joined people together and sanctified the joining. Then the government stepped in and turned it into an institution. At that point, they actually tried (and succeeded) usurping religious ceremonies and beliefs.
Voting against LBGT in the military. Having been in the military, I can understand that…not as a religious issue, but as a moral and discipline. At a time when gays were not openly accepted around the country, suddenly forcing a whole group of guys to accept them could cause problems. There is nothing religious about that.
Wanting prayer in the schools is another one. Back to the 1st Amendment. If I was a student and wanted to pray, why shouldn’t I be allowed to? Conversely, and just like marriage, government usurped this right and made it unlawful. Should I be forced to pray? Absolutely not. Should I be denied the right to pray? Absolutely not.

Demosthenes's avatar

@seawulf575 I mean, what do people mean when they say they want “prayer in public schools”? A lot of prayer is done silently. Are students praying silently getting in trouble for doing so? Are they interrupting class with out loud prayers? Or are people asking for “prayer in public schools” asking for teacher-led prayer? There are plenty of things covered by the first amendment that are not allowed in school. I couldn’t get up in the middle of class and start shouting political views. I would’ve gotten in trouble for disruption. To what extent can schools set rules for behavior? Is restricting audible prayer a matter of behavioral restriction or religious restriction? The question of “prayer in public schools” is much more complicated than it appears.

As for marriage, I agree, marriage becoming a secular institution with practical benefits is an argument in favor of gay marriage. It can’t both be a secular institution and defined by religion simultaneously. As long as atheists can get married in a courthouse, then the government has a say in it and the parameters cannot be defined solely by religion.

The question of doctors giving out BC is another more complicated issue. Should people be aware of what their job entails before taking it? Do they have to agree to do certain tasks upon being hired? Let’s say a Muslim man applies for a job at a butcher shop that sells pork. Let’s say the task of your average butcher at this particular shop is about 45% dealing with pork. Would it be fair for the Muslim man to claim religious discrimination of the owner decides he doesn’t want to hire someone who will refuse to do 45% of the work at the outset?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Context is everything. Saying one is Christian in an ad is advertising and marketing with the context of saying, “I’m like you” or “I’m a good person you can trust me.” Saying one is Christian when asked their religion is just an answer, a simple statement. None of that is lording over.

How often do Jews, Muslims, Mormons, or atheists say their beliefs or religious identity in an advertisement?

Pushing religion into government is the problem, and people who wear religion on their sleeve are suspect. It’s not just Christians.

There is nothing wrong with an ethical discussion regarding laws, and religion affects ethics for many people. What some Christians fail to do is separate the two and some fail to think about what will the law mean if they are the minority.

Take prayer in school, children can always pray, no one is talking about that. Prayer in school is about school staff leading prayer, and can be a problem if it’s group prayer among children if it’s excluding some children. If only 10% of the country was Christian, and most school are only 10% Christian, do you think the Christians who want prayer in school would still want it? 90% of the teachers are Jewish. Or, 90% of the teachers are Muslim.

There are plenty of religious people who are the first to push back regarding religion in government, I am not saying there is some sort of assumption about religious politicians. Their record demonstrates their intentions.

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes There have been people fired for silent prayer on school grounds. There have been students suspended for discussing religion during lunch or on breaks while on school grounds. So in my mind these are violations of their 1st Amendment rights. Allowing personal expressions of religion is exactly what the 1st Amendment is all about…or at least that portion of the 1st.
As for the BC pill concern, it could be the same as your pork example. Yes, many people would say that the person taking the job should know what that job entails so they should be made to forego their religious beliefs if they want the job. But there are things called Reasonable Accommodations to address this sort of thing. If a person is a 7th Day Adventist, they are not allowed to work on one of the days of the week…I believe it is Saturday. So if their job requires someone to work Saturdays, but it doesn’t have to be them that person, it is a reasonable accommodation to schedule that person off for that day. If there is no one else that can work or if the accommodation puts an excessive stress or cost on the company, the company does not have to give it.
But that is not the only thing that could cause this sort of issue to arise. Look at the case of Kim Davis. She got her job and was able to do all portions of it as required by law without impacting her religious beliefs. But then along comes a huge decision from the SCOTUS and suddenly she is in a position where that can no longer be done. Laws can change that can put a person into a situation where they are required to choose between their religious rights or their job. That is a bogus choice since it should never happen. Let’s stick to the same Amendment. What if you were told you could keep you job as long as you gave up your right to voice an opinion? Or what if you were told you couldn’t have social media if you wanted to keep your job? Or what if you were told you could never protest against anything (including going on strike) if you wanted to keep your job? Would those be okay? By your reasoning it is okay for a company to ask for you to give up your rights and if you don’t then you shouldn’t be allowed to have your job.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575

SOURCE PLEASE !

