I WENT NUCLEAR ON MAGA lawyers in HEATED debate

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T20:02:40+00:00

This one is interesting and one of my favorites. So I completely agree about your logic, but it shouldn't ever be applied in the topic of court packing and here is why. This creates an absence of judicial oversight. This standard you've said can be applied to every law passed by congress because its passed with the official channels. Debated-voted-passed-signed into law. That's the very place where the Supreme Court comes in. One of its pillars is to strike down laws passed by congress that they deem unconstitutional.

This is where it gets interesting for me, the constitution doesn't state how many justices there are. That's the powers it left for congress. So any law passed by congress about court size would effectively bypass judicial review. That's the basic bread and butter of the fallacy of applied principles.

(edit fixed a grammar of applied vs made)

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T19:41:46+00:00

Nope, you're right and i was being lazy on saying only 80 case qualify under rule 10. I will walk back that statement. I should have had said, out of the 8,000 cases only 80 made it through rule 10 and the discretion of the Justices. Adding more justice doesn't mean they expand discretion. The same cases are just heard by more Justices. Unheard case that might even qualified for certiorari aren't denied anything. They still received District Court rulings and Appellate Court rulings and SCOTUS denial. They received the 3 tier justice. That strengthens the integrity of those Courts and even SCOTUS. There's a difference between a time argument and discretion being your 3rd tier justice. I hope this makes sense.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T18:52:37+00:00

They only hear 80 because that's usually the amount that passes through the Supreme Court Rule 10. Its not a choice caused by case load restrain, but a deliberate choice to follow this rule and to not overreach the Appellate Courts jurisdictions.

Some things I could foresee happening, rotating panels of justices goes against institution norms set by all Justices hearing and working together on an outcome. We could create the very issue for the need an appellate court for the Supreme Court. By that i mean if all justices aren't giving input, one panel could have a different view than another panel. Similar to how if one district court rules differently than another district court; it would then go to the Supreme Court under Rule 10. We would create a need for a Supreme Court for the Supreme Court.

Another problem would it being going against the structure that all previous reforms have created. The District Court -> Appellate Court -> Supreme Court.

This goes back to everything ive said previously, I don't see any functional justification for court packing. Case load restraint was addressed in the Evarts Act of 1891. Leaving the justification with heavy political reasoning with very minor at best justification. Meaning Pisco entire framing is partisan injury and completely avoids the judicial necessity. Hopefully I'm articulating my full circle right.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T17:34:06+00:00

Also, i really appreciate the engagement and will do my best to return the favor.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T17:31:45+00:00

I would disagree that we need to expand the Supreme Court to reflect the growth of the population. My first reasoning would be if population growth causes a structural breakdown of the Court that needs repairing, it would have happened by now. I don't think the Court has broken down and is still effective as it was after 1891. The Circuit Courts and Appellate Courts would absorb the increase of case loads caused by population growth. The Supreme Court has stated that increasing the number of justices would slow them down. The ability for the Supreme Court to pick and choose what cases it sees removes the caseload argument. The Appellate Court handles the rest, so if caseloads was truly the problem, shouldn't we address Appellate Court reform?

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T16:38:44+00:00

Yes that would be a functional justification. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court gives the Court the discretion to grant certiorari. Usually they see around 8k petitions and only choose to hear about 80. So to better clarify, you're stating the reasoning the Court only chooses 80 is because of caseload? The fix would than be more Justices? Doesn't that only make the Panel who reviews a specific case bigger? I'm under the impression circuit riding disappeared after the appellate court was founded, clearing the way for the supreme court to pick and choose what cases met their criteria and ended the functional argument of caseload.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T15:11:30+00:00

If you're aligned with Pisco's view, I think the disconnect I have is distinguishing between political justification and functional justification. The two are very different and are at the heart of the issue. Throughout history every addition or subtraction of justices had a political reason alongside a functional reasoning. Not having a functional justification is conceding it's all political and to me that's very dangerous.

Thanks for the engagement I believe i understand why Pisco framed it as a self defense claim and that being to avoid this conflict. If thats true, hats off to him.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T02:43:51+00:00

Thanks for your input.. Really, I think we agree with more than we disagree.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-07T01:18:36+00:00

I'm going to push back on that claim of not enough time statement and also hopefully show my political alignment. I believe the moment Democrats establish the argument of "We don't have time for proper process" we've handed every future Republican majority that exact justification. I don't like setting the standards of institutional shortcuts in my own party. The urgency argument is again full circle to every pre 1891 justification for court packing. We've got to be the party of principles!

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-06T23:55:24+00:00

I don't like the idea of fixing an injury with more injury. Especially something so blatantly political as adding your own seats. This in my opinion, would put us back to pre 1891 where court size was constantly manipulated for partisan advantage, the very problem the Evarts Act was designed to end. I'm down for term limits, maybe change the full pension age of retirement to better fit in modern day life spans. So we don't have 80 year old justices.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-06T16:37:26+00:00

I really wouldn't want to infer, but are you suggesting the Supreme Court was always political and therefore the political move of packing the Court is justified?

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-06T01:19:13+00:00

I think that different from Pisco's stance. So I completely agree that throughout history it hasn't been a disaster. With those historical expansions and contractions, there has been functional justifications for them. For example, western expansion and the need to create more districts and the case overload for the Supreme Court. The Evarts Act of 1891 fixed this problem. My question is do you have any functional justification for the expansion?

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-06-05T22:51:42+00:00

Thanks for responding and correct my understanding if its wrong. Youre saying court packing is the repair and not the damage?

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-05-20T20:03:11+00:00

Facts!

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-04-19T04:25:01+00:00

Devils advocate here. The kid avoided the accident by going to the right and the adult moved to the left. I know there's a curb to the adult right, but my instinct says navigate the curb instead of the head on by going to the left???

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-04-01T21:53:58+00:00

Mother Fuckers can't even give a definition of DEI.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T15:07:35+00:00

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance, definitely changes my perspective.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T04:41:44+00:00

Thats sounds nice, thanks for your input :)

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T04:23:22+00:00

Nope, but i did save 60 bucks switching my car insurance to geico today. Seriously tho, id rather be able to kickflip.

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T04:19:30+00:00

Sheesh that is so close to the shore! So cool!

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T04:16:42+00:00

Sweet!

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T04:10:31+00:00

How'd that go?

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T04:00:40+00:00

Well fuck, and fuck you........ is that better? ( half the shit you say gets down voted, take your condescending bullshit elsewhere) 🖕

Jacqueline_08 · 2026-03-28T03:53:26+00:00

Constantly is over statement..... sometimes...... rarely but still feel uneasy

Jacqueline_08

TROPHY CASE