Packing the Supreme Court?

[Angra Mainyu]

I have never heard that idiomatic phrase used to express that someone will not listen to a complaint or point

Not that she won't listen to a complaint, but rather, to the plan - as in, because she considers the plan really bad unless it involves withdrawing the nomination. That seems to be the sort of dismissive reply that fits the expression. But I may have gotten that wrong, so let's say so. That would not render anything meaningless, or even be a problem for the interpretation of the first sentence.

Indeed then, the phrase is rendered meaningless - the only way to resolve it's inclusion is to ignore or change the meaning of the phrase.. Nothing in the usage indicates she's relying on a non-standard definition, so the only reason for assuming it means something non-standard is to support your interpretation.

No, that would not render it meaningless. It would be a mistaken interpretation. But leave that aside, my original interpretation of the first sentence also works if we change the interpretation of the violin sentence to fit yours. It goes this way:


That would not be my interpretation. Rather, what I had interpreted is as follows:
Cruz: We need a plan to bar court packing.
AOC: Is the plan to refrain from court packing by withdrawing Barrett's nomination? Because if not, I have no sympathy for your plan.

That makes sense too, and uses the meaning of the violin expression as you do. Again, you may be correct she did not mean that. I'm undecided.

 

[Trausti]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

As I've been saying, some Democrats (on the left; one could add some other left-wingers) have recently began using the expression 'packing the court' (and 'court packing', etc.) to mean something very different from its ordinary meaning in English. It remains the case that Cruz and others who proposed measures against to prevent packing were using it in the ordinary sense.

You have yet to provide what its ordinary meaning in english is or proof that its ordinary meaning is only the way you interpret it to be.

BTW, you nailed it, Jarhyn.

I am in awe how swiftly the loonie left has synced its Borg brain to gaslight on the ordinary meaning of court packing.

 

[Deepak]

I have never heard that idiomatic phrase used to express that someone will not listen to a complaint or point

Not that she won't listen to a complaint, but rather, to the plan - as in, because she considers the plan really bad unless it involves withdrawing the nomination. That seems to be the sort of dismissive reply that fits the expression. But I may have gotten that wrong, so let's say so. That would not render anything meaningless, or even be a problem for the interpretation of the first sentence.

Indeed then, the phrase is rendered meaningless - the only way to resolve it's inclusion is to ignore or change the meaning of the phrase.. Nothing in the usage indicates she's relying on a non-standard definition, so the only reason for assuming it means something non-standard is to support your interpretation.

No, that would not render it meaningless. It would be a mistaken interpretation. But leave that aside, my original interpretation of the first sentence also works if we change the interpretation of the violin sentence to fit yours. It goes this way:


That would not be my interpretation. Rather, what I had interpreted is as follows:
Cruz: We need a plan to bar court packing.
AOC: Is the plan to refrain from court packing by withdrawing Barrett's nomination? Because if not, I have no sympathy for your plan.

That makes sense too, and uses the meaning of the violin expression as you do. Again, you may be correct she did not mean that. I'm undecided.

Frankly this sounds like you're breaking your back to misunderstand the statement to try to make a point. I don't accept this interpretation, as there's nothing to be sympathetic to if there's nothing of offer on the table, but honestly it doesn't really matter in the end.

Your point seems to be that the Dems are dumber than you and don't understand what court packing means, so they're misinterpreting the Barrett nomination as the thing and Cruz is virtuous in trying to change the process? I'll restate that, you support Ted Cruz proposing an amendment to the US Constitution to prevent the incoming, suspected majority Democratic party, Senate from exercising powers that every Senate since the founding of the country have had. Is that right, or have my capabilities at understanding the English language failed me again?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Frankly this sounds like you're breaking your back to misunderstand the statement to try to make a point. I don't accept this interpretation, as there's nothing to be sympathetic to if there's nothing of offer on the table, but honestly it doesn't really matter in the end.

I am not doing anything of the sort. Rather, I am defending my original interpretation from your false claim that it would make the second sentence meaningful. If you take a look at the replies I got from left-wingers, it looks like my interpretation that she was saying that appointing Barrett was an instance of packing the court, was not particularly odd.

However, I'm not married to that interpretation. In fact, I said repeatedly that, in light of your alternative, it may very well be that you are correct about what she meant. Of course, I will continue to defend my original interpretation against claims that it would make her second sentence meaningless because that is not true. But that does not equate defending that my original interpretation is correct. I already said that repeatedly.

