https://apnews.com/article/election-2020...d737892440

These morons don't realize that this will only gain them an advantage for a few years. They'll eventually lose power, and Republicans will do the exact same thing.

I think that there should be a constitutional ammendment to fix the number of Supreme Court justices and avoid this type of shenanigans where each party adds to the size of the court whenever they're in power.

I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

(09-24-2020 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

I can't laugh any harder at irony.....

religion dictates scope as the court rules 'constitutionally'....

@whichTrials

(09-24-2020 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

I agree. Its a serious problem. If I were president, being a Harvard or Yale Law school grad would be a disqualifier. At least until things got in more balance. One reason I prefer Barrett to Lagoa. Notre Dame instead of Columbia.

And most of them have spent almost their entire adult lives in the Bos-Wash corridor. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Alito are all from New York City. Roberts is from Indiana but has spent his career in the northeast. Gorsuch grew up in Colorado but moved to Maryland in prep school and has spent his career in the northeast. Breyer is from California but has spent his career in the northeast. Kavanaugh is of course from DC. Only, Thomas, from Georgia, has worked outside the northeast.

Imagine, 44% of our court is from one metro area and 100% went to two schools.

(09-24-2020 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

I agree. Its a serious problem. If I were president, being a Harvard or Yale Law school grad would be a disqualifier. At least until things got in more balance. One reason I prefer Barrett to Lagoa. Notre Dame instead of Columbia.

And most of them have spent almost their entire adult lives in the Bos-Wash corridor. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Alito are all from New York City. Roberts is from Indiana but has spent his career in the northeast. Gorsuch grew up in Colorado but moved to Maryland in prep school and has spent his career in the northeast. Breyer is from California but has spent his career in the northeast. Kavanaugh is of course from DC. Only, Thomas, from Georgia, has worked outside the northeast.

Imagine, 44% of our court is from one metro area and 100% went to two schools.

I completely agree.

That's also why I prefer Barrett. Highly qualified, and lived her whole life outside the echo chamber.

(09-24-2020 11:54 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

I can't laugh any harder at irony.....

religion dictates scope as the court rules 'constitutionally'....

@whichTrials

The oaths of office and/or qualifications recorded in the constitutions from the various states initially included phrases such as:

Delaware
Article 22. Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust shall make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, ______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Pennsylvania
Frame of Government, Section 10. And each member [of the legislature] before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governour of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Massachusetts
Chapter VI, Aricle I. [All persones elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I, ________, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth."

North Carolina
Article XXXII. No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit in the civil department, within this state.

Maryland
Article XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required than such oath of support and fidelity to this state and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.


In his book A Worthy Company: The Dramatic Story of the Men Who Founded Our Country, M. E. Bradford described the men who formed the Constitutional Convention as follows:

Quote:With no more than five exceptions (and perhaps no more than three), they were orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions: approximately twenty-nine were Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime Anglican, and one open Deist -- Dr. Franklin, who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.

And Patrick Henry stated the following:

Quote:It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

Expanding the court is like moving back first base a foot to eliminate all close plays.

It's not going to accomplish what they think it will.

As an extremely angry progressive/socialist/whatever you wanna call me I'm holding my mail in ballot and essentially waiting to see what the Dems do regarding this. If they roll over and don't play any constitutional hardball after spending most of my life screaming about how I have to suck it up and vote Dem to "save the court" then I'm voting 3rd party in every single race and never voting Dem again.

(09-25-2020 03:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  As an extremely angry progressive/socialist/whatever you wanna call me I'm holding my mail in ballot and essentially waiting to see what the Dems do regarding this. If they roll over and don't play any constitutional hardball after spending most of my life screaming about how I have to suck it up and vote Dem to "save the court" then I'm voting 3rd party in every single race and never voting Dem again.

Don’t hold your breath. Fact is, the Dem party only cares about their power and how to hold it. If what you want helps them garner more power, they’ll pretend to care about that, if not......sorry for you and and what you want.

They will play you....and are playing you guys right now.

You think Biden is all of a sudden a progressive?? Go look at his track record - he isn’t a progressive. He’s a crony capitalist that pretends he’s for the little guy while he backdoors money into his family.

(09-25-2020 05:03 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  As an extremely angry progressive/socialist/whatever you wanna call me I'm holding my mail in ballot and essentially waiting to see what the Dems do regarding this. If they roll over and don't play any constitutional hardball after spending most of my life screaming about how I have to suck it up and vote Dem to "save the court" then I'm voting 3rd party in every single race and never voting Dem again.

Don’t hold your breath. Fact is, the Dem party only cares about their power and how to hold it. If what you want helps them garner more power, they’ll pretend to care about that, if not......sorry for you and and what you want.

They will play you....and are playing you guys right now.

You think Biden is all of a sudden a progressive?? Go look at his track record - he isn’t a progressive. He’s a crony capitalist that pretends he’s for the little guy while he backdoors money into his family.

Do you think I don't know that? He didn't get the nickname "The Senator from MBNA" for nothing. Anything someone brings up about the Trump family being corrupt (and they are) you can say just the same if not worse about the Biden family.

