Ha Ha! Biden Supreme Court commission rejects court-packing

1,313 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by GrowlTowel
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Let's go Brandon

Initial progressive reaction to draft discussion materials released by the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court Thursday was not positive, as Democratic activists and commentators derided the commission for its apparent reluctance to endorse court-packing.

"This report is an abomination," Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern tweeted. "It assumes that today's Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy. Republicans must be thrilled with this outcome. It's a gift to the GOP."

"We have said since the Commission's beginning that for the Commission to provide a meaningful contribution to restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary, it needs to advance a specific list of Supreme Court reforms that can be acted upon in the near term," American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The discussion materials released today unfortunately fail to match the urgency of the situation and do not lay out a solution to the legitimacy crisis before us."

. . .
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:



Let's go Brandon

Initial progressive reaction to draft discussion materials released by the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court Thursday was not positive, as Democratic activists and commentators derided the commission for its apparent reluctance to endorse court-packing.

"This report is an abomination," Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern tweeted. "It assumes that today's Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy. Republicans must be thrilled with this outcome. It's a gift to the GOP."

"We have said since the Commission's beginning that for the Commission to provide a meaningful contribution to restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary, it needs to advance a specific list of Supreme Court reforms that can be acted upon in the near term," American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The discussion materials released today unfortunately fail to match the urgency of the situation and do not lay out a solution to the legitimacy crisis before us."

. . .
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary." LOL. In other words, I don't like Trump's exercise of the executive's constitutional right to nominate S.C. nominees that are conservative, so we need to pack the Court to offset Trump's legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

What a joke these people are.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

GrowlTowel said:



Let's go Brandon

Initial progressive reaction to draft discussion materials released by the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court Thursday was not positive, as Democratic activists and commentators derided the commission for its apparent reluctance to endorse court-packing.

"This report is an abomination," Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern tweeted. "It assumes that today's Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy. Republicans must be thrilled with this outcome. It's a gift to the GOP."

"We have said since the Commission's beginning that for the Commission to provide a meaningful contribution to restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary, it needs to advance a specific list of Supreme Court reforms that can be acted upon in the near term," American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The discussion materials released today unfortunately fail to match the urgency of the situation and do not lay out a solution to the legitimacy crisis before us."

. . .
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary." LOL. In other words, I don't like Trump's exercise of the executive's constitutional right to nominate S.C. nominees that are conservative, so we need to pack the Court to offset Trump's legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

What a joke these people are.
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary."

So the Supremes are only legitimate if it has a Liberal Majority according to this clown. Either that, or he is still implying Trump was an illegitimate president.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Mothra said:

GrowlTowel said:



Let's go Brandon

Initial progressive reaction to draft discussion materials released by the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court Thursday was not positive, as Democratic activists and commentators derided the commission for its apparent reluctance to endorse court-packing.

"This report is an abomination," Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern tweeted. "It assumes that today's Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy. Republicans must be thrilled with this outcome. It's a gift to the GOP."

"We have said since the Commission's beginning that for the Commission to provide a meaningful contribution to restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary, it needs to advance a specific list of Supreme Court reforms that can be acted upon in the near term," American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The discussion materials released today unfortunately fail to match the urgency of the situation and do not lay out a solution to the legitimacy crisis before us."

. . .
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary." LOL. In other words, I don't like Trump's exercise of the executive's constitutional right to nominate S.C. nominees that are conservative, so we need to pack the Court to offset Trump's legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

What a joke these people are.
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary."

So the Supremes are only legitimate if it has a Liberal Majority according to this clown. Either that, or he is still implying Trump was an illegitimate president.
This is the **** that makes me ragey. If the Democrats use the court politically, it's democracy. If Republicans do, it's a threat to democracy. #clownworld
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Mothra said:

GrowlTowel said:



Let's go Brandon

Initial progressive reaction to draft discussion materials released by the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court Thursday was not positive, as Democratic activists and commentators derided the commission for its apparent reluctance to endorse court-packing.

"This report is an abomination," Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern tweeted. "It assumes that today's Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy. Republicans must be thrilled with this outcome. It's a gift to the GOP."

