Biden to Sign Executive Order Forming Commission to Explore Expansion of the Supreme Court

Do you support or oppose expanding the Supreme Court?

  • 7,796

    When Biden is signing ‘Executive Orders’ you know it’s a bad deal from the get-go. This man is slowly SINGLEHANDEDLY destroying America! Why is his party allowing all this craziness?!?

  • 7,796

    Apparently Biden hasn’t learned about his ‘continued’ failures while in office. I swear this man is on cloud nine. Be careful what you wish for Democrats! What goes around, comes around.

  • 148

    Is this a not-so-covert attempt at court packing? I do not know. Court packing was wrong when FDR attempted it and it was appropriately rejected. Perhaps Democrats forget the 16 years of liberal domination by the Warren Court. I am pretty certain, had a Republican majority called for a commission to examine expanding the court with the hidden motive of court packing, Democrats would have cried bloody murder. It is time for our Congress on both sides of the aisle to stop attempting to legislate from the judicial bench.

  • 209

    Why not our world is changing so we're surroundings and we're changing so the system has to change.

  • 314

    I strongly oppose increasing the number of Supreme Court Judges beyond the current nine. Even the late Judge Ginsburg said “If anything would make the Court look partisan, it would be that ― one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

  • 23

    The Court is what it is you don't get to add positions that will lean towards your agenda, they are supposed to be independent and your packing it so they will see your laws against the constitution especially the 2nd amendment is treaded on. Sorry Joe the Constitution is a guarantee and that's why the fourth fathers wrote it up

  • 69

    This is a big mistake we won’t get as many decisions as we would like on both sides but hypothetically let’s pretend that conservatives wanted to get rid of the liberal justices And we just whittled it down to the people that we liked the same could be said if liberals try to limit conservatives that would drive everybody insane

  • 226

    Normally I would oppose this kind of manipulation, but give the GOP Senate’s shenanigans in the Garland and subsequent Coney Barrett appointment, something needs to be done. SCOTUS does not represent the will of the people and that is all that matters in American Democracy. It is ridiculous to use 18th Century legal reasoning when dealing with issues that the Founding Fathers could not even fathom especially when the true intent is to maintain the power of a fading minority.

  • 795

    This is only a power move by the Dems to control the country. The number of justices has worked for 150 years. It doesn't need to be changed.

  • 639

    In order to get some balance back in the SCOTUS, we need a minimum on four more Justices to reduce the adverse influence on American jurisprudence resulting from the three far right appointments of the tRump administration.

  • 148

    Why do people think that the Garland situation was so unique? As if Democrats wouldn't do exactly the same thing if they were in the same situation. Even the beknighted darling of the Democratic party, former Justice Ruth Bater Ginsberg was very clear that messing with the numbers on the Supreme Court was a terrible mistake and should not be done. Partly, the reasons for both parties having so much strife over SCOTUS is that people seem to have forgotten its role. Many of the opinions of the Court have been treated as though they were Law. That is not the role of the Court. The role of the Court is to offer an opinion. Not a law. Not a "ruling." An opinion. The Executive and Legislative branches can then either take that opinion into consideration or not. But that's not how we treat it today. Just because the Roe v Wade opinion was that Jane Roe should have had legal access to terminate her pregnancy, that opinion (now treated as Law) was about that one case in that one set of circumstances. Many states had (and still have) laws that make abortion illegal. Just because a handful of unelected people in robes said that this should be allowed, that does not make it law. Yet we treat it that way.

  • 1,085

    There are 13 Circuit courts, so there should logically be 13 Justices on the SCOTUS. The number of SCOTUS seats is never set in stone on the US Constitution!

  • 1,161

    Balance is the key word here! Right now there is no balance. We know that the Supreme is to be unbiased, and base all decisions on law and what our Constitution says, they aren't all doing that. If it were true, then the Michigan GOP wouldn't keep taking our VOTE to end gerrymandering and using an independent committee to redistrict this State to court over and over in the hopes that they will get a biased Judge. All Judges must be reminded that "Poor Behavior" (making decisions not based on law or the Constitution) can get them impeached and removed from their Judicial position.

  • 96

    Let SCOTUS alone. Stop trying to politicize it just to get votes in favor of you absurd far left wing addenda.

  • 647

    There have been nine members on the Supreme Court for decades. The Supreme Court was not intended to be political. The purpose this administration has in packing the Supreme Court is to ensure the progressive policies will be enforced, rather than recognizing established law. The liberal politicians will be pushing their agenda through as quickly as possible, only looking to their own power.

  • 245

    This is the type of short-sighted, unilateral and reactionary political move that will destroy our already fractured system of checks and balances. What stop’s the next conservative leaning President from doing the exact same thing? How many justices are too many?

  • 304

    To change the Supreme Court will forever be causing the court to be useless! Biden's administration and all the Democrats are furious that Trump got to put 3 Conservative judges on the court. They want to use the court to be their back-up to cement their most liberal laws they can pass. Changing the court when the Democrats don't like the makeup of the court is NOT the answer and every president will then feel the same way and we will have a court that no longer is effective as they add judges who will deliver the decisions they find politically acceptable!

  • 178

    I was appalled when the GOP stifled Garland for SCOTUS. There was already one sexual predator on the Court and they put another one. I am not a Democrat, either.

  • 349

    Supreme Court Justices are supposed to protect the rights of the people in our country by protecting our Constitution, and I believe in the right for people to have equal protection under the law. While we still have a long way to go to improve our system of government, there should be no tolerance for a court that might side with a conservative point of view over a liberal point of view. There must be a balance within the Supreme Court to ensure that does not happen. We cannot wait until something goes wrong so I think a committee to study the effects of increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices to get a balance might be the way to proceed. After all, the Constitution is neither conservative nor liberal and the Supreme Court should be responsible for making unbiased Decisions always.

  • 37

    What happened to it being a Boneheaded move Mr Bonehead!!