Expanding The Supreme Court

[HappySkeptic]

Yeah, I think the vales are pretty high level shit that is somewhat obvious although both parties have different strategies. The big difference that I see in the list is limited government and freedom. I do not think that these are part of the democratic party. I think their version of freedom would be equanimity through controlling undesirable discourse. The Democratic party wants a huge government that would be necessary to mete out socialized healthcare as well as all the other safety net programs that I also think are necessary as well as provide meaningful work for those that have been displaced by automation and eventually AI. Those Silicon Natives are at it again!

Perhaps libertarians want limited government spending, but the corporate elite (Republicans, but also Democrats) want big government subsidy, no taxes, and bailouts when necessary.  Heck, fiscal responsibility isn't even a "thing" any more, on either side of the aisle.

Libertarians and Left-wing liberals both believe in personal freedom.  They just define it differently.  There is "freedom from" and "freedom to". 

The libertarian might own a family farm in a rural area and feel completely self-sufficient.  They want freedom from government confiscation of his family wealth, and freedom to live live as they choose.

The left-wing liberal may live in a city with poor parents, and their only way forward is to have government programs (like education) which don't rely on family wealth to succeed.  They want freedom from the fear of poverty (like after a healthcare bill) and freedom to control their bodies, sexuality, expression.

Each side judges the role of government based on their own experience and needs.  Everyone wants freedom for themselves.  They just don't necessarily want freedom for everyone, or recognize that another person's desire is a "valid" form of freedom.

I personally think that the "utopia" that extremes on each side want is a hell (mafia anarchy vs. full-blown socialism), and that somewhere in between is good.

As for fascists (including religious fascists) - those are just plain bad.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no desire in the us for full blown socialism. None. Whatever middle ground is going to be negotiated will not be between facism and socialism. It will be between facism and center right corporatism.

Which is to say that it will be moderate corporatist facism, dangling health benefits as an opiate. Or, as we know it, business as usual.

[Rank Stranger]

If Biden wins the election - should they expand the number of Justices so Biden can appoint new justices more favorable to his agenda?

Yes? Really want to set that precidence?

Why not?

The Right has made it clear that norms are for losers.  If the Left is capable of learning (and I'm not sure that they are), they'll give no quarter once they take power again.

[Anomalocaris]

If Biden wins the election - should they expand the number of Justices so Biden can appoint new justices more favorable to his agenda?

Yes? Really want to set that precidence?

Why not?

The Right has made it clear that norms are for losers.  If the Left is capable of learning (and I'm not sure that they are), they'll give no quarter once they take power again.

I don’t think they would learn that fast.  Many of their constituents still think it is noble to allow the ravenous alligators of the right to feed on others under their tent, in the hopes that the alligators will be satiated before coming for them.

[Secular Elf]

If Biden wins the election - should they expand the number of Justices so Biden can appoint new justices more favorable to his agenda?

Yes? Really want to set that precidence?

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has in its first 80 years of existence changed size seven times.  From five to ten, then down to 9.

Only since 1869 have there consistently been nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court. Before that, Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices required by law under John Adams to as many as 10 under Abraham Lincoln.

The U.S. Constitution is silent about how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. In fact, the office of Chief Justice only exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”).

It’s Congress, not the Constitution, that decides the size of the Supreme Court, which it did for the first time under the Judiciary Act of 1789. When George Washington signed the Act into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.

From the History Channel website: Why Do 9 Justices Serve on the Supreme Court? https://www.history.com/news/supreme-cou...nstitution

---

Yes, the precedence is exactly the point.   Precedence for our side to always use the greatest Conceivable ruthlessness to a ruin and destroy the works of the forces that animates the Republican Party, and ruin their operatives and supporters 

The republicans are setting the  precedence for winner taking all.   So taking all, not just that to which we seem entitled, from the republicans must be our overriding goal in dealing with them if we are to have anything Left in the end.

The republicans brought guns and knives to every negotiating table.  You better not rely on preaching negotiating etiquette to them If you want to emerge alive from the “negotiation”.

If you don’t want a single party state, then the Republican Party must be destroyed.    You don’t let a malignant and aggressive cancer stay in you and hope to coach it to play nice for good health.

It is interesting that you mention the Republican Party as a malignant cancer and how we should respond.  I found this website while browsing around:
https://conslayer.neocities.org/