If R’s take back the Senate and the presidency in 2024, those voting “yea” on this bill will have their votes shoved down their throats in 2025 as the new Republican president nominates 4 new SC justices.
I thought the far-left turd rollers hated the Supreme Court. Why would they want to expand it? Lots of “mental issues” going around on the left side of the aisle. If those turds want to stop all the gun violins, it might be wise to “red flag” all registered RAT voters.
Odd how democrat scum aren’t demanding ‘a bipartisan’ solution... /s
This is not going anywhere. It’s a basic issue of the far left and introducing a bill to expand the USSC is only to placate leftist morons. It’s really not much different than McCarthy’s HR 2811 Limit, Save and Grow Act, which doesn’t limit the debt, doesn’t save a dime, and the only thing it grows is the government. Morons on the right are placated by idiot RINOs by such symbolism.
Fallacies: The statement contains several potential fallacies:
a. Sweeping generalization: The statement claims that "Republicans have stacked the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative justices." While it is true that some Republican presidents have appointed conservative justices, it is an oversimplification to imply that all Republican-appointed justices are ultra-conservative or that they were specifically appointed with the intent to repeal reproductive freedom, constrain voting rights, and weaken clean air rules.
b. Slippery slope: The statement suggests that appointing conservative justices leads to negative consequences such as the repeal of reproductive freedom, constraining voting rights, and weakening clean air rules. However, it does not provide specific evidence or logical reasoning to support this causal chain.
False premises: The statement assumes that Republican-appointed justices are primarily motivated by partisan politics and that their goal is to use the Supreme Court as a tool for achieving political ends. While political considerations may play a role in judicial appointments, it is overly simplistic to assert that this is the sole or primary motivation for all Republican-appointed justices.
Ambiguous terms: The statement uses terms such as "ultra-conservative justices," "reproductive freedom," "constrain voting rights," and "weaken clean air rules" without providing clear definitions. These terms can be interpreted differently by different individuals, leading to potential misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the positions and actions of both Republicans and the Supreme Court.
Lack of evidence: The statement does not offer specific evidence or examples to support the claim that Republican-appointed justices have a deliberate agenda to repeal reproductive freedom, constrain voting rights, or weaken clean air rules. Without concrete evidence, it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statement.
Biased perspective: The statement appears to present a one-sided perspective, assuming that only Republicans engage in political manipulation of the Supreme Court. It neglects to acknowledge that both major political parties in the United States have historically sought to influence the ideological balance of the court through judicial appointments.
Overgeneralization: The statement asserts that the Supreme Court has been used as a political tool for partisan politics. While political considerations can influence court decisions, it is an overgeneralization to claim that the Court as a whole is solely motivated by partisan politics. Justices are expected to interpret the law and make impartial decisions based on legal principles.
Lack of nuance: The statement does not consider the diverse views, backgrounds, and reasoning processes of individual justices. It reduces their decisions to partisan politics and overlooks the complex legal analysis and interpretations that go into Supreme Court rulings.
These objections highlight the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based discussion when evaluating the actions and motivations of justices, as well as the role of the Supreme Court in shaping policies and interpreting the law.
Careful what you wish for there Ed. You commie bastard POS.
If they managed to accomplish this, it would almost mandate the calling of an article 5 convention.
Such a convention would be rather extreme as you wouldn’t know, going in, what form of government may come out... but at least it would be one last, slim chance at saving the Republic.
“...reintroducing a bill Tuesday that perished in committee last Congress.”
That is the difference between Republicans and democrats. The left never, ever, never gives up. The left never quits fighting.
If every leftist in the world was eliminated overnighn except a remaining ten, they would get together and plan a comeback the next day.
There is a real problem here that needs addressing. That is, every year, the 13 appellate courts send some 30,000 cases up to the SCOTUS, that can hear maybe two or three dozen. This is terrible negligence.
But using simple math, creating a SCOTUS with 13 justices will not even make a small dent in this number. But what would is creating a “Second Court of the United States”, to act as a ‘screen’ for the SCOTUS.
Each justice of the Second Court would be under the guidance of a SCOTUS justice, much like they guide the appellate courts today.
“Mosquito cases” could be ‘swatted’ by the Second Court, or decided, or returned to the appellate courts. Particularly important cases, and cases that can be bound together, can be directly referred to the SCOTUS with the Second Court opinions attached. In the latter case, this would help the SCOTUS justices to form their opinions faster.
As an example, cases involving minors in public schools are the atherosclerosis of the federal court system. Similar cases every year with no definitive conclusion. SCOTUS justices should not be deciding teen girl skirt length every damned year.
No matter how many federal judges want to act like dumbasses and agree to hear such cases, “to show the youth the *importance* of the federal courts”, they should *never* appear before the SCOTUS. The Second Court would thus be a shield that the appellate courts failed to be.
Odd the article doesn’t mention Stomayer and her money issue.
You know just mention a conservative Judge.
Odd the article doesn’t mention Stomayer and her money issue.
You know just mention a conservative Judge.
This will happen eventually. Or else they will simply ignore the courts rulings like they have been on major issues.
Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Thirteen, eh? Like a coven?
Why stop at 13?
All over the globe, elections have been stolen from those who don’t support the WEF. Shows over for America, and sadly for the rest of the world. Israel is starting to build the third temple and the anti Christ is in the waiting. Repent now, people! While there’s still time!