Expand the Supreme Court?
7,244 Views |
150 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by cinque
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
100% agreed. Blue star.
Also agree, completely.BaylorBJM said:BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
100% agreed. Blue star.
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
A total of 61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since the turn of the last century (1900)HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
70% of these (43 Justices) were confirmed in *under 46 days* (the amount of time remaining until the Nov 3 Presidential election).
What precedent?
HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
When you have the President and the Senate controlled by the same party, it's hardly ramming through.
Doc Holliday said:A total of 61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since the turn of the last century (1900)HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
70% of these (43 Justices) were confirmed in *under 46 days* (the amount of time remaining until the Nov 3 Presidential election).
What precedent?
Attempting to push through a confirmation process weeks prior to the election will cost the Republicans critical votes among independents.
And it won't work anyway .
Going to give away the senate as a result .
Jesus christ you really gonna pretend not to remember Mitch McConnell words and actions from 2016 (who am I kidding, the pursuit of power is all the right cares about and nothing else matters)?? That precedent. Do you not ever get tired of adopting obviously contradictory positions just based on opportunity? How many of that 70% were confirmed less than 2 months before a Presidential election? I'm betting none of them.
McConnell will get a confirmation done, but he probably drives up dem turnout and signs his own walking papers doing it. And you know what? Don't cry after Dems do exactly what they warned you they would do as reciprocation. If McConnell breaks his word (he's already said he will), Dems will keep theirs.
McConnell will get a confirmation done, but he probably drives up dem turnout and signs his own walking papers doing it. And you know what? Don't cry after Dems do exactly what they warned you they would do as reciprocation. If McConnell breaks his word (he's already said he will), Dems will keep theirs.
Ok, don't cry when Dems carry out their threat and expand the court then. Of course this is only a possible scenario because McConnell previously removed the filibuster from SCOTUS noms, hence the "ram through". This all assumes McConnell has the votes for it, with Murkowski being a no already I think that only gives him 2 or 3 more to lose.
70% confirmed under 46 days...including Ginsburg.HuMcK said:
Jesus christ you really gonna pretend not to remember Mitch McConnell words and actions from 2016 (who am I kidding, the pursuit of power is all the right cares about and nothing else matters)?? That precedent. Do you not ever get tired of adopting obviously contradictory positions just based on opportunity? How many of that 70% were confirmed less than 2 months before a Presidential election? I'm betting none of them.
McConnell will get a confirmation done, but he probably drives up dem turnout and signs his own walking papers doing it. And you know what? Don't cry after Dems do exactly what they warned you they would do as reciprocation. If McConnell breaks his word (he's already said he will), Dems will keep theirs.
All Democrats we're in favor of this in 2016.
HuMcK said:
Ok, don't cry when Dems carry out their threat and expand the court then. This all assumes McConnell has the votes for it, with Murkowski being a no already I think that only gives him 2 or 3 more to lose.
Why are Dems making that threat? Is it in the best interest of our country?
I asked you a direct question: how many were this close to an election?
43HuMcK said:
I asked you a direct question: how many were this close to an election?
Link: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
GOP won the senate and executive.HuMcK said:
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
Respect the power of our votes please. It's called Democracy.
43 out of 61 justices were nominated and confirmed less than 50days before an election? That's news fo a bunch if historians. Either you are too dumb to understand the question or just a lying.
Yes they have managed to cement minority rule using those institutions. And y'all wonder where all the unrest comes from...
Appears 7.HuMcK said:
43 out of 61 justices were nominated and confirmed less than 50days before an election? That's news fo a bunch if historians. Either you are too dumb to understand the question or just a lying.
Nominee & days to confirm from nomination:
Lewis Powell 45
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 42
Sandra Day O'Connor 33 (*the vacancy)
Harlan Stone 31
Wiley Rutledge 28
Harry Blackmun 27 (*wrote Roe v Wade)
Arthur Goldberg 25
Robert Jackson 25
John Roberts 23 (*became Chief Justice)
Mahlon Pitney 23
John Paul Stevens 19
Sherman Minton 19
Warren Burger 17 (*became Chief Justice)
Charles Whittaker 17
Tom Clark 16
Pierce Butler 16
Harlan Stone 15 (*became Chief Justice)
William Douglas 15
Abe Fortas 14
Fred Vinson 14 (*became Chief Justice)
Frank Murphy 12
Felix Frankfurter 12
Owen Roberts 11
Charles Hughes 10
Stanley Reed 10
John Clarke 10
James McReynolds 10
Benjamin Cardozo 9
William Moody 9
Byron White 8
Charles Hughes 7 (*became Chief Justice)
Horace Lurton 7
Hugo Black 5
Edward Sanford 5
William Day 4
Joseph Lamar 3
Willis Devanter 3
Oliver Holmes 2
Harold Burton 1
James Byrnes 0
George Sutherland 0
William Taft 0 (*became Chief Justice)
Edward White 0
(Yes, four SCOTUS Justices had SAME DAY nominations and confirmations by the Senate. And Byrnes never even attended law school before FDR put him on the court)
paid protesters... thats why so many of them are found in multiple cities. They are paid to stir it up. Easy money trail but whatever...HuMcK said:
Yes they have managed to cement minority rule using those institutions. And y'all wonder where all the unrest comes from...
I beleive Trump won over the SC seat as much as anything in 2016... I think you will see another uprising from the people for this one. This will have solidified pretty much everyones vote.
If democrats take over, they plan to pack the court anyway. They're pissed that they didn't get their way over KavanaughHuMcK said:
Ok, don't cry when Dems carry out their threat and expand the court then. Of course this is only a possible scenario because McConnell previously removed the filibuster from SCOTUS noms, hence the "ram through". This all assumes McConnell has the votes for it, with Murkowski being a no already I think that only gives him 2 or 3 more to lose.
You think America has sold out to the Russians? That's funny considering the democrats have sold out to ChinaHuMcK said:
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
****Shocker****
Our resident Trump haters think that he should wait until after the election to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. If he does nominate someone now, they'll hate him again.
I'm shocked and awed.
Our resident Trump haters think that he should wait until after the election to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. If he does nominate someone now, they'll hate him again.
I'm shocked and awed.
I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Then I heard a very compelling argument... what if we have another 2000 election? What if there is a 4-4 split at the SCOTUS instead of a 5-4 decision? The entire nation could fall apart over such an incident.
When you look at the mail-in ballots, and the pledges by many democrats to never concede the election, no matter the outcome on election night.... it seems inevitable that the election will end up being heard by the SCOTUS.
For that reason alone, it is imperative that a new justice be nominated, approved by the Senate, and seated with the Court ASAP.
Amy Coney Barrett will be an excellent justice. Replace RBG with ACB.
ShooterTX
i am confused... schumer said dont on Twitter and then posted to do it on Twitter?George Truett said:Right.Doc Holliday said:link to tweet:Jack and DP said:
So the consistent thing for McConnell to do would be to wait until after the next inauguration to vote on a justice.
Alot of feelings right now, we will see what is real and what is anxiety in the next 7-14 days.
I agree on Amy Barrett, would be great choice.ShooterTX said:I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Then I heard a very compelling argument... what if we have another 2000 election? What if there is a 4-4 split at the SCOTUS instead of a 5-4 decision? The entire nation could fall apart over such an incident.
When you look at the mail-in ballots, and the pledges by many democrats to never concede the election, no matter the outcome on election night.... it seems inevitable that the election will end up being heard by the SCOTUS.
For that reason alone, it is imperative that a new justice be nominated, approved by the Senate, and seated with the Court ASAP.
Amy Coney Barrett will be an excellent justice. Replace RBG with ACB.
But aside from that election argument
Like Obama in 2016 who nominated a justice, Trump should do the same. It's not up to Trump to confirm the nomination, that's on the Senate, but it his job to put forth a nominee.
In an election year, a court vacancy has occurred 29 times in our history. A person was nominated each and everyone one of those times. Trump has a duty and should nominate someone.
Absolutely agree. Do your job and then let the Senate fight it out.HashTag said:I agree on Amy Barrett, would be great choice.ShooterTX said:I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Then I heard a very compelling argument... what if we have another 2000 election? What if there is a 4-4 split at the SCOTUS instead of a 5-4 decision? The entire nation could fall apart over such an incident.
When you look at the mail-in ballots, and the pledges by many democrats to never concede the election, no matter the outcome on election night.... it seems inevitable that the election will end up being heard by the SCOTUS.
For that reason alone, it is imperative that a new justice be nominated, approved by the Senate, and seated with the Court ASAP.
Amy Coney Barrett will be an excellent justice. Replace RBG with ACB.
But aside from that election argument
Like Obama in 2016 who nominated a justice, Trump should do the same. It's not up to Trump to confirm the nomination, that's on the Senate, but it his job to put forth a nominee.
In an election year, a court vacancy has occurred 29 times in our history. A person was nominated each and everyone one of those times. Trump has a duty and should nominate someone.
The Dems will try and turn it into a circus again.... it's gonna get ugly. I wonder what kind of false attacks they will bring up against a Christian mom?
The good news is that they just recently grilled her over her nomination to the Federal Court of Appeals... so there is no room for a delay tactic like they did with Kavanaugh. No room for "new" accusations that "must be heard", so that removes an obvious ploy to try and delay it until after the election. There was a 15 year gap between Kavanaugh hearings, but there has only been 3 years since the last one for Barrett.
ShooterTX
HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Only idiots don't understand that all politics are political. Always has been. No reason to worry about vapid charges of hypocrisy when anyone can see that it's all will to power when it's all said and done.
Is this a serious post?HuMcK said:
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
It's gonna be equally fun watching Democrats support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs agoHuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
ShooterTX