Court Packing: What are your views?


Kenn Rashad

Kenn Rashad

Person In Charge
Staff member
How do you all feel about the possibility of Dems adding more justices to the supreme court if they win the WH and the Senate?
 
Without hesitaton, yes, increase the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices. If the tables were turned, old Mitch and the GOP would do it in a heart beat! The Dems have played nice long enough! The last 80 appointments to the federal bench have been devoid of any Black judges. If the Dems win the White House and the Senate, they should go for it! If Trump wins, I fear the nation could devolve into an autocracy.
 
Last edited:



I endorse court-packing by Democrats for several reasons. One is due to the carte blanche conservative appointments that Donald Trump made on the lower courts. The second reason is the "court-packing" that has transpired about the last 4 years does not represent the majority due to A) College Electoral vote for the president and B) Gerrymandered districts to dilute liberal and minority representation in congress. The third is the Moscow Mitch led senate that blocked President Obama's last supreme court appointment along with 8 years of egregious tactics to suppress work for his constituents. Lastly, a form of reciprocity for acts of voter suppression.
 
Last edited:
I say pack it to the fullest. Republicans don’t play fair democrats need to stop being so weak and fight back and use their dirty tricks too. When this woman gets confirmed get ready for the damage this white supremacist Supreme Court will do. They will fully end the voting rights act, Obamacare gone and it will affect the poor white trash the most and they hate Obamacare but are stupid to know they are using it. For you people that support gays getting married well Clarence Thomas said on the record that’s the first thing he want to is to roll that back. So for you people who four years ago that didn’t vote well don’t get upset when this happens. Because while you wanted someone to inspire you Moscow Mitch was stacking the federal court with white right wing males especially in liberal California, to stack the odds against you if you need justice and to contest elections that they may lose to do what they did to get George Bush elected.
 
All it is gonna do is come back to haunt you years down the road, just like what happened when Harry Reid changed the rules with that nuclear option for executive branch nominations back in 2013. Going from the super majority to just a majority has let the republicans put all these justices on these courts around the country.

If anything they need to push for a term limit on the court so these folks don't get this life time term. Barrett is 48 and could be on the court for the next 40 plus years.
 
Fiyah said:
All it is gonna do is come back to haunt you years down the road, just like what happened when Harry Reid changed the rules with that nuclear option for executive branch nominations back in 2013. Going from the super majority to just a majority has let the republicans put all these justices on these courts around the country.

If anything they need to push for a term limit on the court so these folks don't get this life time term. Barrett is 48 and could be on the court for the next 40 plus years.
Click to expand...

If Dems expand the Supreme Court (not "pack"), they'd damn well better be sure they can keep a Senate Majority longer than 2 years...

Otherwise the GOP Senate Majority Leader and GOP President will pay off ageing justices to retire just like they did with Kennedy.

The best way to make the Senate more winnable is by granting DC statehood
 
Fiyah said:
All it is gonna do is come back to haunt you years down the road, just like what happened when Harry Reid changed the rules with that nuclear option for executive branch nominations back in 2013. Going from the super majority to just a majority has let the republicans put all these justices on these courts around the country.

If anything they need to push for a term limit on the court so these folks don't get this life time term. Barrett is 48 and could be on the court for the next 40 plus years.
Click to expand...

Term limits IMO would subject the justices to more political sway. Clearly wrong, but this is what Trump is trying to do anyway, Ideally, and in a perfect world, a justice should be free to make decisions without fear of retribution, being un-elected, or political persuasion.
 
Court Expansion is nothing new, and the Constitution does not limit nor define the max number of justices that should sit on the Supreme Court.

With that said, I still hope for the day when black folks understand our fight and plight is rooted in survival against the levers of white supremacy and not in the political jousting that goes on between the two major parties. While it may be in our best interest to vote for democrats during this day and time history has shown us both major parties, jointly and separately, have worked virulently against our interest and to our detriment at various times. We don't need to lose sight of that fact. Our survival is dependent upon it.

The court should absolutely be expanded as a necessity to help ensure the survival of black and other marginalized people, to plausibly facilitate the reinstatement of the protections stripped from the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act and to serve and function as a buffer to protect black folks from the tyranny of the majority
 
Last edited:
2kool said:
If Dems expand the Supreme Court (not "pack"), they'd damn well better be sure they can keep a Senate Majority longer than 2 years...

