biden running for senate or president??

First topic message reminder :

does he even know, does he even know what day it is.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They slow down legislation. They require deals and concessions to be made. Or at least they used to. Obstruction isn't bad either.

Won't be a blue wave in the courts. They are set for some time.

I think down deep inside, McConnel knew that Trump was going to lose either way, so getting that next seat on the SC is even more important to stop some "inventive" legislation.    

Yeah sorry I meant the Presidency and both houses of Congress. I agree on the SC. Honestly that institution should not be lifelong, wouldn't be surprised if changes were made there.

Been talk of a 15 year term. Not a bad idea.

One thing is for certain, the House is staying Blue. I'd bet a grand that Trump loses pretty significantly. It's really looking that bad for him. When Texas is in play, you have screwed up.

We may not know the results of the Senate for a month. It's going to be around 51-49, one way or another. Any close race will be contested for weeks because the balance of power may lie in one senate race.

Les wrote:I agree on the SC. Honestly that institution should not be lifelong, wouldn't be surprised if changes were made there.

But the founders left open the number of justices, precisely because that way Congress could mitigate the impact of the SC.

There are two ways to limit the power of the courts.  First, under the "exceptions and regulations" clause of Art. III, section 2 of the Constitution, Congress can limit the matters that the courts may hear.

Second, Congress can add (or detract) from the count of Justices sitting.  To reduce the justices involves waiting for an opening (due to lifetime appointments), however Congress can add Justices at any time.  When the appointment power rests with one’s own party, one can easily turn the balance of the SC.

Congresses have freely added to (and detracted from) the SC over the years.

Original Quill wrote:

Les wrote:I agree on the SC. Honestly that institution should not be lifelong, wouldn't be surprised if changes were made there.

But the founders left open the number of justices, precisely because that way Congress could mitigate the impact of the SC.

There are two ways to limit the power of the courts.  First, under the "exceptions and regulations" clause of Art. III, section 2 of the Constitution, Congress can limit the matters that the courts may hear.

Second, Congress can add (or detract) from the count of Justices sitting.  To reduce the justices involves waiting for an opening (due to lifetime appointments), however Congress can add Justices at any time.  When the appointment power rests with one’s own party, one can easily turn the balance of the SC.

Congresses have freely added to (and detracted from) the SC over the years.

It's been well over 100 years since they changed the number of justices.

Do you think a court of 81 justices is a good number, and if not, why not?

Eighty one is way more than what's needed to handle the workload. I'd say two to four more, tops.

Ben Reilly wrote:Eighty one is way more than what's needed to handle the workload. I'd say two to four more, tops.

It's not a work load problem. Still only one court and every justice needs to be fully informed on every case.

But as soon as one party adds justices to regain party, the next will do it when they get the chance.

Do you really want to start that Micky Mouse horse shit?

Now that the Supreme Court has become a political body, court expansion is the only way to combat a stagnant, obfuscating court. The alternative is to give up, which we saw Gore do.

Do we give up on the Senate? Do we give up on the House? There is nothing hallowed about the Supreme Court. Now that the Court has gone political, it’s just another political entity…only it has constitutional life-time appointment. The only way to combat it is to restructure it whenever a party has the executive and legislature.

It’s no big deal.

Maddog wrote:It's not a work load problem. Still only one court and every justice needs to be fully informed on every case.

Actually, it is a work load problem. Altogether, there are nearly 1,770 judgeships authorized across the 209 courts in the federal court system. The whole system needs revamping, top to bottom.

As to the Supreme Court, one of the complaints one hears is that there are not enough justices to handle the load coming out of such super-Courts of Appeals, such as the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. As such, a lot of final, national law is made in San Francisco instead of Washington by mere virtue of the volume.

The Supreme Court should be restructured to match the model used on the Courts of Appeals. That is, each case is assigned a three-judge panel to hear and consider a case. Either one court, or the entire panel might consider and exercise discretion of choice, then the case is distributed to a three-judge panel for decision.

Split the load. It’s the modern way: split the task into manageable portions and increase the total number of justices. The House does it. The Senate does it. There’s nothing that nine justices can do, that three justices cannot do equally well. After all, when it comes to opinion-writing even the Supreme Court splits the load. If the decision causes extraordinary interest, the whole Supreme Court could consider the issue(s) en banc, just as the Courts of Appeals do.

It’s a big country. We are no longer in the horse-and-buggy days. We need a bigger court. Restructuring the Supreme Court could be the answer to several of the Courts problems.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's not a work load problem. Still only one court and every justice needs to be fully informed on every case.

Actually, it is a work load problem.  Altogether, there are nearly 1,770 judgeships authorized across the 209 courts in the federal court system.  The whole system needs revamping, top to bottom.

As to the Supreme Court, one of the complaints one hears is that there are not enough justices to handle the load coming out of such super-Courts of Appeals, such as the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.  As such, a lot of final, national law is made in San Francisco instead of Washington by mere virtue of the volume.

The Supreme Court should be restructured to match the model used on the Courts of Appeals.  That is, each case is assigned a three-judge panel to hear and consider a case.  Either one court, or the entire panel might consider and exercise discretion of choice, then the case is distributed to a three-judge panel for decision.

Split the load.  It’s the modern way: split the task into manageable portions and increase the total number of justices.  The House does it.  The Senate does it.   There’s nothing that nine justices can do, that three justices cannot do equally well.  After all, when it comes to opinion-writing even the Supreme Court splits the load.  If the decision causes extraordinary interest, the whole Supreme Court could consider the issue(s) en banc, just as the Courts of Appeals do.

It’s a big country.  We are no longer in the horse-and-buggy days.  We need a bigger court.  Restructuring the Supreme Court could be the answer to several of the Courts problems.

Ok. I like 81 justices then.

Maddog wrote:Ok. I like 81 justices then.

I applaud your decision. But there's nothing sacrosanct about any number.  In fact, that's the problem with this court.  People have fixed feelings about nine justices.

Better to dwell on the process.  Enlarging the court could solve a variety of problems.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Eighty one is way more than what's needed to handle the workload. I'd say two to four more, tops.

It's not a work load problem. Still only one court and every justice needs to be fully informed on every case.

But as soon as one party adds justices to regain party, the next will do it when they get the chance.

Do you really want to start that Micky Mouse horse shit?

The Republicans held open a seat for more than a year. I certainly don't take the blame for starting this Mickey Mouse horseshit.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not a work load problem. Still only one court and every justice needs to be fully informed on every case.

But as soon as one party adds justices to regain party, the next will do it when they get the chance.

Do you really want to start that Micky Mouse horse shit?

The Republicans held open a seat for more than a year. I certainly don't take the blame for starting this Mickey Mouse horseshit.

Then there is the nuclear option.

Plenty of Micky Mouse on both sides.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Ok. I like 81 justices then.

I applaud your decision.  But there's nothing sacrosanct about any number.  In fact, that's the problem with this court.  People have fixed feelings about nine justices.

Better to dwell on the process.  Enlarging the court could solve a variety of problems.

Maybe we could let it dwindle down to just one?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I applaud your decision.  But there's nothing sacrosanct about any number.  In fact, that's the problem with this court.  People have fixed feelings about nine justices.

Better to dwell on the process.  Enlarging the court could solve a variety of problems.

Maybe we could let it dwindle down to just one?

Funny you should mention that...because it's just what Trump is trying to do. He's packing the Supreme Court in the expectation that they will boost his line.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Maybe we could let it dwindle down to just one?

Funny you should mention that...because it's just what Trump is trying to do.  He's packing the Supreme Court in the expectation that they will boost his line.

Really?

So there are fewer justices now, than 4 years ago?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Funny you should mention that...because it's just what Trump is trying to do.  He's packing the Supreme Court in the expectation that they will boost his line.

Really?

So there are fewer justices now, than 4 years ago?

Just the opposite. I said that Trump was packing the court, not thinning it. Obviously there are more (packed) justices because of Trump "packing" the court.

You guys in Texas have to be led by the hand, doncha?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Really?

So there are fewer justices now, than 4 years ago?

Just the opposite.  I said that Trump was packing the court, not thinning it.  Obviously there are more (packed) justices because of Trump "packing" the court.

You guys in Texas have to be led by the hand, doncha?

So no one is dwindling the court.

Gotcha.