Posted on 05/17/2023 6:07:55 AM PDT by Brilliant
A group of Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning legal advocates have once again renewed their push for legislation expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court, reintroducing a bill Tuesday that perished in committee last Congress.
The Judiciary Act of 2023 would add four seats to the high court, enlarging the bench from nine justices to 13 — a move some advocates have called for following the court's conservative majority's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization , which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade .
Calls for court expansion have amplified recently following reports of Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose gifts provided to him by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and his wife Ginny Thomas' more than $860,000 in unreported income from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., the bill's sponsor, said at a rally Tuesday that expansion is needed to win back the court's majority, which he accused the Republicans of stealing.
"Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court," he said. "It is time we expand the court."
The bill's filing also follows the publication of an updated study that found Republicans could hold on to the Supreme Court majority for another 42 years unless Democrats consider expanding the bench.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., touted the bill as a way to free the Supreme Court from being a pawn in partisan politics.
"For far too long, Republicans have stacked the Supreme Court with ultra conservative justices in order to repeal reproductive freedom, constrain voting rights and weaken clean air rules," he said. "Our nation's highest court should not be used as a political tool for partisan politics."...
(Excerpt) Read more at law360.com ...
If R’s take back the Senate and the presidency in 2024, those voting “yea” on this bill will have their votes shoved down their throats in 2025 as the new Republican president nominates 4 new SC justices.
I thought the far-left turd rollers hated the Supreme Court. Why would they want to expand it? Lots of “mental issues” going around on the left side of the aisle. If those turds want to stop all the gun violins, it might be wise to “red flag” all registered RAT voters.
Odd how democrat scum aren’t demanding ‘a bipartisan’ solution... /s
This is not going anywhere. It’s a basic issue of the far left and introducing a bill to expand the USSC is only to placate leftist morons. It’s really not much different than McCarthy’s HR 2811 Limit, Save and Grow Act, which doesn’t limit the debt, doesn’t save a dime, and the only thing it grows is the government. Morons on the right are placated by idiot RINOs by such symbolism.
Fallacies: The statement contains several potential fallacies:
a. Sweeping generalization: The statement claims that "Republicans have stacked the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative justices." While it is true that some Republican presidents have appointed conservative justices, it is an oversimplification to imply that all Republican-appointed justices are ultra-conservative or that they were specifically appointed with the intent to repeal reproductive freedom, constrain voting rights, and weaken clean air rules.
b. Slippery slope: The statement suggests that appointing conservative justices leads to negative consequences such as the repeal of reproductive freedom, constraining voting rights, and weakening clean air rules. However, it does not provide specific evidence or logical reasoning to support this causal chain.
False premises: The statement assumes that Republican-appointed justices are primarily motivated by partisan politics and that their goal is to use the Supreme Court as a tool for achieving political ends. While political considerations may play a role in judicial appointments, it is overly simplistic to assert that this is the sole or primary motivation for all Republican-appointed justices.
Ambiguous terms: The statement uses terms such as "ultra-conservative justices," "reproductive freedom," "constrain voting rights," and "weaken clean air rules" without providing clear definitions. These terms can be interpreted differently by different individuals, leading to potential misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the positions and actions of both Republicans and the Supreme Court.
Lack of evidence: The statement does not offer specific evidence or examples to support the claim that Republican-appointed justices have a deliberate agenda to repeal reproductive freedom, constrain voting rights, or weaken clean air rules. Without concrete evidence, it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statement.
Biased perspective: The statement appears to present a one-sided perspective, assuming that only Republicans engage in political manipulation of the Supreme Court. It neglects to acknowledge that both major political parties in the United States have historically sought to influence the ideological balance of the court through judicial appointments.
Overgeneralization: The statement asserts that the Supreme Court has been used as a political tool for partisan politics. While political considerations can influence court decisions, it is an overgeneralization to claim that the Court as a whole is solely motivated by partisan politics. Justices are expected to interpret the law and make impartial decisions based on legal principles.