Your point seems to be that the Dems are dumber than you and don't understand what court packing means, so they're misinterpreting the Barrett nomination as the thing and Cruz is virtuous in trying to change the process?

No, clearly that is not my point. I did not say that they were dumber than me. I did not say I do not understand what "court packing" means. In fact, I do understand it. So do most Democrats. And I never suggested Cruz is virtuous here.
My point was originally about not misconstruing what Cruz did. But I withdrew it because you may very well be correct about what AOC meant. My points now are mostly about clarifying my points against misconstructions like "Your point seems to be that the Dems are dumber than you and don't understand what court packing means, so they're misinterpreting the Barrett nomination as the thing and Cruz is virtuous in trying to change the process?", and defeding my original interpretation not against the charge that it was mistaken, but against the charge that it would make her second sentence meaningless.


As for Cruz, I do not know what his intentions were.

I'll restate that, you support Ted Cruz proposing an amendment to the US Constitution to prevent the incoming, suspected majority Democratic party, Senate from exercising powers that every Senate since the founding of the country have had.

No, I have not commented on the merits of Cruz's proposal.

 

[fromderinside]

I cribbed summaries from constitution and law as basis for the following. Numbers I get are current and realistic given responsibilities and failures of current judicial system. I tried to equalize courts by adhering to a consistent formula that assured that each district got as near equal represention as possible.

FDI's US government reorganization act.

Preamble. Over the course of time The United States will increase and decrease in population. Therefore the number of persons recorded in each national census shall be used to determine the number of US Courts and judges for the following ten years according to following formula. US supreme court will consist of one Justice per three US Court Districts. US Court Districts will consist 25 courts each. District courts number will calculated by dividing total population by least populated state.

Census enumeration of persons residing in the US 345,000,000 Rough calculation 35 Districts plus the US District. A court of Appeals shall be assigned for each district. There shall be at least one district court for each state. Multiplying that minimum number determines the number of district courts. Changes in courts from the previous district configurations shall be held to a mathematical minimum.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 575 district level trial courts and 36 courts of appeals sit below the 12 justice Supreme Court. Learn more about the Supreme Court.

Courts of Appeals

There are appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 575 federal judicial districts are organized into 35 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.
A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.
In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.


District Courts

The nation’s 575 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.
Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.

There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court. Four territories of the United States have U.S. district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.


There are also two special trial courts. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs laws. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government.


Above is my rough calculation of the number of courts needed to effectively handle US adjudication responsibilities.

To get to this number of courts and judges I recommend reducing the military budget by the amount necessary to support an effective court system.

 

[Elixir]

Over the course of time The United States will increase and decrease in population

Oh?
Still waiting for that decrease.
Maybe Trumpsuckers will follow their Agent Orange to Russia when he leaves the Country in disgrace?

 

[ZiprHead]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

As I've been saying, some Democrats (on the left; one could add some other left-wingers) have recently began using the expression 'packing the court' (and 'court packing', etc.) to mean something very different from its ordinary meaning in English. It remains the case that Cruz and others who proposed measures against to prevent packing were using it in the ordinary sense.

I only cited one Democrat. All the others were journalists the same as in your examples.

But we're quibbling over semantics. The bottom line is that what the Republicans have been doing to the courts is really shitty, hypocritical, and underhanded. I hope you can agree on that.

 

[Elixir]

Didn’t Ginsburg say that court packing was a terrible partisan idea?

Yah. Let's go with what Justice Ginsberg said, ok?
You know what she said about her successor.

 

[fromderinside]

Over the course of time The United States will increase and decrease in population

Oh?
Still waiting for that decrease.
Maybe Trumpsuckers will follow their Agent Orange to Russia when he leaves the Country in disgrace?

Not migration. Just lack of interest in coming here and decreased baby pop outs. Already bumped up against it a couple times in the eighties. Most of Europe and Asia advanced market countries are already in decline.

I just constructed a rational model for changing courts that will work for both increased and decreased populations IAC with presumed need.

 

[Elixir]

Over the course of time The United States will increase and decrease in population

Oh?
Still waiting for that decrease.
Maybe Trumpsuckers will follow their Agent Orange to Russia when he leaves the Country in disgrace?

