SCOTUS

[JParis]

Is the plan to pack SCOTUS still on the table?

Asking for a distraught friend

[Jeff]

I haven't heard anything about that yet.

[Tim Johnson]

Is the plan to pack SCOTUS still on the table?

Asking for a distraught friend

The house still belongs to the republicans at this time and and the senate is set. The Dems are trying hard to regain the house but it appears the pubs will be keeping it by three seats.

[CNCAppsJames]

Is the plan to pack SCOTUS still on the table?

Asking for a distraught friend

Yes, I think we should pack the court.

Just kidding. The Justice count is just fine. Just like the number of House Seats and Senate seats is just fine.

It's about apportionment anyway.

I think only citizens and LEGAL aliens should matter. California would lose 5 house seats if we didn't count illegal aliens.

[JParis]

Yes, I think we should pack the court.

Wait wut...you mean Democrats aren't going to keep pursuing it?

Though I know better..Once the election winds favor them again, it'll be back on the docket

[Jim at Gentex]

Even Justice RBG agreed that 9 was the right number for the Court, so yeah, that is safe, at least for now.
Trump has never even hinted about such a thing, so there is no reason to believe he would be in favor of it.

Also, with Trump winning the popular vote as well, we won't have to listen to the idiots who want to eliminate the Electoral College either. 

[RobertELee]

IMO - if you add more judges you have a higher likelihood of better (less politicized) results. You may still have the extreme spectrum that can't define a woman, or 100% against abortion for any reason, etc, but they would get watered down. 11 to 15 would be much better, and no presidential appointments. Have an ongoing list of 25 top judges in the country(should be a rating system anyway to get bad judges out of all courts), when one leaves, you have a random lottery that picks 3, then they have to interview with the President and VP, congress, etc, and each get a vote. President and VP get say 5 votes, each congressperson gets 1, add up the votes and that determines your new judge. No campaigning, no buying votes, completely non-partisan, should be able to keep the crazy fringes out and be able to maintain the constitution as equal and fair as possible.

[YoDoug]

IMO - if you add more judges you have a higher likelihood of better (less politicized) results. You may still have the extreme spectrum that can't define a woman, or 100% against abortion for any reason, etc, but they would get watered down. 11 to 15 would be much better, and no presidential appointments. Have an ongoing list of 25 top judges in the country(should be a rating system anyway to get bad judges out of all courts), when one leaves, you have a random lottery that picks 3, then they have to interview with the President and VP, congress, etc, and each get a vote. President and VP get say 5 votes, each congressperson gets 1, add up the votes and that determines your new judge. No campaigning, no buying votes, completely non-partisan, should be able to keep the crazy fringes out and be able to maintain the constitution as equal and fair as possible.

LOL, liquid lunch today? 

[RobertELee]

LOL, liquid lunch today? 

I know it's a bit much for our .gov to handle. But like I said, I feel it's a better, less politicized approach to maintain our constitution. Helps keep these activist judges away from the most powerful court in the land.

[Jeff]

you have a random lottery that picks 3,

The Dems would exploit it and/or still cheat. They'd use the Patrick Ewing "frozen envelope" method.

[Jim at Gentex]

...and no presidential appointments.

Well there's the flaw in your idea.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 is very explicit. (The Appointments Clause)

"...and he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."

This would require a Constitutional Amendment to change, so good luck with that.
I'm not saying it is impossible, just highly unlikely. 

[RobertELee]

Well there's the flaw in your idea.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 is very explicit. (The Appointments Clause)

"...and he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."

This would require a Constitutional Amendment to change, so good luck with that.
I'm not saying it is impossible, just highly unlikely. 

And here is why I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I'll admit I don't know every corner of it. I'm just spitballing some ideas I've had in attempt to keep this country sane.

[Jeff]

attempt to keep this country sane.

Start by banning all left wing propaganda media like MSNBC, CNN, etc...
Wouldn't that be nice?

[gcode]

Advice and Consent of the Senate

The President nominates, the Senate confirms

There is a movement afoot try to force Sotomayor to step down so that
Biden can appoint Harris and the Senate can confirm by 01/20/25

Sotomayor is not healthy and it is likely Trump and a Republican Senate will replace her
if she is still on the bench when Trump assumes the Presidency.

Sotomayor does not want to step down and has resisted the lunatic left's bullying so far ... and
I don't think Biden will play ball.
Harris at a SC nomination hearing would be a shit shown for the ages.

Her "I was raised in a middle class family" trope will carry no weight there.

[Jim at Gentex]

There is a movement afoot try to force Sotomayor to step down so that
Biden can appoint Harris and the Senate can confirm by 01/20/25

Truth is that Sotomayor and Harris don't have a brain between them, so there is that...

But anyhow, I doubt Biden would give Harris the time of day right now, so this is mostly someone's twisted fantasy.