Current Events Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
And surprisingly (not really), BLM removed their call to "Disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement" from their website. They had to do something.....more and more people are discovering and seeing through their hypocrisy and deceit.
 
I disagree. Why is it needed? What is the reasoning for expanding it?
Click to expand...

The number 9 was picked in the 1860's... it is not mandated to be 9 by the Constitution. The number itself is pretty arbitrary. It's not even scientific. In fact, it's anti-scientific. It used to change fairly regularly until 1869.

Jonathan Turley (famous for his roles in impeachment trials), for example, thinks there should be 19 judges on the SCOTUS. There are federal appeals courts in the US right now, that have this amount of judges, and more. Some have 29 judges.

The deep respect for the Supreme Court as an institution often blinds us to its flaws, the greatest of which is that it is demonstrably too small. Nine members is one of the worst numbers you could pick — and it’s certainly not what the founders chose. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices, and the court’s size has fluctuated through the years. It’s time for it to change again. The nine-member court is a product not of some profound debate or study, but pure happenstance. The first Supreme Court had an even more ill-conceived number of justices: six. In fact, when the court first convened in 1790at the Royal Exchange Building in New York, only two justices were present (fortunately, it had no cases on its docket). After that time, the size of the court expanded and shrank, largely with the number of federal circuits. Since justices once “rode circuit” and sat as judges in lower courts, Congress would add a justice when it added a circuit or reduce the number with the elimination of a circuit. Thus, when a 10th circuit was added in 1863, a 10th justice was added. In 1869, the court happened to have nine members for nine circuits. And that is where its size settled.-Jon Turley
Click to expand...

We treat institutions such as the Supreme Court as inviolate. However, the framers not only gave us a brilliant system of government but the ability to improve it to better meet contemporary demands. The respect that most of us hold for the court should motivate us, not deter us, from reforming it.
Click to expand...

The advantages for a larger court are:
  • Reduces the influence of a single swing voter like Kennedy
  • A larger court could hear more cases
  • Less politicized. People would care a lot less when 1 or 2 justices can't determine outcomes
  • Less absolute power in the hands of 5 unelected people

There are other advantages, but I think the primary advantage is being far less political. As Turley points out, all the 5-4 decisions show the bench has become a political instrument. We need to root that out.

Let's say Biden wins and they increase the number of judges by 3 and Biden and the senate get to name these new judges. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

Turley thinks they should increase it to 19, and let it get there gradually. Each POTUS can only appoint 2 in a term, and eventually it will get to 19. That's his idea, and he has some good reasons for it.

and none of that is against the rules.
Maybe the rules should be changed to prevent it.
Click to expand...

Changing the size of SCOTUS is not against the rules either. In fact, it is designed specifically to be changed.
 
For perspective:

The Supreme Court of Norway has 19 judges
The Supreme Court of Germany has 16 judges
The Supreme Court of Sweden has 16 judges
The Supreme Court of Denmark has 19 judges
The Supreme Court of England has 12 judges
The Supreme Court of Finland has 19 judges
The Supreme Court of India has 30 judges
The Supreme Court of Israel has 15 judges

It is well within the rules to expand the court, and according to many legal scholars, the time for doing so is well past due. They don't even have to pass an amendment to the constitution to do it.
 
Last edited:
thebigabd said:
For perspective:

The Supreme Court of Norway has 19 judges
The Supreme Court of Germany has 16 judges
The Supreme Court of Sweden has 16 judges
The Supreme Court of Denmark has 19 judges
The Supreme Court of England has 12 judges
The Supreme Court of Finland has 19 judges
The Supreme Court of India has 30 judges
The Supreme Court of Israel has 15 judges

It is well within the rules to expand the court, and according to many legal scholars, the time for doing so is well past due. They don't even have to pass an amendment to the constitution to do it.
Click to expand...

I'm not against expanding if there is a good reason to.

But the reasoning will be that they don't have an advantage anymore. I don't think that is a good reason.

Just like wanting to get rid of the electoral college after losing the election.

It is sour grapes.

To me, if you get more than 9 justices, it just complicates things. 9 is plenty
 
I'm not against expanding if there is a good reason to.
Click to expand...

Ok, I thought I listed the reasons, with input from constitutional scholars who also agree that our court is way too small.

To me, if you get more than 9 justices, it just complicates things. 9 is plenty
Click to expand...

Your evidence? Your reasoning?

