Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "What's The Deal with \"Court Packing\" The Supreme Court?" video.

This is a really bad idea. At best you've created third chamber of the parliment, as every law will go in front of the supreme court based on which party controlls the house, at worst, you've destabilised the court to the point it is not recognised as an institution by the people. Funny how Democrats are becoming undemocratic in this way. When I remember the commentary back at tailend of Obama administration, how much flack they gave about their nominee and now? It's the same, only parties have changed. I do think that number of justices need's to be odd as to ensure a split is less likely to occour, it could be tied to the number court circuits, however, even that has it's problems, because he, who would get in to enough power due to political pendullum going from greater extreme to greater extreme, could simply increase the number of court circuits, thus diluting the supreme court. I really don't like the ability for the supreme court to not always work en-block. Issues that get in front of supreme court are meant to be the most important and controversial decisions, with the greatest reprecautions for the nation from individual level all the way to society as a whole. This create's two requirements off the supreme court. One, that it's decisions should not be easily overturnable and it's decisions should be extraordinarily throughly reasoned. This aim's to provide as much stability in the legal system as possible. Therefore, strict scrutiny should be the only standard appliable in the court and justices need to know, that they can't be replaced, if they begin to rule in favour of controversial rights, because the more controversial the right, the greater wish for it to be remobed by the opposing party. The fact, that there are relatively few justices for life on the supreme court mean's that there is much lower potential for changes in the supreme court and thus greater stability and predictability in terms of court rulings. Case and point, abortions and guns. The common denominator here is, that the side that seek's to deny these rights, is the party that doesn't lose anything, as they in vast majority don't exercise these rights. Guns for democrats, abortions for republicans. However, if democracy is to remain functional and if nation is to not get devided, one can't buy what he want's and pay for it with someone else's resources, eg. only gun owners should have final saying in gun rights and only women should have the final saying in abortin cases, as until the child is actually born, it doesn't have rights and I'd argue it can't have rights, as it biologically can't exercise them, therefore health questions stemming from right to life and pursuit of happines of the mother should be the bench for these qustions. What if in order to persue happines, guns are necessary? What if it's not happines, but life (eg. hunting as means of obtaining food)? The same thing can be said about abortions, only with limiting the number of mouths to feed being the argument there, if we stay on the practical side of the discussion. I firmly believe, that the more controversial a right is, the more protection it need's and, if right is to be repealed, it need's to be universally or nearly universally supoorted and suitable recompense need's to be present as well. However, that doesn't end with only paying a monetary value in terms of money spent to purchase an item increased by inflation. As to return real value of the means to exercise the right. Future exercise of that right also has extraordinary value, that need's to be compensated, otherwise democracy becomes dictatorship of the masses against the minority on any specific issue, be it details like guns, abortions, drinking age or age of consent, or something greater, like the right to vote or hold public office. This then create's motivation to rebel and reduces legitimacy of any regime.
1