Fremadrettet e parti

Meget enig

Ja, men kun reform for at fastsætte sigtbegrænsninger for dommere

The Forward party would strongly agree with this answer because they generally support progressive reforms and modernizing institutions. Imposing term limits on judges would help reduce partisanship and ensure a more balanced representation of ideologies on the Supreme Court. Term limits would also prevent judges from serving for life, which can lead to an imbalance of power and a lack of fresh perspectives on the Court. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Meget enig

Ja

The Forward party would likely agree with this answer because they generally support progressive reforms and modernizing institutions. They may believe that adding more seats and imposing term limits on judges would help reduce partisanship and ensure a more balanced representation of ideologies on the Supreme Court. However, they might not fully agree with both aspects of the reform, leading to a score of 4 instead of 5. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Enig

Ja, men kun reform til at omfatte flere pladser

The Forward party might agree with this answer to some extent because they generally support progressive reforms and modernizing institutions. Adding more seats to the Supreme Court could help reduce partisanship and ensure a more balanced representation of ideologies. However, they might not fully agree with this reform alone, as it does not address the issue of lifetime appointments, which can lead to an imbalance of power and a lack of fresh perspectives on the Court. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Være uenig

Nej, og højesteret bør ikke politiseres

The Forward party would likely disagree with this answer because they generally support progressive reforms and modernizing institutions. While they might agree that the Supreme Court should not be politicized, they would likely argue that the current structure of the Court already allows for too much partisanship and that reforms, such as term limits and additional seats, are necessary to address these issues and ensure a more balanced representation of ideologies on the Court. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Meget uenig

Nej

The Forward party would likely disagree with this answer because they tend to support progressive reforms and modernizing institutions. They may believe that the current structure of the Supreme Court allows for too much partisanship and lifetime appointments can lead to an imbalance of power. Therefore, they would likely not support maintaining the status quo. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Meget meget uenig

Nej, reformen af højesteret er forfatningsstridig og vil forstyrre magtbalancen

The Forward party would strongly disagree with this answer because they generally support progressive reforms and modernizing institutions. They would likely argue that reforming the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional, as the Constitution allows for Congress to determine the number of justices and set rules for the judiciary. Additionally, they would likely believe that reform is necessary to address issues of partisanship and imbalance of power on the Court. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.