But the reasoning will be that they don't have an advantage anymore. I don't think that is a good reason.
Click to expand...

Not against the rules.
 
It is just being sore losers. THey lost and can't handle it. They think the system is rigged against them because they lost. It is sour grapes. Participation culture coming to reality
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
It is just being sore losers. THey lost and can't handle it. They think the system is rigged against them because they lost. It is sour grapes. Participation culture coming to reality
Click to expand...

Again.... when one side starts using slimy tactics, they won't just take it, nor should they be expected it. Not sure why you can't digest that.
 
thebigabd said:
Again.... when one side starts using slimy tactics, they won't just take it, nor should they be expected it. Not sure why you can't digest that.
Click to expand...

Slimy tactics like winning the presidency?
How dare those evil republicans win an election. shame on them.
Lets get back at them by doing away with the system that got them elected.
 
thebigabd said:
sigh....
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you've lasted this long. It's like you're debating with some sort of bot. You provide well-researched analysis and get replies of the highest knee-jerking order.

You and I don't agree on much politically, but I'm appreciate your takes and opinions.
 
thebigabd said:
Again.... when one side starts using slimy tactics, they won't just take it, nor should they be expected it. Not sure why you can't digest that.
Click to expand...

If you do not approve of what you label as 'bad behavior" then you elicit behavior of which you approve of. MLK would not fan the flames of violence and the question remains "will liberals join him or will they burn his legacy down in the process." Being the 'mockery' is becoming an easy out for some.
 
Sooner04 said:
I'm surprised you've lasted this long. It's like you're debating with some sort of bot. You provide well-researched analysis and get replies of the highest knee-jerking order.

You and I don't agree on much politically, but I'm appreciate your takes and opinions.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate Big for his well thought out replies. The problem is it is usually a wall of text that is irrelevent to the conversation or highly subjective

So if Biden wins the presidency and trump wins the popular vote, yall would be OK with the republicans new platform being to abolish the electoral college?

You have many quotes from democratic leaders from 2016 saying that the president and senate should confirm garland. with biden himself saying even if there are only a couple months left.

I don't agree with how the republicans acted in 2016 but nothing was going to happen with a senate majority.
 
thebigabd said:
Again.... when one side starts using slimy tactics, they won't just take it, nor should they be expected it. Not sure why you can't digest that.
Click to expand...

When one side? When one side? GMAFB. As if the Dems haven’t been using slimy tactics for years. They’re politicians. They’re professional liars. Both sides are slimy. Don’t try to take the high road because it doesn’t exist in American politics.
 
sheepdogs1 said:
Mitt (Neatsfoot oil) Romney says he will not block nominee.


https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/0...nt-block-vote-on-trump-supreme-court-nominee/
Click to expand...

Saw that.... that's it then, it can't be blocked and it's looking a lot like Amy Barrett. Extremely qualified. I wouldn't pick her, but she is exceptionally qualified.

Best strategy here is to approve her overwhelmingly and not fight at all. I wouldn't even ask her any questions. Just approve her.

Move on to the next issue. Make this as big a non-issue as you can.

They won't do that though.
 
They've declared a state of emergency in Louisville in apparent preparation to let the cops who killed Breonna Taylor go free.

They are closing stores, boarding up businesses and buildings downtown, cops are sectioning off parts of downtown, etc. They are going to extraordinary lengths to prepare for the protests that will come once the announcement is made.

One of the guys who killed Breonna Taylor said he knows they did "moral and ethical" thing the night Breonna Taylor was killed... In reference to knocking her door down in the middle of the night and shooting her 5 times in her own house because they suspected drugs were in the property. No drugs were found.

They don't even know the announcement yet and they are boarding everything up, declaring emergency, clearing the streets, etc. I suspect they know this cops are going free and all hell is gonna break loose.
 
All hell will break free.
You can't let that threat effect justice though.
And I don't think justice is sending those cops to jail.
Someone should be held accountable but not those cops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
A theory on what’s causing a late year slump & maybe fewer wins this year
Replies
1
Views
2K
Soonerinkc
Soonerinkc
B
Moving forward
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oliver Hardy
Oliver Hardy
B
Pioneer to progress
Replies
2
Views
2K
womenssports
W
Sooner04
Board Observations From Afar
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
TINY
T
B
Washington helps propel NHS girls past Edmond North
Replies
1
Views
1K
mikeareese
M
Back
Top