Imagine this: Justice Thomas retires in the next couple of months and a few months after that RBG retires

@room101 That's a good point. It has worked historically, because justices would frequently resign when they became elderly, and partisanship was far less evident. However, in the current hyperpartisan world we live in, we can end up with a partisan court that does not reflect the will of the people for decades. That will be the situation with Kavanaugh's confirmation.

@windinhishair A hammer and chisel has worked well historically, but then we invented power tools.

Legal systems rest on the foundations of historical precedent. However, those precedents do not require life-long service by judges. They are documented and readily available for anybody who may need to refer to them. Furthermore, as societies change, new laws are enacted to deal with those changes as required. I would argue that life-time tenure in the highest court of the land does little to facilitate those changes. In fact, I would argue, that it keeps legal evolution too firmly shackled to the past.

A hammer and chisel may still be useful and still may be used. But, isn't it time to look at some of the other tools in the tool shed? Tools that are widely used by everybody else!

Lifetime appointments were intended to preserve judicial independence from the Executive and Legislative branches. Until recently, it was unheard of to consider Supreme Court justices as Republican or Democrat. Now it is one of the first things you think about with a Justice, and they can be reliably expected to rule in favor of their party. A more limited tenure would better reflect the will of the people as we move forward. It is unlikely to occur, however, as it would require a constitutional amendment, and the party with the majority on the Court would be very unlikely to give up their advantage.

Figures. Change successful 200 plus year rules because they spare suddenly and temporarily I might add in the grand scheme of things not working for YOU or so you think. Utter rubbish. @room101 @windinhishair

@jackjjackson Things change. Would you like to go back to the original six on the Supreme Court?

I might add that looking at the “rest of the world” only reinforces what we here in America are doing right. No offense to foreigners intended OF COURSE. @room101 @windinhishair

An odd number works better than an even number. I’m good with nine. Five or seven would work but again why change what has worked for centuries. @windinhishair

@jackjjackson The size of the court has fluctuated from six to seven to nine to ten to seven to nine over the course of history, so it hasn't been the same for "centuries". I agree an odd number works best.

I prefer to disregard FDR’s Court packing scheme inasmuch as it was illegal and all. Imagine that a Democrat was the first to try to politicize the court. Figures. @windinhishair

@jackjjackson FDR never packed the court as it was found unconstitutional. And the court size was politicized prior to that in the 1800s. You should try some reading. It can be fun to learn new facts. You could even apply them some time.

If FDR had not attempt to pack the SCOTUS there wouldn’t have been the need to declare his action unconstitutional would there. Please try to get a grip. @windinhishair

@jackjjackson That's what I said. But it wasn't the first time the court was politicized. Get a grip.

By far the most dramatic example ever of trying to grasp at straw to politicize the Court. Here is what you said thst I corrected:

[quote]FDR never packed the Court[/quote]

He did and the SCOTUS took it away.

@windinhishair

@jackjjackson How many justices did he pack the court with? Zero. It was a proposal. You do know the difference between a proposal and an actual event, don't you?

Here is the real history read it and weep:

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

In the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping reelection victory. In the months following, Roosevelt proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937.[7][8] Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[9] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the apparently sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted his reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"; however, recent legal-historical scholarship has called that narrative into question[10] as Roberts's decision and vote in the Parrish case predated both the public announcement and introduction of the 1937 bill.[11]

Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. The bill was held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst who delayed hearings in the Judiciary Committee saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[12] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. Contemporary observers broadly viewed Roosevelt's initiative as political maneuvering. Its failure exposed the limits of Roosevelt's abilities to push forward legislation through direct public appeal. Public perception of his efforts here was in stark contrast to the reception of his legislative efforts during his first term.





@windinhishair

@jackjjackson Good work Jack. As I said, it was a proposal that never resulted in packing the court. Did you even read what you posted? Thanks. It proves my point.

It proves my point the FDR tried to do something inherently WRONG and FAILED. @windinhishair

@jackjjackson I have never argued that point at all, and I agree. But you said it started with FDR. It didn't. And that he packed the Court. He didn't.

@windinhishair Don't try to confuse junior with facts. They really are not his forte. Bless his cotton socks.

@jackjjackson [i]"I might add that looking at the “rest of the world” only reinforces what we here in America are doing right. No offense to foreigners intended OF COURSE."[/i]

Yes, you are doing what only dictatorships and theocracies do. Good job you guys 👏👏👏

Details. The motive I attributed to FDR was and is accurate. @room101

Wrong. More free elections than for example Britain and France have. @room101

@jackjjackson 😂😂😂 You have "More free elections than for example Britain and France have"??????? 😂😂😂

This is just priceless 😂😂😂

So dictatorships and theocracies are mere details, right? I'm sure that your orange overlord will be very pleased to hear that 🤦

There is no orange overlord. That is made up inaccurate and is quite disrespectful to the President and to me personally. I expect better from you.

Please get your facts straight and stop with the inaccurate insults.

“The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.”

https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

@room101

@jackjjackson Sorry junior, what you expect is of no consequence.

What is of consequence is the rabid support that you have for an empirically proven liar (we're at an average of seven lies per day), an affirmed conman (he paid $25m to settle claims against his fraudulent university and is currently facing a civil suit, brought by the New York Attorney General, for the fraudulent activities of his foundation), a person who surrounds himself with crooks (all of whom are dropping like flies due to immunity deals, indictments and convictions) and, a traitor who is in the pocket of Russia (there is a well documented money trail that leads from him, all the way to Putin).

You site the US Constitution like it means something to him. He can't even read it.

And yes, he is an orange overlord. He's orange and you lot follow him like the blind cultists that you all are.