Lack of nuance: The statement does not consider the diverse views, backgrounds, and reasoning processes of individual justices. It reduces their decisions to partisan politics and overlooks the complex legal analysis and interpretations that go into Supreme Court rulings.
These objections highlight the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion when evaluating the actions and motivations of justices, as well as the role of the Supreme Court in shaping policies and interpreting the law.
Careful what you wish for there Ed. You commie bastard POS.
If they managed to accomplish this, it would almost mandate the calling of an article 5 convention.
Such a convention would be rather extreme as you wouldn’t know, going in, what form of government may come out... but at least it would be one last, slim chance at saving the Republic.
Yes, but that is a big if. The Dems obviously think they will control both the Senate and the White House when this passes, or they would not propose it.
“...reintroducing a bill Tuesday that perished in committee last Congress.”
That is the difference between Republicans and democrats. The left never, ever, never gives up. The left never quits fighting.
If every leftist in the world was eliminated overnighn except a remaining ten, they would get together and plan a comeback the next day.
There is a real problem here that needs addressing. That is, every year, the 13 appellate courts send some 30,000 cases up to the SCOTUS, that can hear maybe two or three dozen. This is terrible negligence.
But using simple math, creating a SCOTUS with 13 justices will not even make a small dent in this number. But what would is creating a “Second Court of the United States”, to act as a ‘screen’ for the SCOTUS.
Each justice of the Second Court would be under the guidance of a SCOTUS justice, much like they guide the appellate courts today.
“Mosquito cases” could be ‘swatted’ by the Second Court, or decided, or returned to the appellate courts. Particularly important cases, and cases that can be bound together, can be directly referred to the SCOTUS with the Second Court opinions attached. In the latter case, this would help the SCOTUS justices to form their opinions faster.
As an example, cases involving minors in public schools are the atherosclerosis of the federal court system. Similar cases every year with no definitive conclusion. SCOTUS justices should not be deciding teen girl skirt length every damned year.
No matter how many federal judges want to act like dumbasses and agree to hear such cases, “to show the youth the *importance* of the federal courts”, they should *never* appear before the SCOTUS. The Second Court would thus be a shield that the appellate courts failed to be.
Odd the article doesn’t mention Stomayer and her money issue.
You know just mention a conservative Judge.
Odd the article doesn’t mention Stomayer and her money issue.
You know just mention a conservative Judge.
This will happen eventually. Or else they will simply ignore the courts rulings like they have been on major issues.
Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
I happen to be a lawyer, so I can give you a little insight why your analysis seems right, but is actually a little misguided. The Supreme Court does not exist to right wrongs. It’s real purpose is to settle disputes between the Circuit Courts below about what the law means, and to reverse seriously bad interpretations of the law by the lower courts (even if there is no dispute between the Circuits).
So if one Circuit interprets the law one way, and another interprets another way, the Supreme Court decides which is right. The fact that one of the parties in the litigation got a raw deal is not the Court’s concern for the most part. That is inevitably going to happen from time to time no matter how many levels of appeal you have, and you’ve got to draw the line somewhere when you decide how many bites at the apple you’re going to allow.
In our system, the District Courts are given primary responsibility for making sure the parties to the litigation get a fair hearing, and the Circuit Courts are given responsibility to review what the District Court did in that respect (because sometimes the District Court judges make mistakes). The Supreme Court merely focuses on making sure that the case law reflects a workable or correct interpretation of the law so that when the next case comes down, the judges below will know how to interpret the law.
The way to look at it is that the Court doesn’t do what it does for the benefit of the litigants, but rather for the benefit of the lower courts, which need some guidance in interpreting the law. A lot of the cases that get appealed to the Supreme Court do not present issues like that. They are what you are concerned about, i.e. that someone thinks he got a raw deal. The Court sorts through them and finds the cases where it can make a valuable contribution to clarifying the law, and throws out the rest. Sometimes that means someone gets a raw deal, but as I said, that happens.
Thirteen, eh? Like a coven?
So our constitutional rights are "established" by a court?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.