"We have said since the Commission's beginning that for the Commission to provide a meaningful contribution to restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary, it needs to advance a specific list of Supreme Court reforms that can be acted upon in the near term," American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The discussion materials released today unfortunately fail to match the urgency of the situation and do not lay out a solution to the legitimacy crisis before us."

. . .
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary." LOL. In other words, I don't like Trump's exercise of the executive's constitutional right to nominate S.C. nominees that are conservative, so we need to pack the Court to offset Trump's legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

What a joke these people are.
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary."

So the Supremes are only legitimate if it has a Liberal Majority according to this clown. Either that, or he is still implying Trump was an illegitimate president.
This is the **** that makes me ragey. If the Democrats use the court politically, it's democracy. If Republicans do, it's a threat to democracy. #clownworld
It's not even that - If the Republicans don't accede to the left's desire to use the court politically, then it is illegitimate. The reason we are where we are is BECAUSE a liberal court decided to make policy based decisions (e.g. Roe), thus subverting the political process. Those are questions that need to be worked out in the political arena. Now, any attempt to reverse that horrible error (go read Justice White's excellent dissent from Roe) is characterized as political. it is not. It just removes the court from an inherently political question.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:




It is a picture of Nelson Muntz saying Ha Ha! for the love of . . .
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Russ Feingold sounds like a threat to our democracy and is spreading misinformation. He should be censured.
Freedomb3ar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

GrowlTowel said:



Let's go Brandon

Initial progressive reaction to draft discussion materials released by the White House's presidential commission on the Supreme Court Thursday was not positive, as Democratic activists and commentators derided the commission for its apparent reluctance to endorse court-packing.

"This report is an abomination," Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern tweeted. "It assumes that today's Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy. Republicans must be thrilled with this outcome. It's a gift to the GOP."

"We have said since the Commission's beginning that for the Commission to provide a meaningful contribution to restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary, it needs to advance a specific list of Supreme Court reforms that can be acted upon in the near term," American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold said in a statement. "The discussion materials released today unfortunately fail to match the urgency of the situation and do not lay out a solution to the legitimacy crisis before us."

. . .
"Restoring the legitimacy of our judiciary." LOL. In other words, I don't like Trump's exercise of the executive's constitutional right to nominate S.C. nominees that are conservative, so we need to pack the Court to offset Trump's legitimate exercise of constitutional powers.

What a joke these people are.


Which ones were conservative again?

#LGB
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.
Some may be a little chapped at the very notion of packing the supreme court, so liberals could get their way with judicial activism, was taken seriously enough to waste taxpayer money on it.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.


Then he should have said "no" during the debates and told the wacky nut jobs F-you.

He didn't so he owns it.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Booray said:

Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.


Then he should have said "no" during the debates and told the wacky nut jobs F-you.

He didn't so he owns it.
And lost the primaries so you could have Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as President. Which would be great for you and the other patriots because more than anything else people want to hate.

Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.
Ironically, a review of this thread reveals you are the first poster to mention Biden in your comments.

I haven't seen any criticisms leveled at Biden directly, but instead at the Democrat Party, which Biden leads just FYI. My criticism was of the individual who works for the think tank, for his ridiculous comments.

If this is truly what Biden wanted, then it's a shame he didn't have the guts to tell the wingnuts in his party this was a bad idea instead of resorting to a committee to tell him what he already knew was right. But that's kind of been a microcosm of his whole presidency.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

GrowlTowel said:

Booray said:

Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.


Then he should have said "no" during the debates and told the wacky nut jobs F-you.

He didn't so he owns it.
And lost the primaries so you could have Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as President.

At this point, I am not sure what would be different. All three are socialist/communist, woke losers. Bernie would be a little angrier. Squaw Lizzie would be a little more professorial and coherent in her delivery. Perhaps neither of the other two clowns would have screwed up Afghanistan as bad as Brandon did.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

GrowlTowel said:

Booray said:

Posters on this thread have missed the most important point. Biden was never comfortable with court packing. So he appoints a committee that says don't pack the court, which is the result you wanted.

Yet somehow they find a way to be enraged or take it as a slap at Biden.


Then he should have said "no" during the debates and told the wacky nut jobs F-you.

He didn't so he owns it.
And lost the primaries so you could have Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as President. Which would be great for you and the other patriots because more than anything else people want to hate.


He was the nominee when he debated Trump.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.