“There have been people fired for silent prayer on school grounds.”

. . . and after that your premise falls apart !

May students pray ?

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 @JLeslie @Demosthenes Interesting discussion. However, midway through reading it, I asked myself: Where am I? I do not remember asking any question about religion.

So I went to the question about packing SCOTUS. It seems to me that you guys have drifted way off topic.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 Yes it is against the law for a teacher to pray, the students can pray . . .

Ya missed the law buddy, students can pray !

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Packing SCOTUS goes to blocking the religious right from putting in religious law. That’s the main worry. The conservative right, whatever you want to call it. The “right” uses religion to control their supporters. I have no problem with religion as long as people can separate it from government.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Kim Davis was allowed to voice her opinion, but not at work (as I’m not, either) and she still had a job to do. Because she was refusing to give out marriage licenses for same-sex marriages, she was not doing her job. If you or I refused to do our jobs, should we expect to keep the job for very long?

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Let me paraphrase your answer.

The Democrats should pack SCOTUS in order to prevent a conservative majority from deciding cases on the basis of religion, rather than the law.

The reason we know that will be done is because we do not believe in the ability of a justice to separate his/her personal views from the constitution.

I think that is an indefensible position, in my view.

LostInParadise's avatar

I agree that such actions on the part of the SCOTUS would be indefensible, but that does not mean that they will not be taken. They can cover up their decision process with a lot of legal talk even though the real motivation stems from their religious convictions. If you seriously believe that an embryo is assigned a soul upon conception, how could you in good conscience possibly allow for abortion?

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Nope. That’s not what I am saying. All along I have said doubtful Biden would do such a thing, and I agree with that thinking.

I’m just explaining why the court is important to conservatives and liberals. It often comes down to issues of religion in our laws. Or, religion pushing law.

The Supreme Court votes unanimously something like 35% of the time. It views 6/3 or better another 30% of the time.

The court can change unexpectedly also. I think we need to give it a chance and not over react.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 The problems with the Kim Davis case, as I see it, is that the law changed after she got her job. So to say she shouldn’t have taken the job if she couldn’t do the work is a bogus argument. When she saw the conflict brewing…before the Obergefell case…she asked for a reasonable accommodation of changing the form one little bit…take away the need for her to actually have to sign each and every license. This was, in my view, unjustly denied by her bosses. So when Obergefell was ruled on by the SCOTUS, she was really in a pickle. And then, to compound the wrongs done by the system, KY state constitution still stated that a marriage was between one man and one woman. So the state law was never changed. So she was being asked to not only go against her religious beliefs, but she was being told to violate the written law as well.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: The Clerk’s job is to give out marriage licenses. That’s one of her duties. That’s what she is elected for.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 The state law was null and void after the Supreme Court decision. I’m pretty sure Alabama and some other states still have Jim Crow laws on the books, are you saying those states should be able to use them?

I think it’s nice if other people can sign for Kim when it’s convenient, but in the end it’s part of her job. If she likes being able to be involved with marriages, but doesn’t like marrying gay people, maybe she should work for a church instead.

@crazyguy See how the religious want the Supreme Court to deny civil rights? Many people in the religious right were against gay marriage, that’s who was against it. It had to go all the way to the Supreme Court because states wouldn’t make it legal and lower courts wouldn’t either in some states. They conflate civil marriage (a legal contract basically) with religious marriage. They are two separate things.

crazyguy's avatar

@LostInParadise Every one of us, whether we are religious or not, has a personal point of view that will pull us in a certain direction. If the pull cannot be neutralized by actual writings in the constitution and related documents (which, by the way, happens a lot), then a Justice will indeed do what you are saying. Do you have a suggestion to solve the problem?

@JLeslie Now I am really confused. I wonder if I am confused about where you stand because you are not certain yourself.

