The unhinged left has been threatening to pack the Court for years, and I actually believe they're going to fill the Supreme Court with Ketanjis at their first opportunity. I think we can count on it, actually.

So as a not-thought-out notion, why not try to control this inevitability?

Besides an apparent disinclination to fight dirty, what's to stop the Right from yanking this carpet out from beneath the Democrats' feet themselves and packing the Court with Constitutionalist justices? Doing unto others before they do unto us?

Logos Stick said:

---

They won't even pass the SAVE act, much less something this dramatic.

Also, the Dems would just re-pack it if/when they take control again.

---

And the right would counter, and the left...

35,000 member Supreme Court of the US.

That would be hilarious.

There is no upper limit to the court packing lunacy outside of constitutional eligibility for the office. We can keep adding justices until there is a ludicrously inefficient number of them up to the constitutionally eligible adult population of the United States all being judges. Why start that brinksmanship game?

YouBet said:

---

Elected Republicans don't have the balls to do anything dramatic. They would rather die against the wall shot by the commies in the back of the head before trying to save the Republic.

---

Is that a bad thing?

[When you are wondering why you were banned it for this post. -Staff]

Im Gipper said:

---

There isn't 50 votes in the Senate to pass that.

---

This whole election-related lawfare situation is just getting started...

We need a Constitutional amendment capping Supreme Court membership at 9.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

We need a Constitutional amendment capping Supreme Court membership at 9.

---

Agreed... but see previous posters' comments about the GOP's lack of testicular fortitude. That plane probably won't fly.

It is clearly apparent that the DemocRAT party has been usurped from within by outright Communists (DemocRATic Socialists, they call themselves to temper the sound) and are hell bent on wresting control by whatever means necessary, for a permanent basis of power. They are committed and in it to win it, forever.

Until we on the right use their tactics directly against them, we are doomed to eventual failure. That said, we need to choose the battles wisely, as Gavin stated this week in reference to the potential R on R election for Governor in Kommiefornia, they have a "break the glass strategy". The politician Dems are not complete idiots, and have a plan in place of some sort that if their tactics are used against them, they will have the MSM on their side and the real story will never be told.

The enemy within our borders are more evil than the ones we fight outside of them. And they live right next door.

We must destroy the republic to save the republic. Please.



And yes, I oppose anyone stacking the court and making DC or PR a state. I also think governors should still appoint senators.

Quote:

---

I also think governors should still appoint senators.

---

Governors never appointed senators. It was state legislatures.

If we didn't have feckless cowards like Thune running the party we'd do it now. We should be trying to crush the left when we're in power; it's exactly what the dems would and will do.

calling Thune feckless for not packing the court might be one of the most inane things I've read here in quite sometime. new strain of TDS going around it looks like

BMX Bandit said:

---

calling Thune feckless for not packing the court might be one of the most inane things I've read here in quite sometime. new strain of TDS going around it looks like

---

How about calling Thune feckless for not getting the filibuster to what it used to be - a talking filibuster and then getting the Save Act passed?

Make the RINOs vote to show their true colors.

That's pretty feckless to me.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

We need a Constitutional amendment capping Supreme Court membership at 9.

---

Seeing as we are making up non-constitutional solutions
It should be 11 and every justice serves a 22 year term &
a two term president would get to appoint 4/11 justices Every other summer there would a confirmation hearing

12th Man said:

---

The unhinged left has been threatening to pack the Court for years, and I actually believe they're going to fill the Supreme Court with Ketanjis at their first opportunity. I think we can count on it, actually.

So as a not-thought-out notion, why not try to control this inevitability?

Besides an apparent disinclination to fight dirty, what's to stop the Right from yanking this carpet out from beneath the Democrats' feet themselves and packing the Court with Constitutionalist justices? Doing unto others before they do unto us?

---

aside from awful precedent-

say we put in 13 Justices

then the left will just put in 21 Justices.

it's neverending.

how about we just have CLARENCE THOMAS RETIRE and keep the SCOTUS for the next 40 years instead?

The GOP would need to get to around 60 senators and +35 or 40 in the house to pass legislation enlarging scotus/abolishing the DC circuit etc. It's just not in the realm of possibility this cycle, imho.

Science Denier said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

calling Thune feckless for not packing the court might be one of the most inane things I've read here in quite sometime. new strain of TDS going around it looks like

---

How about calling Thune feckless for not getting the filibuster to what it used to be - a talking filibuster and then getting the Save Act passed?

Make the RINOs vote to show their true colors.

That's pretty feckless to me.

---

this criticism is at least grounded in reality. no problem at all for one believing him feckless for not doing more to try to get the save act passed. not that a talking filibuster would have gotten it passed, but its a fair criticism. very different than "OMG! why isn't he packing the court"

Quote:

---

how about we just have CLARENCE THOMAS RETIRE and keep the SCOTUS for the next 40 years instead?

---

stop by his office and let him know the plan.

Sq 17 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

We need a Constitutional amendment capping Supreme Court membership at 9.

---

Seeing as we are making up non-constitutional solutions

---

how is a proposed constitutional amendment a "non-constitutional solution"?

I apologize I misread your comment.

I thought you were talking about a legislative solution, which is I think where this thread got started