BearTruth13 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.

---

Hypocrisy aside, you do realize that McConnell has not changed the law regarding judicial appointments?

Packing the court, which Biden will threaten to do would require a 150 year old law change.

---

1. Biden has threatened no such thing. In fact, Biden has said the opposite.

2. Please cite for me the "law" regarding how many justices.

I get tired of the ignorance and outright lying.

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

Agreed and that is not what I said. I said she runs a tight ship and she does. She is the leader in DC for the Dems right now from a political standpoint. Nothing judicial about that. She even politically wrangled AOC. In the past the Dem party has a better track record of packing the courts with ideologically aligned justices. I'm impressed with them in that regard.

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.

---

Other than Thomas the Republicans have a fine record on it. It just seems bad because the party platform has gone so far to the right that the previously qualified justices they picked seem too liberal now.

greatdivide said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

Agreed and that is not what I said. I said she runs a tight ship and she does. She is the leader in DC for the Dems right now from a political standpoint. Nothing judicial about that. She even politically wrangled AOC. In the past the Dem party has a better track record of packing the courts with ideologically aligned justices. I'm impressed with them in that regard.

---

It seemed you were saying her tight ship was also over Supreme Court Justices.

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

It's an interesting idea but pretty sure would require a constitutional amendment to change to an arrangement where the court picks itself. Perhaps having the current doomsday scenario might rally both parties together to prevent further degradation of our political institutions, much like FDR's 4th term scared both parties at the thought of a president entrenched forever.

PartyBear said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

Agreed and that is not what I said. I said she runs a tight ship and she does. She is the leader in DC for the Dems right now from a political standpoint. Nothing judicial about that. She even politically wrangled AOC. In the past the Dem party has a better track record of packing the courts with ideologically aligned justices. I'm impressed with them in that regard.

---

It seemed you were saying her tight ship was also over Supreme Court Justices.

---

Not sure how you took that from what I typed but glad it is cleared up for you now. I was talking about the process to add a justice. The political arm nominates and confirms the justices. Dems have been solid at that part and not just for adding justices. Pelosi is continuing that by running a tight ship. Obama was great at placing 2 justices who ideologically aligned with him. And if Dems controlled the house in 2016, Obama would have nominated another just as aligned instead of Garland. They are batting 1000 right now. Impressive stat.

greatdivide said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

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

---

Agreed and that is not what I said. I said she runs a tight ship and she does. She is the leader in DC for the Dems right now from a political standpoint. Nothing judicial about that. She even politically wrangled AOC. In the past the Dem party has a better track record of packing the courts with ideologically aligned justices. I'm impressed with them in that regard.

---

It seemed you were saying her tight ship was also over Supreme Court Justices.

---

Not sure how you took that from what I typed but glad it is cleared up for you now. I was talking about the process to add a justice. The political arm nominates and confirms the justices. Dems have been solid at that part and not just for adding justices. Pelosi is continuing that by running a tight ship. Obama was great at placing 2 justices who ideologically aligned with him. And if Dems controlled the house in 2016, Obama would have nominated another just as aligned instead of Garland. They are batting 1000 right now. Impressive stat.

---

Very true. Dems vote much more reliably as a bloc, both in the legislature and on the Court.

fubar said:

---

BearTruth13 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.

---

Hypocrisy aside, you do realize that McConnell has not changed the law regarding judicial appointments?

Packing the court, which Biden will threaten to do would require a 150 year old law change.

---

1. Biden has threatened no such thing. In fact, Biden has said the opposite.

2. Please cite for me the "law" regarding how many justices.

I get tired of the ignorance and outright lying.

---

Set by the Judicial Act of 1869. Included in 28 US Code Chapter 1.

I get tired of ignorance and outright lying.

One stat I've been interested in. How many times has a Justice who was nominated by a Democrat been the swing vote in a 5-4 decision? I think the swing vote in every 5-4 decision is a justice nominated by a Republican. Again. Impressive discipline in the legislature and on the Court.

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?

---

It has been one sided because that is chance.

You should also take away what he said. People are constantly fearful of Roe v Wade being overturned. Of gay marriage being overturned. That a conservative court will turn us into the handmaiden's tale.