Otherwise the GOP Senate Majority Leader and GOP President will pay off ageing justices to retire just like they did with Kennedy.

The best way to make the Senate more winnable is by granting DC statehood
Click to expand...
Granting DC statehood would put the locaion of the nation's capitol in a single state. That was the very reason, along with appeasing the South before and during Reconstruction, for moving the capitol out of New York state in the first place to a more centralized area of land donated by Virginia and Maryland. The nation's capitol should not be located in and subject to any particular jurisdiction. It should always be free and clear of that! What they should do IMO is grant voting rights to the DC delegate as a member of Congress, at the very least. Now as to PR, I could support granting rights of statehood, although the Republicans would throw a fit over the creation of statehood for a largely minority population.
 
Last edited:
Earle said:
Granting DC statehood would put the locaion of the nation's capitol in a single state. That was the very reason, along with appeasing the South brfore and during Reconstruction, for moving the capitol out of New York state in the first place to a more centralized area of land donated by Virginia and Maryland. The nation's capitol should not be located in and subject to any particular jurisdiction. It should always be free and clear of that! What they should do IMO is grant voting rights to the DC delegate as a member of Congress, at the very least. Now as to PR, I could support granting rights of statehood, although the Republicans would throw a fit over the creation of statehood for a largely minority population.
Click to expand...

I get all that but the Republicans are actively working against our best interests NOW. The Democrats are at least offering solutions and more importantly, not pursuing harm...

Politics is a collision sport and is NOT the place to stare into rearview mirrors. You'll expedite your peril looking backward.
 



It is past time. Alito, Roberts and Thomas are white supremacist practitioners. Furthermore, since the court has, without question, morphed into nothing but a third partisan branch of government there isn't really much of a choice.
 
Last edited:
This current court keep supplying reasons to pack it. Their latest gambit will serve to corrupt local government further.

If you don't have the bag you can forget being awarded a contract. This is just another way to keep wealth and power concentrated in the same white hands. White supremacy endures.

Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors​


The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

"Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions," Jackson wrote in dissent. The law as written "poses no genuine threat to common gift giving" but it "clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment [the mayor] solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that "rewarded" them for having steered contracts to the donors.
www.yahoo.com

Supreme Court wipes out anticorruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

The U.S. Supreme Court rules state and local officials may take gifts and payments for steering contracts to grateful patrons.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
It remains past time for packing the court or court reform. The court has ceased from even resembling a court, and has unimaginably managed to even exceed hyper partisanship. As bad and harmful as the former is they have gotten worse by choosing to legislate from the bench.

The current court is every bit as corrupt as Dump. It is no longer any wonder why they gifted Dump a broad ruling inoculating him from criminal prosecution.
 
I am against court packing, as that opens the door for the other side to do, if they get back in power. With that being said, I believe the Supreme Court needs to be expand because the population is much larger than it was in 1869 (which was the last time the court expanded). Regardless of any expansion, the Supreme Court needs to be reformed. Clarence Thomas is not even hiding the fact that he uses his position on the bench for personal enrichment.
 
ECSU_NCCU_Christopher said:
I am against court packing, as that opens the door for the other side to do, if they get back in power. With that being said, I believe the Supreme Court needs to be expand because the population is much larger than it was in 1869 (which was the last time the court expanded). Regardless of any expansion, the Supreme Court needs to be reformed. Clarence Thomas is not even hiding the fact that he uses his position on the bench for personal enrichment.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between packing and expanding other than semantics? No matter the wording your overall concern is still possible as long as we're in a two party system.

If reform is to happen a discussion has to take place about what that would look like. If not, the same tit-for-tat you're concerned about is still very possible.

If black folks are going to continue to survive in America, collectively, the majority of us better quickly learn the difference between a fair fight and a street fight. Our adversary is not playing by any notion of fair rules or any sense of fair play. The objective of white supremacist is power by any means necessary. If we don't accept that reality, and react with the same callous disregard, two generations from now black people will find themselves in the 1940/1950 Make -America-Great era those folks strongly believe we should be in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top