1. Are you for or against court packing?
2. Do you think the Democrats will do that?

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 @JLeslie I did not follow the Kim Davis case. However, I would think every job entails doing something that you personally may be opposed to, but are obliged to do it. You are, of course, free to resign.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Your original question was will Biden pack the court. My answer was doubtful. That still stands. Biden now has answered the question more thoroughly during the Town Hall, because Republicans won’t let up in their paranoia and need to make it like Biden is keeping a secret from the American people, and he said he is reluctant because where does it end? Then Republicans pack on more people the next election? I agree with his hesitancy. I don’t see why Republicans are obsessing about it, I guess they think it might influence undecided people? Reminds me of Republicans whining about vote harvesting and then they go and set up fake ballot drops in California that don’t meet state regulation. Give me a break.

I currently am not in favor of adding more justices, but I have serious doubts Republicans would be reluctant to add justices if the court was 6/3 creating a more liberal leaning court.

Republicans should calm the hell down. Biden is a pensive man, who doesn’t rush to decisions, things about the long term chess game, and still believes Republicans and Democrats should be able to work things out together. Did you see his town hall with Stephanopolous? Watch it. The actual Town Hall, not clips or a critique. You won’t agree with him on everything, but you see thinks about many of the answers, it isn’t just pat answers. He answers some things that aren’t going to make Democrats necessarily happy.

The first half of the Town Hall I found slow, the second half is incredible. Republicans ask geo-political questions, Biden talks about how he thinks about the country and people. He is a good man whether you agree with his policy or not, and open to listen.

jca2's avatar

@crazyguy: You, me and @JLeslie agree! Yes, you and I actually agree on something! :) We agree that Kim Davis should have resigned if she could not do her job or was not willing to do her job.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Joe traveled with Hunter multiple times to Ukraine and China on “official business”. During some of these trips Hunter managed to land lucrative ‘business’ deals. Yet Joe never asked Hunter about any of them.

Just what kind of father is he?

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 See I am not unreasonable.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Did you mean to address me? I haven’t really said much about Hunter and Joe. If the FBI sees something there they should follow up.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: If you look upwards, you’ll see he’s addressing the Kim Davis discussion.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie To start with, the SCOTUS does not create law. They gave an interpretation. So there really was no law and it did not automatically make all other laws null and void. What it did do was to put it out there as a basis for the changing of such laws. But it is not up the a simply clerk of courts to decide what written law should or shouldn’t be obeyed. She was sworn to uphold them. And her argument was not that she wanted to deny same-sex marriage…she wasn’t trying to use her religion to deny civil rights…she was merely trying to exercise her religious beliefs which is her right under the 1st Amendment. What was really going on was her religious rights were being trampled on with a concerted effort. She was denied a reasonable accommodation when she requested a change to the form. They also did not want to change the laws or really even put in writing that she didn’t have to follow the state Constitution.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie As for why the Repubs won’t back down on Biden packing the courts? Well gee, you can blame Chuckie Schumer for that one. He has already stated that if they get control all options are on the table, including packing the SCOTUS. Joe Biden has changed his tune so many times during this run it isn’t funny. If it were Trump, you guys would be saying “He’s Lying!” with every change.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I do partly blame the Democrats for floating the idea. They were trying to stop Republicans from confirming a nominee, but of course nothing will stop them. That’s why I think Republicans should just shut up about it, nothing will stop them. If Biden promises to add more justices are they going to hesitate in appointing someone now? Are they? Huh? Well?

Do you care what Lindsey Graham said and other Republicans about Obama not appointing anyone because he was in his last year and let the voters decide? Do agree that was total lying bullshit? All they care about is the end, the lies are a means to an end and they feel justified.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I have stated many, many times that I believe them to be hypocrites for exactly that reason. The only difference between then and now is that Obama was at the end of his second term and couldn’t run for re-election. And to me, that isn’t a difference that impacts anything. Obama did what he was supposed to…he nominated a justice. At that point, it is in the hands of the Senate. They can proceed or not. But to me, to say you shouldn’t consider a justice just because it is the last year of a term is silly. And to say it is okay to do it another time is hypocritical.
But packing the court is just wrong. At some point, you have to say enough is enough. 9 justices is an odd number so there will always be a majority. The ideological slant shifts back and forth over time. And to be honest, most of the justices, despite their ideological slant, are pretty honest people. They don’t vote based on it. They look at what the laws say and interpret them. There are examples where this does not happen, but they are not a majority of the time. They are a small minority of the time.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The whole thing is a non issue. No Democrat has or will crusade to stack the courts. It’s simply more bullshit to frighten a stupid and gullible public. It’s just the next chapter in the Obama Nigerian birth, Hillary Clinton child pornography codex of juvenile purported Democratic villainy.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Yeah…it’s those evil conservatives that made Schumer say he wanted to pack the courts.

