cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.

---

Sorry... you meant a Harris administration

Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee

---

Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.

---

What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?

---

https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

---

So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?

That's just great.

---

The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.

---

Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.

---

Democrats have no power when it comes to who replaces Justice Ginsburg. We are totally at the mercy of Republicans until they decide to act. You get that, don't you?

---

I see what you're saying. This is true.

But when the defense on this issue is to threaten to burn it all down and pack the Court ... that sounds like more of the same leftist offense.

---

The Dems should say nothing of their plans until Republicans decide what to do. If Mitch ignores his own precedent, Democrats will be forced to play by his rules.

---

Why would Dems play by "his rules" if you're saying he isn't playing by them?

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.

---

Sorry... you meant a Harris administration

Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee

---

Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.

---

What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?

---

https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

---

So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?

That's just great.

---

The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.

---

Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.

---

Democrats have no power when it comes to who replaces Justice Ginsburg. We are totally at the mercy of Republicans until they decide to act. You get that, don't you?

---

I see what you're saying. This is true.

But when the defense on this issue is to threaten to burn it all down and pack the Court ... that sounds like more of the same leftist offense.

---

The Dems should say nothing of their plans until Republicans decide what to do. If Mitch ignores his own precedent, Democrats will be forced to play by his rules.

---

Why would Dems play by "his rules" if you're saying he isn't playing by them?

---

The Dems would play by his new rules.

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/09/19/public-views-of-justice-ginsburg-and-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/

fubar said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.

---

So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.

Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?

---

I'm saying if I voted for a Dem candidate and they said they would add 8 members to the Court, then yes, I would be frustrated that they lied to me if they choose to not do what they said they would do. I personally would not vote for a candidate that wants to do something like that but I can understand why some people would. I also would not vote for Harry Reid who started the ball rolling on all this.

I get it. I'm sure Dems are frustrated that they do not have the power in this scenario and they did not have the power with Garland. They are about to have all the power. So they have an opportunity then to slow down the changes Reid set in motion or they can stick to America and make fundamental change. Dems get to choose when they have the power. That is how this works. Then the American people get to vote if they like how the Dems are running the country. We might be surprised that America likes what the Dems are doing then.

greatdivide said:

---

fubar said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.

---

So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.

Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?

---

I'm saying if I voted for a Dem candidate and they said they would add 8 members to the Court, then yes, I would be frustrated that they lied to me if they choose to not do what they said they would do. I personally would not vote for a candidate that wants to do something like that but I can understand why some people would. I also would not vote for Harry Reid who started the ball rolling on all this.

I get it. I'm sure Dems are frustrated that they do not have the power in this scenario and they did not have the power with Garland. They are about to have all the power. So they have an opportunity then to slow down the changes Reid set in motion or they can stick to America and make fundamental change. Dems get to choose when they have the power. That is how this works. Then the American people get to vote if they like how the Dems are running the country. We might be surprised that America likes what the Dems are doing then.

---

Some Dems like me will never be satisfied until the Garland travesty is avenged.

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

cinque said:

---

If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.

---

Sorry... you meant a Harris administration

Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee

---

Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.

---

What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?

---

https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

---

So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?

That's just great.

---

The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.

---

Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.

---

Democrats have no power when it comes to who replaces Justice Ginsburg. We are totally at the mercy of Republicans until they decide to act. You get that, don't you?

---

I see what you're saying. This is true.

But when the defense on this issue is to threaten to burn it all down and pack the Court ... that sounds like more of the same leftist offense.

---

The Dems should say nothing of their plans until Republicans decide what to do. If Mitch ignores his own precedent, Democrats will be forced to play by his rules.

---

Why would Dems play by "his rules" if you're saying he isn't playing by them?

---

The Dems would play by his new rules.

---

They'd play by his "new rules" even in the absence of his making of those "new rules." Look how the Dems conducted themselves in Kavanaugh's hearing.

cinque said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

fubar said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.

---

So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.

Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?

---

I'm saying if I voted for a Dem candidate and they said they would add 8 members to the Court, then yes, I would be frustrated that they lied to me if they choose to not do what they said they would do. I personally would not vote for a candidate that wants to do something like that but I can understand why some people would. I also would not vote for Harry Reid who started the ball rolling on all this.

I get it. I'm sure Dems are frustrated that they do not have the power in this scenario and they did not have the power with Garland. They are about to have all the power. So they have an opportunity then to slow down the changes Reid set in motion or they can stick to America and make fundamental change. Dems get to choose when they have the power. That is how this works. Then the American people get to vote if they like how the Dems are running the country. We might be surprised that America likes what the Dems are doing then.

---

Some Dems like me will never be satisfied until the Garland travesty is avenged.

---

There are many judges that might be considered to have a resume that could get you nominated. Garland had the resume and was a political sacrifice to the election Gods. If Obama had thought he was going to get a floor vote, he would have nominated someone much more liberal.

I'm still trying to figure out how to reconcile the comments of 1992 Joe Biden, 2016 Joe Biden, and 2020 Biden. The only common thread was the interest of the Democratic Party.

cin said:

---

Some Dems like me will never be satisfied.

---

FIFY

jbbear said:

---

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...

---

Who controlled the Senate 4 years ago? Who controls it now? There's your precedent. I hope Trump nominates someone TODAY. If he gets re-elected he will likely get to replace a retiring Thomas. That would be FOUR justices. The Dem tears will be so extra salty.

---

And possibly a replacement for Justice Breyer who is a decade older than Justice Thomas. Neither have plans to retire but neither did Justice Ginsburg.

I would guess that the last time the federal judiciary was expanded was far more recent than 1870. That said it doesn't matter. It is obvious y'all are starting yelp about the battle y'all have been pushing being actually joined by the Democrats. I suspect it will especially if there is one last over playing of the hand and post Trump it may actually be a mandate For them to start governing in kind for at least a while.

PartyBear said:

---

I would guess that the last time the federal judiciary was expanded was far more recent than 1870. That said it doesn't matter. It is obvious y'all are starting yelp about the battle y'all have been pushing being actually joined by the Democrats. I suspect it will especially if there is one last over playing of the hand and post Trump it may actually be a mandate For them to start governing in kind for at least a while.

---

Adding new Federal Courts and/or Federal Districts is not the same as packing the Supreme Court with new Justices.... apples & oranges in the extreme.

Trump is going to follow the laws & procedures that have been established since the founding of our nation. He will nominate a replacement judge. In the last 29 times that there was an opening during an election year, a nomination was put made by the sitting president, all 29 times. Not all of them were confirmed, but they were all nominated. So Trump will make the nomination, just like everyone else has done throughout history.

McConnell will push for a quick confirmation, which also follows the established procedures. The Senate is not required to vote on every nomination, but if they choose to hold confirmation hearings and have a vote, it would not be abnormal to established law or precedent. If they chose to hold off on hearings and a vote until after the election, that too would not be abnormal to established law or precedent. The current system allows for the Senate to exercise it's full range of options.

You are suggesting that it is totally justified for Biden and the dems to attempt to change all of the rules, just to satisfy their lust for power over the courts. The last time they did this, it was Harry Reid changing the filibuster laws, which came back to bite him in the @$$. If Biden and the fools do it again, it will come back to bite them in the butt again.

The dems need to learn how to work within a system, rather than attempt to burn the whole thing down. Then again, violent revolution has always been their way. It worked for Lenin, Mao and Castro... so it makes sense for Biden, Harris and AOC.

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...

---

You are a moron. Let McConnell do as the people voted him to do. In 2016 we had a Dem prez and a Rep senate. Guess what...that is called checks and balances. The American people put a Rep prez together with a Rep senate you idiot. He's not breaking any precedent and there is nothing in the Constitution addressing it. So shut up and deal with it just like we had to deal with Obama. If Obama had the senate in '16 Merrit Garland would be a justice, but he didn't.

I cannot imagine this country with 3 branches all Dems. If that happens its over and that is their plan. As far as voting for Biden, think about your grandchildren. I guess you don't care just bc Trump tweets too much!

PRAISE GOD FOR DONALD J TRUMP...the only 100% true American president ever. A couple others were 99% though.

Expand the court. I want my own personal justice representing just me and nobody else.

I'm saying an expansion of the judiciary is on the table not just the SCT and frankly it is probably over due at the point for new District Courts and appellate court seats. Additionally there were 9 appellate courts when the SCT was set at 9 seats. It is 13 now I believe.

greatdivide said:

---

cinque said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

fubar said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.

---

So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.

Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?

---

I'm saying if I voted for a Dem candidate and they said they would add 8 members to the Court, then yes, I would be frustrated that they lied to me if they choose to not do what they said they would do. I personally would not vote for a candidate that wants to do something like that but I can understand why some people would. I also would not vote for Harry Reid who started the ball rolling on all this.

I get it. I'm sure Dems are frustrated that they do not have the power in this scenario and they did not have the power with Garland. They are about to have all the power. So they have an opportunity then to slow down the changes Reid set in motion or they can stick to America and make fundamental change. Dems get to choose when they have the power. That is how this works. Then the American people get to vote if they like how the Dems are running the country. We might be surprised that America likes what the Dems are doing then.

---

Some Dems like me will never be satisfied until the Garland travesty is avenged.

---

fivethirtyeight.com predicting you are about to get all the revenge you want. For every action there is a reaction. Obama's partisanship created the Tea Party which caused him to lose the Congress. The Tea Party's antics caused Obama to overwhelming win re-election. Obama's continued partisanship caused Trump. Trump's craziness resulted in Nancy Pelosi being the most powerful woman in the world. This election is wild. If Trump loses to a candidate that can not complete whole sentences then you would think the GOP would learn something. BUT... the resulting Dem dominated Washington DC will create a reaction that will be even more Trumpier I'm afraid. If the Dems do half of what they threatened during the primary, 2020 is going to be the tamest year of this decade. I believed this was called mutually assured destruction in the 80's. So avenge/revenge away. The US has to end at some point.

Personally I see Americans getting tired of the extremes in Politics. The 2024 election will be pivotal to stop the doom loop both parties are taking us down.

---

It is like "war Games"......the only way to win is to not play. These two idiot parties are two stupid to figure it out or admit it. Unfortunately probably some smart Baylor grads on this board just buy it hook, link, and sinker.

Elected officials don't abdicate their responsibilities just because they may or may not be short timers. As Barack Obama famously hammered home, elections have consequences, up to and including the last days of someone being in office. Besides, we don't even know the outcome of any of the elections, so there is no reason to stop a process.

Garland? Again, elections have consequences, and had the Dems still retained control of the Senate, he would be on the bench.

ATL Bear said:

---

Garland? Again, elections have consequences, and had the Dems still retained control of the Senate, he would be on the bench.

---

Obama never would have nominated Garland if the Dems controlled the senate. Look at his other 2 justices. Garland was a pawn. When Obama controlled the situation, he nominated the 2 most liberal justices on the court today. The 3rd would have been just as liberal if the Dems controlled the senate.

syme said:

---

I think more republicans would be open to extending an olive branch here if dems had not IMPEACHED a president out of pure spite. Y'all got a lot of nerve to bring up precedent after that.

---

Chuckle. When have you ever known Republicans to extend an olive branch?

At some point, worms turn:

cinque said:

---

syme said:

---

I think more republicans would be open to extending an olive branch here if dems had not IMPEACHED a president out of pure spite. Y'all got a lot of nerve to bring up precedent after that.

---

Chuckle. When have you ever know Republicans to extend an olive branch?

---

The first person I heard defend Joe Biden from sexual assault allegations this year was Lindsey Graham. Graham defended Biden without reservation. I almost fell out of my chair. Never seen a democrat do the same thing for a Rep. Most Dems hid and hoped the news cycle would pass quick on those allegations. Mika Brzezinski went hard at Joe but most Dems hid and much later "defended" him. John McCain defended Obama in their election in a town hall. I watched Tim Scott try hard to get his police reform bill to pass and agreed to meet with Dems but Pelosi and Schumer wanted the issue going into the election. Scott might be a liar but I thought he was believable when he said he was willing to sit down with them and amend his bill and stated multiple olive branches. They did not even want to sit down to talk. But you are right, olive branches are not common.

cinque said:

---

At some point, worms turn:

---

Looking at those lists I'm really impressed how good democrats are at putting ideologically aligned judges on the bench. The republicans kind of stink at finding judges that align with them. The republicans need the volume to get it right as poor a track record as they have.

fubar said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.

---

So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.

Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?

---

It's controversial because it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean it's unprecedented or unconstitutional.

greatdivide said:

---

cinque said:

---

At some point, worms turn:

---

Looking at those lists I'm really impressed how good democrats are at putting ideologically aligned judges on the bench. The republicans kind of stink at finding judges that align with them. The republicans need the volume to get it right as poor a track record as they have.

---

Why is that your biggest takeaway after studying that list?

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

fubar said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.

---

So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.

Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?

---

I'm saying if I voted for a Dem candidate and they said they would add 8 members to the Court, then yes, I would be frustrated that they lied to me if they choose to not do what they said they would do. I personally would not vote for a candidate that wants to do something like that but I can understand why some people would. I also would not vote for Harry Reid who started the ball rolling on all this.

I get it. I'm sure Dems are frustrated that they do not have the power in this scenario and they did not have the power with Garland. They are about to have all the power. So they have an opportunity then to slow down the changes Reid set in motion or they can stick to America and make fundamental change. Dems get to choose when they have the power. That is how this works. Then the American people get to vote if they like how the Dems are running the country. We might be surprised that America likes what the Dems are doing then.

---

Some Dems like me will never be satisfied until the Garland travesty is avenged.

---

There it is. By any means necessary.

---

Yeah, I have thing about seeing wrongs righted.

cinque said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

cinque said:

---

At some point, worms turn:

---

Looking at those lists I'm really impressed how good democrats are at putting ideologically aligned judges on the bench. The republicans kind of stink at finding judges that align with them. The republicans need the volume to get it right as poor a track record as they have.

---

Why is that your biggest takeaway after studying that list?

---

Study? Strange term to use. Not my biggest take away. Biggest takeaway is that we are blessed to have some amazing people who choose to serve our country. I'm thankful for their service. My comment was being impressed with the Dems. They are better than the Reps at getting justices that align with their priorities. In general I'm usually impressed with the Dems in this regard. Pelosi runs a tight shop in DC.

Pelosi has nothing to do with any Supreme Court majority opinion or dissents.