Caller: Is It Time to Expand the Supreme Court?

--Caller discusses expanding the Supreme Court

Support The David Pakman Show:

Engage with us on social media:

-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!

Broadcast on October 30, 2020

#davidpakmanshow #supremecourt #scotus

[jewellevy]

It should actually be called "re-balancing the court"

[MichaelSmith-fjdi]

The answer to that question is 100% yes because otherwise, Roe, healthcare, LGBT rights, and so much more could be gone.

[connie]

I would rather have term limits go into effect. The age expectancy has risen rapidly over the last 40 - 50 years. A lifetime appointment is much different than it was even in the 1950's.

[bettyveronica]

I love how excited some callers get when the finally get through to David! You can hear their smile in their voice.

It's kind of like when a kid goes to the grocery store with their mom, and suddenly see their teacher! Kids can't believe their teachers have lives like actual people. 😄

[katzen]

These posts are so important, they should be elected by the public and for a fixed term.

[CCJJChannels]

Yes. Expand it to 13 to match the # of circuit courts. And add D.C. & Puerto Rico as states while you’re at it. And when the GOP complains say that “the voters gave us a mandate.”

[JM]

With Texas, Georgia, and Arizona in play, let’s expect extreme voter suppression tactics from now on. More so than ever before.

[scottt]

A consistent application of textualism would remove the left vs right problem from the court and it would not matter who appointed them. Lawmakers just need to write (or rewrite) the law with good texts. "Conservative" justices Gorsuch and Roberts have gone against Trump and upheld LGBTQ rights as well as blocking Trump's elimination of DACA based on textualism (decisions which Trump hated).

[Synystr]

Expand. Expand. Expand.

How about you get rid of half of them

[yolly]

Absolutely yes. The balance has to be recalibrated. And you have to get rid of the college vote.

[poolerboy]

That caller’s audio is incredibly clear and crisp.

[Junksaint]

Former trump supporter, conservative, voting Biden. The founding fathers wanted everyone represented. We should have waited until after election. The Constitution Allows It for a reason. Yes we should expand it.

[acatssoftnose]

I believe packing should become the norm. For example, for every new president that comes in should be allowed to pack it to their favor, making the court behave more like a Supreme Assembly over time.

[Egryn]

Just because you are mad doesn’t mean you get to pack the court.

[tflowers]

Before SCOTUS is addressed all citizens need representation in congress, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, etc. giving citizens representation throughout continental US and territories will eliminate some of the "close" divide. Then eliminate electoral college and the address court, especially "citizens United".

[rollothecat]

I think we need the limit number of SCOTUS appointments per president. I think we need a Constitutional Amendment to limit presidents to two appointments during their time in office (4-8 years). This way we will not have the garbage the GOP has pulled for the last 5 years. And we can prevent one political party from packing the court. The court should actually have outstanding constitutional scholars (ABA approved) and not political loyalist appointees by presidents.

[JohnVC]

If anything, the determination of Supreme Court appointees should not rely on a Executive or Legislative branches. Think about that.

There are supposed to be three entirely independent branches that are a separation of powers, yet the Judicial branch is appointed by the other two branches. This is such an obvious flaw in design.

[marcc]

Yes... it is time to expand the supreme court ... and yes, this would just be rebalancing the court !!! (And it is not a new thing / has been done many times in the past) ... it is also legal !!!

[mikelboyd]

The democrats better pack the court and fill every empty lower court seat. If they don't, then we get what they deserve.

[jebkfan]

And even if the "slippery slope" argument is true... it might actually force to put in place reforms of the SCOTUS. Which is probably good, even though one has to be careful.