stanleybmanly's avatar

When did he say this?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Ok, then we basically agree.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Here is what you stated:

“Biden is a pensive man, who doesn’t rush to decisions, things about the long term chess game, and still believes Republicans and Democrats should be able to work things out together. Did you see his town hall with Stephanopolous? Watch it. The actual Town Hall, not clips or a critique. You won’t agree with him on everything, but you see thinks about many of the answers, it isn’t just pat answers. He answers some things that aren’t going to make Democrats necessarily happy.”

This is the same person who is on record as saying: “I have never discussed Hunter’s business with him”. That is why I replied to you the way I did.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Maybe they know better? If they don’t discuss Biden doesn’t have to worry about denying what he knows.

Maybe they just don’t talk about his work. My dad doesn’t really know what I do.

I have no idea.

Trump has stuff to question also with the amount of nepotism and interactions with foreign governments even before he was president and now.

If you care about one, care about both, or don’t bother with it and focus on something else.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie You obviously care about Trump. So why don’t you follow your own advice?

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Care about Trump?

I do follow my own advice. I don’t talk about the nepotism, I didn’t drone on about impeaching him.

I didn’t talk about his womanizing.

You haven’t been here very long.

I talk about his double talk, his encouraging QAnon and their followers, his separating children from their parents, his wanting to throw healthcare to the wolves, his encouragement of putting religion in government, his bat shit crazy way he will say anything for votes, encouraging violence, his failure to ramp up PPE production and buy tests kits in January and February, his failure to bring down the deficit, just to name a few.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie My comment was:
You obviously care about Trump. So why don’t you follow your own advice? And that was in response to your last sentence:
If you care about one, care about both, or don’t bother with it and focus on something else.

My point is you see so many things wrong with Trump; and refuse to even question Biden.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Crazy talk. I criticize Biden and the Democrats. I have our liberal jellies beat up on me all of the time if I defend Trump in any way or criticize Democrats. I’m just talking about don’t be a hypocrite.

The things that bother me about Republican policy are more important to me than what I don’t like about the policies of the Democrats.

My pocket is not more important than civil rights, rights over my body, employee protections, just to name a few. In fact, I think steep growth in the stock market and real estate is a bad thing that just sets people up for big falls, and watching so much wealth grow in America and at the same time the national debt grow is incompetent and negligent.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I have not seen any criticism of Biden and the Democrats from you. I have not seen any defense of Trump either.

You assume that any Trump supporter is more concerned about his/her pocket than civil rights, and other matters that liberals mouth off about without ever doing anything. You do not like the stock market going up during Trump’s presidency but were ok with its rise during Obama’s reign.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie One more thing. You seem so anxious to be liked that you will say or do almost anything.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Some people are so crazie they don’t care if ANYBODY likes them ! or if they act rational !

Oh you can ignore me now

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Lol, I talked about why I vote. If I just wanted to be liked I would never say one positive thing about conservative views or Trump on fluther. Most of us here are liberal, Democrats, many atheists, the easy road on fluther is that road. I get beaten up on when I am conservative on a topic.

I think Republicans vote the way they do for many different reasons. Some it’s their pocket, some it’s business and jobs, some it’s their pro-life stance, some are terrified the Democrats are bringing the country down into communism, some are terrified the Democrats want to take away their right to practice their religion, which is part of their communist fear, some see Republicans as protecting their freedom, some it’s a combination.

I don’t pretend to know your most important reason for voting for Trump, I have no idea.

For 30 years I have had a problem with steep growth and bubbles bursting. My personality is slow and steady, I’m the tortoise not the hare. The majority of my money is kept in CD’s and money market accounts. I have made some money on real estate, but most of my money is from working and saving.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther