Society The Joseph R Biden Show

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Why haven't the elected officials fixed it?

Because it costs a lot of money to do infrastructure projects like that. Clean water should absolutely be under the purview of the federal government.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Because it costs a lot of money to do infrastructure projects like that. Clean water should absolutely be under the purview of the federal government.

Clearly that's not happening, you'd think the locally elected officials would get to work on this.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Clearly that's not happening, you'd think the locally elected officials would get to work on this.

They are. It takes a lot of time and money to replace 30k lead pipes. The federal government should be ashamed of themselves for letting this go on for as long as it has.

 

[ThatOneDude]

They are. It takes a lot of time and money to replace 30k lead pipes. The federal government should be ashamed of themselves for letting this go on for as long as it has.

Well good, clean drinking water should be something all Americans have.
The federal government knows no shame.

 

[Filthy]

is Joe packing the SCOTUS?

I think the media gins up the "Gun Violence Epidemic" in advance of the SCOTUS smacking down NYC gun licensing. Then Joe says that clearly the SCOTUS is out of touch with 'common-sense Americans' and needs to be fixed immediately, because all of these Justices are going to be sitting for the next 25 years.

And that's the end of the judicial branch as an equal branch of gov't.

 

[ThatOneDude]

is Joe packing the SCOTUS?

I think the media gins up the "Gun Violence Epidemic" in advance of the SCOTUS smacking down NYC gun licensing. Then Joe says that clearly the SCOTUS is out of touch with 'common-sense Americans' and needs to be fixed immediately, because all of these Justices are going to be sitting for the next 25 years.

And that's the end of the judicial branch as an equal branch of gov't.

He's certainly going to try.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

is Joe packing the SCOTUS?

I think the media gins up the "Gun Violence Epidemic" in advance of the SCOTUS smacking down NYC gun licensing. Then Joe says that clearly the SCOTUS is out of touch with 'common-sense Americans' and needs to be fixed immediately, because all of these Justices are going to be sitting for the next 25 years.

And that's the end of the judicial branch as an equal branch of gov't.

He'd get away with it, so there's a decent chance.

 

[Deleted member 1]

is Joe packing the SCOTUS?

I think the media gins up the "Gun Violence Epidemic" in advance of the SCOTUS smacking down NYC gun licensing. Then Joe says that clearly the SCOTUS is out of touch with 'common-sense Americans' and needs to be fixed immediately, because all of these Justices are going to be sitting for the next 25 years.

And that's the end of the judicial branch as an equal branch of gov't.

Lol the drama of this post.
Let's not let history get in the way.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, signed into law by President George Washington on Sept. 24, 1789, assigned six justices to the Supreme Court. When the Federalist Party lost its majority in Congress after the election of 1800, the lame-duck legislation reduced the number to five, The New York Times reported. That was done with the hope of preventing Thomas Jefferson, the incoming president, from being able to make an appointment.

However, that number was repealed by the new Congress, and the total was returned to six. In 1807, Congress increased the size of the court to seven, giving Jefferson that extra appointment.

>> What does ‘packing the court’ mean and why are Democrats talking about it?

In 1837 the Supreme Court was expanded to nine justices, which allowed President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, the chance to appoint two justices.

During the Civil War, the court was increased to 10 justices to ensure a pro-Union majority on the bench, the Times reported. When Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, became president upon the assassination of Lincoln, the Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation in July 1866 to shrink the court’s size to seven.

The number increased three years later. On April 10, 1869, Congress passed an act to amend the judicial system, increasing the number of justices to nine. The law took effect in December 1869.

That led to a controversy when the votes of the two new justices nominated by Grant in February 1870, and confirmed by the Senate, helped overturn a case involving paper currency. By a 4-3 opinion in Hepburn v. Griswold, justices ruled that three legal tender acts of 1862 and 1863, giving the federal government authority to issue “greenbacks,” was unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court reconvened in 1870, Grant appointees William Strong and Joseph P. Bradley were part of a 5-4 majority that reversed the court’s decision.

Court is constantly politically manipulated and has precedent for size changes since nearly it's inception, often as the whim of the congressional winners.

Let's not act like suddenly Biden did something that upends the institution in a unique way.

 

[Leigh]

The GOP packed the SC. Made rules about election years, then broke them.

 

[Filthy]

Lol the drama of this post.
Let's not let history get in the way.




Court is constantly politically manipulated and has precedent for size changes since nearly it's inception, often as the whim of the congressional winners.

Let's not act like suddenly Biden did something that upends the institution in a unique way.

when was the last time the size of the court was changed, and what was the reason?

 

[Filthy]

The GOP packed the SC. Made rules about election years, then broke them.

source?

because I think this is a false "they did it first" reasoning...any evil can be rationalized if it's to correct a greater evil.

 

[Deleted member 1]

when was the last time the size of the court was changed, and what was the reason?

Literally in my post.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Us population 1869
38 million
Increase to 9 justices


Us population 2021
340 million
Argument to move to 13



Beyond the political wrangling, would that really be that big of a deal? Would four new justices increase the probability of a heterogeneous court that better represents the vastly larger and more heterogeneous country?

 

[Filthy]

Literally in my post.

no, it's not.

the court was grown over the years as a response to the growth in the size of the United States, as the judges literally "rode the circuit". By the time Andrew Johnson was set to take office after the assassination of LIncoln, it was at 10 and Johnson was positioned to appoint a couple more...Congress acted to limit his ability to stick it to the South by passing a law that the next 3 Justices to retire wouldn't be replaced. Of course, as soon as Johnson was out of office and the Judicial branch was standing in the way of Federal Currency with a 4-3 majority, the Congress saw fit to expand the court to 9 Justices in order to get the majority needed to Constitutional-ize a Federal Bank.


If I'm 60 years old, and something happened 5 times before I was 40, and had not happened since, would you consider that thing to happen "all the time"? Because that is literally the frequency of SCOTUS changes.

And the last 3 times, including the FDR's failure, it was done for overtly political goals. Fucking with the judiciary for political reasons is a bad idea, because it destroys the public faith in independent judiciary and equality before the law.

It's not something that happens all the time for political reasons.

 

[Filthy]

Us population 1869
38 million
Increase to 9 justices


Us population 2021
340 million
Argument to move to 13



Beyond the political wrangling, would that really be that big of a deal? Would four new justices increase the probability of a heterogeneous court that better represents the vastly larger and more heterogeneous country?

so every 150 years we look at our population and increase our court accordingly?
the size of the court has always been about it's ability to adjudicate a large area, not a large population. SCOTUS adjudicates disparities between states, they haven't been capacity restrained in that time. They still hear all the cases they gotta.

there were 48 37 states in 1869, there's 50 now.

not much has changed.

 

[Filthy]

@Splinty:

Baron Trump elected POTUS, has majority House and Senate. Expands court to allow POTUS to rule by decree.

you're arguing for the Venezuelan Judiciary. It sucks.

 

[Deleted member 1]

It's not something that happens all the time for political reasons.

Show me where I said something happens all the time.


But beyond that supreme court justices are regularly, including most recently, chosen due to their expectation to follow a certain political ideology, not because of their excellent history of neutrality in rulings of justice.

 

[Filthy]

even if we concede that the judiciary needs to be expanded, why wasn't that stated during the election? why is it THIS particular POTUS that gets to decide the tilt of the SCOTUS for the next 50 years?

It seems like if the party in power really cared about the US Constitution, they'd space those appointments out over a few Presidents...of course, they'll point to Merrick Garland/Amy Comey and say that they're just making it even, but then the next Dear Leader will say the same to their constituents.

 

[Filthy]

Show me where I said something happens all the time.


But beyond that supreme court justices are regularly, including most recently, chosen due to their expectation to follow a certain political ideology, not because of their excellent history of neutrality in rulings of justice.

"Court is constantly politically manipulated and has precedent for size changes since nearly it's inception"

sorry for the 1+1=2

what were you trying to say, if not that court manipulation is common and so is adjusting it's size?

 

[Deleted member 1]

what were you trying to say, if not that court manipulation is common an

Yes, court manipulation is common as I just explained by the politically motivated selection and blocking of justices.

and so is adjusting it's size?

Remove the contraction.

Didn't say that. I said there was precedent since near the inception.

 

[Filthy]

Yes, court manipulation is common as I just explained by the politically motivated selection and blocking of justices.




Remove the contraction.

Didn't say that. I said there was precedent since near the inception.

that "precedent" hasn't been acted on in 150 years. Maybe its not so relevant.

EDIT - sorry forgot to mention that blocking Justice appointments isn't the same as increasing the court by 50% so you can get a majority.

 

[MMAHAWK]

that "precedent" hasn't been acted on in 150 years. Maybe its not so relevant.

Keep in mind that’s only 30 years before Biden joined the senate

 

[Hauler]

and has precedent for size changes since nearly it's inception, often as the whim of the congressional winners.

It's been 150 years, dude.

I'm not saying games aren't played with the nominees, but adding members isn't a common thing.

 

[member 1013]

It's been 150 years, dude.

I'm not saying games aren't played with the nominees, but adding members isn't a common thing.

Not with that attitude, anyway.

 

[Hauler]

Us population 1869
38 million
Increase to 9 justices


Us population 2021
340 million
Argument to move to 13

With that logic we should have 81 justices