Not migration. Just lack of interest in coming here and decreased baby pop outs. Already bumped up against it a couple times in the eighties. Most of Europe and Asia advanced market countries are already in decline.

No significant flux in the downward direction. Certainly not over extended times.



Maybe our new status as #1 Shithole among industrialized nations will bring such a trend?

 

[fromderinside]

Not migration. Just lack of interest in coming here and decreased baby pop outs. Already bumped up against it a couple times in the eighties. Most of Europe and Asia advanced market countries are already in decline.

No significant flux in the downward direction. Certainly not over extended times. Maybe our new status as #1 Shithole among industrialized nations will bring such a trend?

Since we haven't adjusted for increased population for some time, I went back to constitution for mechanisms (census) and presumed numbers (one district per state minimum) and built a pretty equitable frame. We are woefully under courted right now. Seven to ten years to get 'justice'? RUkidedingme. CA has three times more residents than did the initial thirteen when independence was declared.

 

[ZiprHead]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

As I've been saying, some Democrats (on the left; one could add some other left-wingers) have recently began using the expression 'packing the court' (and 'court packing', etc.) to mean something very different from its ordinary meaning in English. It remains the case that Cruz and others who proposed measures against to prevent packing were using it in the ordinary sense.

I only cited one Democrat. All the others were journalists the same as in your examples.

But we're quibbling over semantics. The bottom line is that what the Republicans have been doing to the courts is really shitty, hypocritical, and underhanded. I hope you can agree on that.

Apparently it was a false hope.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think Angra has a point.

"Packing the Court", with reference to the SCOTUS has long had the specific meaning of changing the number of Justices, which is Constitutionally allowed, and has happened a number of times, indicating that it is a relatively common practice. What the Republicans have done is without precedence, and is deserving of a new term that puts it in the correct context.

I propose "Ratfucking the Court".

 

[Shadowy Man]

What the Republicans have done is without precedence, and is deserving of a new term that puts it in the correct context.

I propose "Ratfucking the Court".

According to them they are consistent with precedent. Though notably that was not the excuse they used with the Garland nomination. Someone thought it up for this time and hey are trying a retcon.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Expand the court." / Twitter

Tim on Twitter: "@AOC GOP-Appointed Judges Vote to Make Voting Access Harder 80%, That's Right, EIGHTY PERCENT of Republican-appointed judges rulings on voting-related matters result in voting access becoming harder. EIGHTY PERCENT. GOP judges are consistently anti-democracy: https://t.co/giRiYezJk2" / Twitter
noting
G.O.P.-Appointed Judges Threaten Democracy, Liberals Seeking Court Expansion Say - The New York Times - "A new study found a partisan pattern in rulings that could make it easier or harder to vote, fueling a debate among Democrats over court packing."
noting
Anti-Democracy Scorecard — Take Back the Court

This scorecard tracks every election-related vote made by federal judges in 2020 and reports whether judges voted in favor of litigants seeking freedom to vote, ballot access, or lowered signature requirements. Data are updated continuously and are current as of October 25, 2020.

• Judges appointed by Democratic presidents -- 37%
• Judges appointed by Republican presidents -- 79%
• Trump Judges -- 83%

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Republicans do this because they don’t believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do. And for a long time they’ve been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn’t. There is a legal process for expansion." / Twitter
Stones?

 

[Trausti]

Yes. If Trump is re-elected and the Republicans maintain their Senate majority, they should expand the court. Dems apparently okay with that.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes. If Trump is re-elected and the Republicans maintain their Senate majority, they should expand the court. Dems apparently okay with that.

Why change the rules if you're winning though?

 

[Patooka]

Yes. If Trump is re-elected and the Republicans maintain their Senate majority, they should expand the court. Dems apparently okay with that.

What do you think the cunts have been doing?

 

[Trausti]

Yes. If Trump is re-elected and the Republicans maintain their Senate majority, they should expand the court. Dems apparently okay with that.

What do you think the cunts have been doing?

Woah! The Republicans added seats to the Supreme Court? When? Why was this never reported?

 

[Trausti]

Yes. If Trump is re-elected and the Republicans maintain their Senate majority, they should expand the court. Dems apparently okay with that.

Why change the rules if you're winning though?

Well, I don't want to expand the supreme court; that's the road to banana republic. Just reminding the old saying, careful what you wish for you just might get it.