Is It Time To Expand The Supreme Court? l FiveThirtyEight

The CC is good on this one, I checked it as I watched it.  

There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says the Supreme Court must have nine justices — that’s just the way it’s been for more than 150 years. But recently, some Democrats have proposed adding justices to the court. Here, senior writer and legal reporter Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux asks legal experts and historians to weigh in: Should Congress expand the Supreme Court?

4 thoughts on “Is It Time To Expand The Supreme Court? l FiveThirtyEight

  1. I skipped through the video and picked up what I think was the essence of it. While I tend to think increasing the number has its merits, I tend to agree with Thomas Griffin’s comments. Especially about voting for a different president and a different senate because, in essence, the SC is only called in on particular issues whereas the people in Congress are the ones that are running the country on a daily basis.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hello Nan. There is no doubt about the need to vote in more congresspeople who will honor the will of the majority of the people and do what is in the best interest of the public instead of the best interests of the wealthy.

      However those laws passed by a responsive congress has to go to a SC that currently is ruling on ideology instead of the constitution so they invalidate the laws passed to help the public. Here is an example. tRump as president created to new policies dealing with immigrants on the southern border. One was making refuges wait in Mexico while their asylum claiim is processed which is a against the asylum law that says those people will stay in the US, and the title 42 law that said because of covid / dirty immigrant diseases no immigrants can cross the border and stay in the US for any reason unless they have a visa.

      So here is the part about Judges. tRump made these policies (Stephen Miller did really, trump just implemented them) but when Biden went to undo / stop the policies a tRump appointed Judge ruled he couldn’t because as president he did not have the authority to end a policy created by a former president. Why, because the Judge had the same racist views towards the people crossing he southern border that Mill / tRump do.

      That is why it is important to not only increase the SC but the over worked lower courts as well. But to do that we will need a much larger majority and it looks like because of Florida and (another state I forget which one) gerrymandering and getting rid of Democratic / minority districts the house will flip to Republicans. We have to win twice as many votes as republicans just to hold the house. How is that a democracy. Most of us were counting on NY to try to balance the losses with a gerrymander in Democrats favor, but their courts ruled the Democrats couldn’t because the state laws said the maps had to be fair. Now that same law is in the two Republican controlled states have the same law almost word for word, but their courts were filled with Republicans who said it did not matter or count and the gerrymandered district favoring Republicans completely would stand. So again our side plays fair and their side plays dirty and we lose.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.