Not a political expert by any stretch, but I'm guessing that the democrats are afraid of opening pandora's box, as anything they use will be use against them by a future republican administration.
I’m with “ignore the court”, but that’s mainly because of my own contempt for and lack of faith in legal institutions and their tendency to become bottomless sinks of moral depravity.
I follow the law not because “it’s a good idea” (it’s usually not) or because it encourages a sense moral obligation (it doesn’t), but because I live in constant fear of what cruel, inhumane, and taxpayer-funded punishments await me if I don’t.
Impeach the obviously corrupt Justices & remove them from the bench immediately.. Put together a board to review their judgements in the light of any demonstrated favoritism aka bribes. Nullify the laws based on those wrong decisions. ‘Lawful Evil’ shall not stand!there are now 13 District courts, we need a total of 13 justices in total.
A friend of mine suggested the expanding the court option. However, the last time the democrats tried to appoint a judge the republicans just refused to approve any of the candidates until trump was in office. The republicans have pushed things beyond the breaking point. Expansion could RADICALLY backfire if they did the same thing again, and there's no reason to assume they wouldn't. It gets them what they want.
Kevin Russell
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •The number of Justices has been 5,6,7, 9, 10 and and FDR sent a bill for fourteen.
the number of justices is a congressional, presidential choice.
FDR wanted fourteen, because the scotus was so old.
R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd:
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Content warning: CW: USPOL
Frost「:therian:｜霜の狼｜人面獣心」
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •MugsysRapSheet 🔩🐑🐘
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Jen Sorensen
in reply to MugsysRapSheet 🔩🐑🐘 • • •Wm.son
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •@MugsysRapSheet
This seems great. There's got to be something wrong wth it. But I can't see what. The 36 judges selection? Or 18 of each?
MiMi Agnew
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Wokebloke for Democracy
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •EyeQ62
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •enoch_exe_inc
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •I’m with “ignore the court”, but that’s mainly because of my own contempt for and lack of faith in legal institutions and their tendency to become bottomless sinks of moral depravity.
I follow the law not because “it’s a good idea” (it’s usually not) or because it encourages a sense moral obligation (it doesn’t), but because I live in constant fear of what cruel, inhumane, and taxpayer-funded punishments await me if I don’t.
Andre :amogus:
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •We Want EVERYTHING! 🌹
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •David :SetouchiExplorer:
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •If those could die that'd be nice.
Grumble
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •The solution to pollution is dilution.
Expand SCOTUS to 17 justices. Expand the House to 2500.
🇵🇸 gangster's parasite 🇺🇦
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •NoctisEqui 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇪🇹🏳️🌈
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •masukomi
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Chris Johnson
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Precisely.
And there are further reasons to do so as well.
Aviva Gary
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •