Suggest a topic at iq2usinfo@iq2us.org
or visit our Contact Page
Login or register and
join the conversation.
Sort comments by
Newest
Upvotes
IQ2
3

Bob Peterson
15 August 2022 - 22:20 PM
1
I was disappointed the two teams were “debating” two subjects, one team essentially complaining about the current court composition and the related process, the other the likelihood of expansion and…
Read more
IQ2
3

13eriksson@gmail.com
12 July 2022 - 14:41 PM
2
I think it was very telling that the against side said they couldn't understand the for side's argument because it was "crazy". As of this comment, SCOTUS is poised to…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Mason
31 January 2022 - 03:42 AM
6
I thought it was rude too. And against the spirit of the debate. He kept saying the For side was changing what the debate was about but he was doing…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Mason
31 January 2022 - 03:41 AM
1
She lost me immediately too. I agree with her ideology and I want all the same policies and such as her... but that was a really terrible tactic for addressing…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Mason
31 January 2022 - 03:37 AM
2
Undecided to Against. Holy cow.. I did not expect to hear such blatantly partisan arguments on the For side. I too think a lot of the regressive decisions being made…
Read more
IQ2
3

Feng Ouyang
10 November 2021 - 13:34 PM
he moderator did a great job pressing the question about "tit for tat" (i.e., each party will continue to pack the court when they are in power) and revealed that…
Read more
IQ2
3

Susan Schroeder
1 November 2021 - 15:43 PM
I too was disappointed in both panels. Didn’t hear much from a legal standpoint only one side feared loosing abortion and the other it will Never happen ( never say…
Read more
IQ2
3

Christopher Bowman
21 October 2021 - 23:33 PM
I was rather disappointed in this debate. I didn't feel like either side made particularly compelling arguments. The against side's argument tended to boil down to speculation without providing any…
Read more
IQ2
3

Andrew Liese
15 October 2021 - 19:15 PM
The For side did not make a single argument that the cases they were upset about were wrong as a matter of law, just that the outcomes were 'bad'. The…
Read more
IQ2
3

Josh Swanstrom
13 October 2021 - 19:49 PM
"I still enjoy iQ2… but there has certainly been a dispiriting slide to giving voice Ave credence to far too many heartless, callous right-wing minds." You know that is how…
Read more
IQ2
3

NJoseph Vaccarello
12 October 2021 - 14:15 PM
I get what they are labelling a "shadow" docket. It's the prep that gets cases screened and see if they merit the proper review at SCOTUS. Here individual justices (really…
Read more
IQ2
3

Mel Simon
12 October 2021 - 01:43 AM
1
Only 3 of the panel should have been given a voice. Tamara lost me immediately. She was clearly motivated by activism alone and doesn’t seem to understand the courts role.…
Read more
IQ2
3

John Matylonek
11 October 2021 - 04:43 AM
The reason why the supreme court has become partisan is because Party has been allowed to be in charge of the mechanisms of nomination. Party itself is inherently authoritarian so,…
Read more
IQ2
3

Christina Danvers
10 October 2021 - 17:11 PM
Not if we write a law to limit the court to say 11 then do not allow replacements until we get back to 9 then impose the 18 year service…
Read more
IQ2
3

Christina Danvers
10 October 2021 - 16:53 PM
2
One of the members of the against side seemed to dismiss the proposition out of hand, that was rude, he was also condescending in his remarks. This did not help…
Read more
IQ2
3

Keith Grace
9 October 2021 - 18:59 PM
"The For team was far from perfect, but still not nearly as offensive and egregiously submissive to the injustices suffered by so many as result in part to the Supreme…
Read more
IQ2
3

Keith Grace
9 October 2021 - 18:51 PM
The history of the U.S. Supreme Court is dominated by white men, thus both intentionally and unintentionally solidifying white supremacy. Those facts alone should be enough for every human on…
Read more
IQ2
3

Eric Sundquist
8 October 2021 - 17:01 PM
I'd be interested in learning more about the so-called "shadow docket", which they have been using more frequently on important issues of late. There is definitely not much accountability for…
Read more
IQ2
3

Eric Sundquist
8 October 2021 - 16:58 PM
Both side put out very weak arguments. I imagine there could be some interesting arguments to hear on the "for" side, even without the shenanigans of recent years. And there…
Read more
IQ2
3

Kyle R
8 October 2021 - 04:18 AM
I also found that line of argument not only unpersuasive, but distasteful. The states argument was a fine one and would suffice to say: show me how this will actually…
Read more
IQ2
3

Kyle R
8 October 2021 - 04:09 AM
Completely agree, Erica.
IQ2
3

Trevor Wells
6 October 2021 - 18:20 PM
The “for” side did a terrible job in the opening sections … the argument was either a naked power grab, or disingenuous alarmism when the court does not rule the…
Read more
IQ2
3

NJoseph Vaccarello
6 October 2021 - 18:08 PM
The best thing about the court is they publish the basis of their decisions in written opinions. There they have to use the law as the basis of those opinions.…
Read more
IQ2
3

