[jedrider]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'T')he idea that a conservative six to three court would install a candidate that had obviously lost the electoral college is ludicrous.
They might bring an end to the debate as they did with Gore Vs. Bush but they would always come down on the side of the candidate that had carried the most electoral college votes.
They are conservative. They do not change the rules. They go by them.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', '
')
My own prediction is that the election will not be close and the Supreme Court will stay out of it, but these all make good betting opportunities.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') Two terrible candidates and it is coming down to the lessor of two weasels.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') Two terrible candidates and it is coming down to the lessor of two weasels.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')We can expect repeats of past failures until we fix the system.

[vtsnowedin]

It is nice to see that the conservative court is not just a rubber stamp for GOP positions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') woman and man pray outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2020, the day after the Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to become a Supreme Court Justice. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

WASHINGTON (AP) — North Carolina, yes. Pennsylvania, yes. Wisconsin, no. That’s how the Supreme Court has answered questions in recent days about an extended timeline for receiving and counting ballots in those states.

In each case, Democrats backed the extensions and Republicans opposed them. All three states have Democratic governors and legislatures controlled by the GOP.

At first blush, the difference in the outcomes at the Supreme Court seems odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country. But elections are largely governed by states, and the rules differ from one state to the next.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'I')t is nice to see that the conservative court is not just a rubber stamp for GOP positions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') woman and man pray outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2020, the day after the Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to become a Supreme Court Justice. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

WASHINGTON (AP) — North Carolina, yes. Pennsylvania, yes. Wisconsin, no. That’s how the Supreme Court has answered questions in recent days about an extended timeline for receiving and counting ballots in those states.

In each case, Democrats backed the extensions and Republicans opposed them. All three states have Democratic governors and legislatures controlled by the GOP.

At first blush, the difference in the outcomes at the Supreme Court seems odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country. But elections are largely governed by states, and the rules differ from one state to the next.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
')
If you read the whole thing the Supremes upheld the acts of legislatures in PA & NC but overturned the action of an activist judge in Wisconsin. I see this as fully in line with how the court system is supposed to work.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I thought that dollar is going to be inflating but in my wildest dreams I was not suspecting that Supreme Court is going to be inflating too!

There will be 13 judges, one for each district if all goes well:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3bPDmDHrc4E/

This will just give Democrats an edge.

But it wont end up there.
If Democrats ever lose before collapse of United States then Republicans will surely get an idea that each state should have SC judge - and hey presto - there will be 50 of them, each new nominated by Republicans.

But Democrats won't give up easy - they will make every municipality to have SCOTUS judge.

And then there will be an inflation of municipalities and inflation of SCOTUS judges!

Every block of flats or cul-de-sac will become to be a municipality and get its own SCOTUS judge!
10 millions of SCOTUS judges by the end of XXI century and that is just the beginning.

Finally every American will become to be a municipality and appoint himself to be a SCOTUS judge

[vtsnowedin]

If a fifty-one to fifty vote in the Senate can change the number from nine to thirteen in 2021 then just a fifty-one to fifty vote in 2023 can change it back again and add in some forced retirements to achieve that goal.
The Democrats are desperate to get their ideas in place this biennium because they can see how slim their chances are for the 2022 midterm election.
If they also foolishly get rid of the 60 vote filibuster now they will find they can't get that back in 2023 and will have shot themselves in both feet.
If the rest of Biden Harris policy works out as poorly as the border crossings are they will go down as a one term presidency on par with the Carter administration.

[Pops]

The Supreme Court was a good idea, lifetime tenure and appointment by politicians via the luck-O-the-draw not so much. Here is another example where Rs play the game better, they've been concentrating on packing the judiciary since Row v Wade while the Ds haggle over what color hat to wear. Any and everyone knew that trump would get at least one justice if elected but they pissed their votes away and he got 3. Oh well.

The US might collapse but it won't be from Justice inflation I don't think, amusing as it is. Pretty sure expanding the number won't happen even though Ds are pretty pissed about McConnells power grab. If the US collapses it will be because the Rs have decided against power sharing and working for the good of the country but rather "governing" like trump by prioritizing punishing their opponents and rewarding their base.

The picking of SCOTUS judges should be change though, not random chance IOW. Maybe fixed terms so every POTUS gets to appoint one. A 36 year term is still a long time, maybe 18 years. the "term limited" judges would go down a notch to the appeals court if they want (the constitution calls for tenure).

I read somewhere that there isn't popular support for more seats but there is for term limits.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'I')f the rest of Biden Harris policy works out as poorly as the border crossings are they will go down as a one term presidency on par with the Carter administration.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'B')iden ...a 53-40" approval at the moment.

[aadbrd]

Suspicious thing for someone who keeps claiming to be non-partisan to suggest.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aadbrd', 'S')uspicious thing for someone who keeps claiming to be non-partisan to suggest.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aadbrd', 'S')uspicious thing for someone who keeps claiming to be non-partisan to suggest.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', ' ')of course, no citations.

[evilgenius]

Packing the court or inflating the court are both ok, as long as the operation of them still allows the people's wishes to be known. The court can be ordered any way. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution.

We all know they don't do that in a vacuum. They do that according to philosophical interpretations concerning the Constitution. All the while, though, there is a national consensus.

Do the party's wishes match that? It's during times like these, where the choir stands up and sings so loudly, that those who make those decisions can think they hear everybody else. The temptation must be great to believe that they really do stand for everybody.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'P')acking the court or inflating the court are both ok, as long as the operation of them still allows the people's wishes to be known. The court can be ordered any way. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution.

We all know they don't do that in a vacuum. They do that according to philosophical interpretations concerning the Constitution. All the while, though, there is a national consensus.

Do the party's wishes match that? It's during times like these, where the choir stands up and sings so loudly, that those who make those decisions can think they hear everybody else. The temptation must be great to believe that they really do stand for everybody.

[evilgenius]

In the 5/4 court, enough times, a judge has voted the other way than all of the surrounding institutions would expect. I don't expect that with a 6/3 court. And I don't see manipulable divisions on the 6 side. They are all a bunch of openly weak people, weak in the same way. They all follow pretty much the same ideology, which they use to blind themselves to their own hypocrisy. From Amy Coney Boebert, to Rumpledrinkenstein, they all fly a flag of values which they use to judge others as significantly different than them. Once you can adequately reason the existence of an out group you can throw the book at them. We need to be careful.