Avatar feed
Responses: 2
LTC Stephen C.
2
2
0
The earlier expansion makes sense, SGT (Join to see). I fear any future expansions would be politically motivated and not circuit motivated. The article appears to be somewhat dated.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SGT English/Language Arts Teacher
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
Politics. Mitch McConnell got 2 Supreme Court picks for his party. The first he refused to give Obama's choice a hearing because it was an election year. The second was when he pushed Trump's pick through in an election year, the very same thing he refused to do in 2016. Both parties are hypocrites. I think the article was from September 2020.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
LTC Stephen C.
>1 y
SGT (Join to see), the earlier expansion (of justices) that I spoke of was the one done to allow more justices to serve the additional circuits created by the significant addition of the western states (19th century as I recollect; I can no longer read the article without signing up). That expansion made sense and did not appear to be politically motivated.
Fast forward to the 20th and 21st centuries, and every Supreme Court Justice selection has had more apparent and obvious political motivations, or so it seems to me. Likely as not, it’s always been that way, but the earlier expansion mentioned still seems to make sense in an apolitical way.
Mitch McConnell may have been the Senate majority leader and conducted the advise and consent process, but it was President Trump who nominated the two who were ultimately confirmed as associate justices. They were his picks. Obama also had two nominations confirmed. Those were his picks. Each had two confirmed.
To expect any president to not nominate a justice when a vacancy occurs during his administration is disingenuous to me, regardless of timing. Therefore, the issue of timing is simply not a valid argument to offer in my opinion, especially when Obama did the same. You obviously think differently.
I agree that both parties are hypocritical, but not just because of their desire to put a justice of their persuasion on the bench. They just want one their “own” and the “selection system” in place favors the party that controls the Senate. Considering the selection system, I can’t really find that to be hypocritical and to think otherwise I believe to be naive. President Trump’s nomination was confirmed because his party controlled the Senate. Obama’s nomination was not confirmed because his did not. That’s not hypocritical, but it is most political.
However, I believe that it’s a strong possibility that the Democrat Party will try to pack (expand) the Supreme Court in order to insure that they “get their own way.” That’s just my opinion, but now there’s no westward expansion of new states to offer as a legitimate rationale for increasing the number of justices. If the Democrat Party does so, is that hypocrisy or politics or both? Arguments could be made both ways but what difference would it make?
I said the article was dated because it was clear that Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett was not yet on the bench.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PVT Mark Zehner
1
1
0
Wonder how many its going to be now!
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close