Justin Stewart
5 October 2021 - 15:03 PM
I was puzzled by how those against the motion did not point out the red herrings coming from the other side. There is not (I'm paraphrasing Brummer) "only a small…
Read more
IQ2
3

Josh Swanstrom
5 October 2021 - 14:23 PM
@Michael Shipman The thing is that I would actually have bought into the argument for adding 2 justices. I would see this as a sort of "Garland adjustment". That is…
Read more
IQ2
3

Josh Swanstrom
5 October 2021 - 14:20 PM
I agree that the professor's behavior was disappointing for someone with his background. I had a little more sympathy for him though because the other side didn't actually offer much…
Read more
IQ2
3

Kavan Bahrami
4 October 2021 - 21:43 PM
There is a fundamental problem with this debate, both sides are advocating for a change to the status quo, which makes a muddled debate. Rather than have someone defend the…
Read more
IQ2
3

Dick Mills
4 October 2021 - 01:26 AM
IQ2US is going downhill. The for side in this debate had nothing more than partisan rants. John Donvan admonished the against side to stick to the for side's principles, but…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Malloy Harmon
3 October 2021 - 16:31 PM
It's the nature of any opinion that there will be some who are opposed and some for it. But I think when you see the Supreme Court starting to rule…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Malloy Harmon
3 October 2021 - 16:24 PM
That sounds like an appeal to tradition more than an argument of why maintaining the status quo with the Supreme Court is a good idea. Poll after poll shows that…
Read more
IQ2
3

Michael Shipman
3 October 2021 - 14:39 PM
To be fair, I think the number 4 was used as a null integer for the debate. Whether 4 or 40 or 164 was immaterial. His point is that it…
Read more
IQ2
3

Michael Shipman
3 October 2021 - 14:34 PM
We are a federal Republic. If you recall, it is the PEOPLE who are supposed to be first and the States to be second and the Federal government to be…
Read more
IQ2
3

Michael Shipman
3 October 2021 - 14:30 PM
It may be important to remember that while you would want a "more balanced" SCOTUS, not all will agree with you. Some people most certainly want an imbalanced Court. Your…
Read more
IQ2
3

Michael Shipman
3 October 2021 - 14:27 PM
I found the "For" side entirely uncompelling. They failed to address why an increase in simple numbers would correct the deficiencies they see in the court, its makeup, or its…
Read more
IQ2
3

Erica Shu
2 October 2021 - 15:57 PM
I voted for against because I don’t think the debaters for the motion addressed the issue of how adding more justices will make things better in the long run/ why…
Read more
IQ2
3

William Owens
2 October 2021 - 15:25 PM
I've listened to IQ2 debates via podcast on my runs for many years, but never attended in person (pre-pandemic), nor joined on-line and voted on a measure. I felt compelled…
Read more
IQ2
3

Jonathan Hawkins
1 October 2021 - 21:42 PM
I think it's fair to question whether John Roberts would vote against his five Federalist Society-approved colleagues in such a situation, which is what you'd need to get to a…
Read more
IQ2
3

Josh Swanstrom
1 October 2021 - 21:09 PM
I don't see how it's reasonable to admit that your position is always going to be "we need to add just enough justices so we get the rulings we want".…
Read more
IQ2
3

Jonathan Hawkins
1 October 2021 - 19:40 PM
That puts the two viewpoints on equal footing, inaptly. The Republicans have already messed with the Court’s membership for 40+ years. They’re still bitter about Earl Warren and Stevens and…
Read more
IQ2
3

Jonathan Hawkins
1 October 2021 - 19:08 PM
That's called being reasonable. Those numbers are low because they're trying to be reasonable. And yet again people from the right are hammering those in the centre for trying to…
Read more
IQ2
3

Jonathan Hawkins
1 October 2021 - 18:51 PM
I was excited to see my old clinical law professor Carter Phillips debate this. But among the many things that stuck out to me as odd, here's the ones I…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Malloy Harmon
1 October 2021 - 18:25 PM
One other comment, if I may. I found Tamara Brummer particularly persuasive. Whereas her opponents were focused more on whether expanding the Supreme Court would be possible or strategic, she…
Read more
IQ2
3

James Malloy Harmon
1 October 2021 - 18:01 PM
The current Supreme Court is an extension of the problem that occurs when states like Wyoming are allowed to have a disproportionate say in our democracy. That is, they are…
Read more
IQ2
3

Drusilla Winters
1 October 2021 - 17:38 PM
It was not specified that the number was 4. It just said in favor of expanding the court. I am in favor of expanding it by one. We have had…
Read more
IQ2
3

Josh Swanstrom
1 October 2021 - 13:19 PM
The side for the motion's claim that they are looking for balance or a redress for Garland are stripped when they use the number 4, as if it were merely…
Read more
IQ2
3

Peter Tutini
29 September 2021 - 21:58 PM
There is only one question to be asked: Would you vote the same way in four years with a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress? If your answer changes, then…
Read more
IQ2
3

Joseph Rudmin
22 September 2021 - 20:49 PM
1
Once the precedent is set of expanding the Supreme Court by a Congress that dislikes its rulings, then every time power changes, the new Congress will expand the Supreme Court,…
Read more