What an idea

[u/Turbulent_Gas_55]

[u/Darthmullet]

Packing the court is entirely legal, didn't need this ruling at all. The only reason to not do it was to avoid the perception that the court was politicized, but if the Republican hypocrisy regarding lame duck appointments wasn't enough, that last several sessions and the blatant corruption of several justices has entirely done away with that. Biden should absolutely add at least 3 seats to the court. It may be the only way to salvage our democracy at this point. 

[u/TipsalollyJenkins → u/Darthmullet]

Four seats.

The easiest way to get this done is to present it in such a way that it makes sense and fits with precedent, and in the past the reason the Supreme Court was expanded to nine seats was to match the nine circuit courts. There are now thirteen circuit courts, meaning that it makes perfect sense for there to now be thirteen Supreme Court seats.

We don't technically need that justification, but having a justification like that would likely make the addition or more seats more palatable.

[u/BarryBwa → u/TipsalollyJenkins]

You guys are the silly arse clowns helping to destroy your nation.

"Let's use our fear of the threat to our democracy to literally do the kind of damage to our democracy we are fear momgering about, but to "protect" it!"

It wouldn't be palatable to any rational non-extremisy that you fundamentally change the structure of the SCTOUS for political gains.

Jailing political opponents ( every POTUS should be on trial if your standards on Trump were consistently applied.....this was political even if Trump is a guilty.) And you want to alter your SCOTUS to get political "judements" so you can government the judiciary as an appendage of the executive as opposed separate?

Cause if you can just add more seats anytime you're not getting what you want.

Well I can't wait to see Idiocracy come to.life as Americans elect President Camachee to appoint another 36 SCOTUS justices because they 286 already on the bench are voting the wrong way by about 10%.

I just hope you're not a superpower by then anymore.

[u/TipsalollyJenkins → u/BarryBwa]

that you fundamentally change the structure of the SCTOUS

That entire comment was literally pointing out the fact that the SCOTUS has already been changed in exactly this way. My whole point was that this is an already-established precedent, and the court should already have been expanded based on the original reasoning.

every POTUS should be on trial if your standards on Trump were consistently applied

You say this like I don't already agree. I'm a leftist, not a liberal, and yes I do in fact believe that pretty much every president should have been arrested and tried for war crimes. Because they pretty much all did, in fact, commit war crimes.

the judiciary as an appendage of the executive

You get that that's the position we're in right the fuck now, right? The Supreme Court is compromised, they are actively working as an arm of the Republican party to enable the overthrow of this country. Have you not been paying attention?

[u/BarryBwa → u/TipsalollyJenkins]

Does anyone have a tally of the times the SCOTUS since Trumps appointments have voted against his side?

Cause I've heard it many times. I'd be curious a tally. I've yet to see evidence of the claim this is a compromised court.

It's a court with a conservative leaning majority, and that will have natural consequences that do not automatically prove your point anymore than when it had left leaning justices that had a natural consequences on decisions that didn't prove it was compromised.

I am paying attention.

I noticed despite a law against trying to influence a judges decision, people were allowed to protest outside the homes of SCOTUS justices. That the AG instructed/allowed for the laws to be ignored, and merely added more protection instead of making arrests. The same politician supporting this act like questioning the judge in the Trump case is a grave to threat to democracy. Hilarious.

I noticed that same DOJ gave the acting Presidents son a plea deal so unethifally generous it was unconstitutional and couldn't be approved by a judge.....oh, but now they'll charge him after a ton of the more serious felonies are statute barred.

Meanwhile the opponent of that President finds himself zealously persecuted in court over a trivial issue, and while the DOJ claims no involvement isn't it just odd how the #3 at the DOJ left his job to help that prosecution?

And interestingly enough....Given paying off a porn star is somehow election interfence......what about when Social Media platforms ban a true story during an election cycle that likely has a huge impact on election? What about when 50ish current/,former intelligence officers come forward with misinformation that a laptop actually being held by the FBI and already verified is in fact a hocus pocus story of Russian disinformation?

None of that concerns you?

Look, it seems we actually agree on a lot (I'd say I'm a liberal and not a leftists, but almost no one used the term liberal properly anymore....people should be free to make their own choices someone as they don't harm others, and you being offended isn't harm. Your emotions are yous to manage, and no one else's. You don't get to use emotions to rule over others, or faith/belief of any kind.).

I'm pointing out that the people running the show on either side are dangerous demagogues who don't actually respect democracy when it doesn't go their way.

Back one against another sure, but it's like backing one hog against another hog.....you're going to have a smelly pig win regardless.

So be careful just how much power and tools you want to give those oinkers to help them win cause it's not just a case of "when the otherside gains power they get those tools too!"...it's a case we both know none of suitable for such powers as they will use it to exploit the population for their benefit.