Based on history, that is just silly. There have been far more moderate Republican nominees than Democratic nominees.

I thought the congressionally allowed consolidation of power in the executive branch was the biggest sign of how they've completely failed at their legislative duties. If they decide to stack the court, they will have shown how completely weak our legislative branch is, and it was intended to be the most powerful and most representative of the people when designed.

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Trump should tell holder that's a great idea.

Then when Trump wins and if the Senate stays Republican, Trump can add a few more seats.

BearTruth13 said:

---

fubar said:

---

BearTruth13 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.

---

Hypocrisy aside, you do realize that McConnell has not changed the law regarding judicial appointments?

Packing the court, which Biden will threaten to do would require a 150 year old law change.

---

1. Biden has threatened no such thing. In fact, Biden has said the opposite.

2. Please cite for me the "law" regarding how many justices.

I get tired of the ignorance and outright lying.

---

Set by the Judicial Act of 1869. Included in 28 US Code Chapter 1.

I get tired of ignorance and outright lying.

---

for those too lazy...

The Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices,

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Whose trying to convince you of anything? Hell, I wasn't even talking to you.

As an independent moderate who hates both parties and what they have collectively done to our country, I just think anything that depoliticizes the process is a good thing.

And feel free to address the actual idea and what you disagree with. That typically leads to better discussion than personal attacks and lame-ass faux rejoinders.

There is nothing sacrosanct about how many Justices the Congress and President Grant thought there should be in 1869. Nothing at all unconstitutional about Congress passing a bill and the President signing it. In fact that is the opposite of unconstitutional.

Jack and DP said:

---

---

It was nice of him to answer the question for her, though.

Username checks out 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.

---

Other than Thomas the Republicans have a fine record on it. It just seems bad because the party platform has gone so far to the right that the previously qualified justices they picked seem too liberal now.

---

Complete nonsense. Republicans have barely moved in their political stances. Democrats have gone so far left they actively and openly promote Marxist ideas and other forms of insanity.

The reason Democrat appointees adhere to their political philosophy in their rulings is because (1) their philosophy is inconsistent with the Constitution itself (that's why they think it breathes, lives, and farts), and (2) they don't really care or understand why and what values make this Nation so great.

The reason Republican appointees seemingly don't adhere to their political philosophies is the exact opposite. They stick to the express wording of the Constitution without "adding to it" except when they feel the Court is or will be threatened by the other two branches or the general public. The Court has much less express power than the other two branches and they are well aware of their unwritten task of protecting it as an institution.

Summary: conservative appointees understand and care about our republic and liberal appointees less so.

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

Cinque, I've ignored you... but please, keep responding to my posts.

HashTag said:

---

Cinque, I've ignored you... but please, keep responding to my posts.

---

Irony post

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

That's not even a serious question.

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

cinque said:

---

---

so basically they are going to do what that said they would do?

FWBear said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

That's not even a serious question.

---

Sure if is. Why not provide a serious answer?

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

I actually really liked Pete Buttigieg's idea for expanding the supreme court, which was presented with the intent of de-politicizing that body.

You'd go from nine to 15 justices, with five appointed by the Republicans, five appointed by the Democrats and five decided by the 10 sitting justices.

This setup would be much better for America than the current one IMO as it would end these congressional dick measuring contests and force presidential candidates to run and win on their own merits.

---

Love how the liberals are first threatening to expand the court and now trying to convince us it's actually a good idea and great for the country.

SMDH

---

Why is expanding the Court seen as a threat?

---

is there a reason to change the law?

---

What's the threat?

---

i am dont care one way or the other... there hasnt been a need in the last 100 years, why is there a need now?

---

It's simple. The McConnell Rule of 2016.

greatdivide said:

---

cinque said:

---

---

so basically they are going to do what that said they would do?

---

Hopefully. These guys aren't:

cinque said:

---

greatdivide said:

---

cinque said:

---

---

so basically they are going to do what that said they would do?

---

Hopefully. These guys aren't:

---

so basically politicians are being political in both parties? And democrats are going to implement the platform they said they were going to implement? Water is wet as well. Did any of this surprise you?