(09-25-2020 07:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 05:03 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  As an extremely angry progressive/socialist/whatever you wanna call me I'm holding my mail in ballot and essentially waiting to see what the Dems do regarding this. If they roll over and don't play any constitutional hardball after spending most of my life screaming about how I have to suck it up and vote Dem to "save the court" then I'm voting 3rd party in every single race and never voting Dem again.

Don’t hold your breath. Fact is, the Dem party only cares about their power and how to hold it. If what you want helps them garner more power, they’ll pretend to care about that, if not......sorry for you and and what you want.

They will play you....and are playing you guys right now.

You think Biden is all of a sudden a progressive?? Go look at his track record - he isn’t a progressive. He’s a crony capitalist that pretends he’s for the little guy while he backdoors money into his family.

Do you think I don't know that? He didn't get the nickname "The Senator from MBNA" for nothing. Anything someone brings up about the Trump family being corrupt (and they are) you can say just the same if not worse about the Biden family.

Actually, for me, the Biden’s are far worse. Trump was in the private sector, and likely paid off politicians for favorable treatment with his businesses. Unfortunately, in places like NY, it’s how one has to conduct business.

With Biden, he’s always used his political position to extract the money from the private sector......he’s always been on the take.

Guess I’ll never understand how someone with your beliefs could square with Biden. I’m guessing you will swallow hard, but cast your lot with him.....

(09-25-2020 09:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

I agree. Its a serious problem. If I were president, being a Harvard or Yale Law school grad would be a disqualifier. At least until things got in more balance. One reason I prefer Barrett to Lagoa. Notre Dame instead of Columbia.

And most of them have spent almost their entire adult lives in the Bos-Wash corridor. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Alito are all from New York City. Roberts is from Indiana but has spent his career in the northeast. Gorsuch grew up in Colorado but moved to Maryland in prep school and has spent his career in the northeast. Breyer is from California but has spent his career in the northeast. Kavanaugh is of course from DC. Only, Thomas, from Georgia, has worked outside the northeast.

Imagine, 44% of our court is from one metro area and 100% went to two schools.

I completely agree.

That's also why I prefer Barrett. Highly qualified, and lived her whole life outside the echo chamber.

I like the idea of regional diversity very much. I'm also good with either of the women mentioned. One perk with Barrett is that if Hollywood tries to do a hit piece on her it will be Amy Adams that plays her and even in Cruel Intentions she has a hard time truly being threatening.

(09-25-2020 11:50 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Expanding the court is like moving back first base a foot to eliminate all close plays.

It's not going to accomplish what they think it will.

I think the same could be said about all of the talk about 18 or 20 year term limits. In that scenario, SC vacancies and nominations would be essentially scheduled during particular presidential terms making presidential elections even more focused on SC picks. I suspect there would also be enormous pressure on justices to reignite a few years early if it meant being replaced by a president or their same persuasion rather than waiting until their term expires in the midst of a potential president from the other party.

Ginsberg could have done the very thing during the Obama presidency, and chose otherwise. In effect, much of the mess about this vacancy could have been solved by her stepping aside when she had a same-party President and Senate to select a leftist judge to replace her. She tolled the dice, and clearly lost.

"So we're going to pack the court, but surely you won't do the same thing when you get the power back, right?"

(09-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 09:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 01:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still support the same idea I've proposed before. 13 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit (11 numbered circuits, DC, and Federal). Each new appointee has to come from an unrepresented circuit, until all are represented, and then that seat becomes that circuit's seat permanently. Senior judge is the Chief Justice, non-voting except to break ties. To get from 9 to 13, although I dislike parties, I think the most practical way is to let R's and D's each pick two, and vote them in by acclamation.

The problem right now is an almost total lack of intellectual diversity. In a Protestant-majority nation, all justices but Gorsuch are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. All received their legal education at one of two law schools (Harvard, Yale). 3 came from the DC Circuit (Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh), one each from the 1st (Breyer), 2nd (Sotomayor), and 3rd (Alito) Circuits, one from Solicitor General (Kagan), and one from the 10th Circuit (Gorsuch).

That is an extraordinary narrow band of academic and experiential diversity. Under no circumstances could that be construed as representative of the USA as a whole. So our highest judicial decisions are made by people coming out of the northeast echo chamber.

I agree. Its a serious problem. If I were president, being a Harvard or Yale Law school grad would be a disqualifier. At least until things got in more balance. One reason I prefer Barrett to Lagoa. Notre Dame instead of Columbia.

And most of them have spent almost their entire adult lives in the Bos-Wash corridor. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Alito are all from New York City. Roberts is from Indiana but has spent his career in the northeast. Gorsuch grew up in Colorado but moved to Maryland in prep school and has spent his career in the northeast. Breyer is from California but has spent his career in the northeast. Kavanaugh is of course from DC. Only, Thomas, from Georgia, has worked outside the northeast.

Imagine, 44% of our court is from one metro area and 100% went to two schools.

I completely agree.

That's also why I prefer Barrett. Highly qualified, and lived her whole life outside the echo chamber.

I like the idea of regional diversity very much. I'm also good with either of the women mentioned. One perk with Barrett is that if Hollywood tries to do a hit piece on her it will be Amy Adams that plays her and even in Cruel Intentions she has a hard time truly being threatening.

About to mention she was a mean girl in the Family Stone and in Mean Girls but then I remembered, I keep getting Amy Adams mixed up with Rachael McAdams.