| There are 45 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
OMG
well thought out post...let's see what happens
it really looks like an escalation beyond any rational belief...to point where "mod dems" are saying enough with it...we are not adding 8 more to the supreme court....we are not adding DC or RICO to statehood
|
|
|
Mitt Romney says he supports moving ahead with Trump Supreme Court nominee
Romney's stance further tips confirmation math in favor of Republicans
|
|
|
Yeah, you guys are right.
Republicans should be absolute hypocrites.
Biden will win and Republicans will lose they Senate.
Democrats should then fight fire with fire and pack the courts. Not just the Supreme Court, they must reverse the damage Mitch McConnell and Trump have done by making sure that the party in power gets to do whatever the fuck they want.
Smart.
|
|
|
Hypocrisy? So Obama did not nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year?
|
|
|
how did all this start? for this court-packing, adding a few states? was it garland? bork? clue us in a bit
|
|
|
The President is constitutionally obligated to perform his duties of nominating a Justice and the Senate is obligated to accept or deny that nomination. Nothing in the Constitution speaks about if during an election year.
29 times in our history, there has been an open Supreme Court position and 29 times the President has nominated a successor. So what Nancy and Chuck and Joe and the rest of the Dems and nearly all of the media are saying about it being wrong for Trump to do it is just idiotic.
The precedent is totally supporting Trump....So if Trump didn't nominate someone, he would be breaking precedent and doing something no other President has done.
That nomination goes to the Senate and they get to determine whether to accept, reject or not even respond to the nominee. Everything within the Constitution.
I get the impression the Dems and media are fine when the precedent and Constitution support what they want to do, but then want to disregard when it runs contrary to them.
Nominate and vote and move on.
|
|
|
It isn’t a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will win both the Presidency and the Senate, but if they do, they should pack the courts.
The number of Supreme Court Justices is determined by statute, not the Constitution, so all they have to do is pass a law increasing the number of justices.
|
|
|
Lol Dems have been threatening to pack the courts and getting rid of electoral college for a while. You can't recycle those threats now.
|
|
|
i saw a potential amendment bill today where they would put a 10-year delay on any changes like packing the court...to take all the knee jerk reactions out of it...give it some deep thought as to really think it would be best for the country...so they can vote to pack the court, but doesn't start for 10 years
they say it won't pass, but will highlight some of the issues
|
|
|
"Democrats should then fight fire with fire and pack the courts. Not just the Supreme Court, they must reverse the damage Mitch McConnell and Trump have done by making sure that the party in power gets to do whatever the fuck they want."
Yes, the Democrats continue to have a simple solution to everything. "I didn't get my way so I will throw a tantrum and fuck up the entire system of justice.
|
|
|
@jazz51
Are you fucking kidding me? Democrats are pussies. Democrats have rolled over too many times to allow this to happen again. They need to be more like the Republicans, by ramming through everything they want, so that more civility can return to politics when both parties are disgusted with each other.
|
|
|
Packing the courts is a totally stupid idea. Even RBG said she disagreed with having more than 9 justices. The Dems vote like lock step sheep.....At least a few Republicans disagree and vote contrary to the rest.
What have the Republicans 'rammed through'?
Obama was the one who said "I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone" and instituted DACA and a whole lot of other things by Executive Action.
|
|
|
"I didn't get my way so I will throw a tantrum and fuck up the entire system of justice."
Jazz... this is thier approach to EVERYTHING...
|
|
|
Packing the courts is a dictator move. Very fitting of the autocrat party. Hugo Chavez would be very proud of AOC, Pelosi and Schumer
|
|
|
Blocking Merrick Garland for one and pushing through 200+ judges, many of whom where incompetent but we're rammed through anyway.
It is ok. Republicans need to face their own political tactics. Dem pussies need to grow some balls and show the Republicans that they can be just as underhanded.
No more civility until everything Trump and McConnell have done is reversed.
I'm totally cool playing on a level playing field.
|
|
|
^^^type that without crying
|
|
|
@ PA970deep
Didn't you send me a PM and then block me when you didn't like my responses. You're one of the biggest pussies on this site, and that says something when we should all be about pussy on here.
And didn't you also claim to be a minority who is voting for Trump? So you're clearly one of the biggest idiots posting on these blogs as well. No need to try to convince someone who is clearly unreasonable and can't comprehend logic.
|
|
|
Stupid joe the guy is a mess
|
|
|
@mildlyamusing butthurt bitch boi
|
|
|
mildly amusing....read my lips...let's try this one more time.
29 times in our history, there has been an open Supreme Court position and 29 times the President has nominated a successor.
That is what Trump did. Obama did it as well. However, in the case of Obama, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. And the Republicans did not confirm the appointment. When a party has both the Senate and Presidency, they can get the appointment made. When there are different parties, that might not happen. Welcome to the world of politics and our system.
|
|
|
@ jazz51
I actually think you're a pretty reasonable guy, but you fall for Republican bullshit all the time.
What Mitch McConnell did by blocking Merrick Garland's nomination 11 months before an election essentially created a new rule which he now refuses to follow (of course, because he's unethical). To justify going against that new rule, the Republicans are now claiming that it doesn't apply now because the President and the Senate are controlled by the same party. It is complete bullshit.
So if Mitch McConnell is allowed to bullshit his way to forcing Trump's nomination through after blocking Merrick Garland, then the Democrats should pack the courts which they are able to do IF they win the Presidency and take control of the Senate.
|
|
|
No new rule.....29 times Presidents have nominated the Justice.
The Senate does what the Senate does.....they vote or decide not to bring it to a vote. That is the prerogative of the party that controls the Senate. Nothing more, nothing less. He didn't even have to give a reason for not bringing it to the Senate floor last time. With Obama's nominee, he didn't have the Senate on his side. Maybe the next time a Dem Pres nominates a judge in his last year, he will have the Senate in his party. Then it can be approved.
|
|
|
we have lots and lots of those lil hypocrisy statements on tape for both sides...think the WALL
i think i saw 10 times, a presidential nomination, where HE did not have the senate, and only got 2 confirmations
i need to go back and listen to his full interview there and see why he made such a statement...knowing a death was probably on the horizon
|
|
|
i think this 10 is within that 29?
|
|
|
You might want to do a little more research than CNN.
And you might also want to look at what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about this very issue. She said "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,"
|
|
|
First Leo Terrell, and now @NightRider. The whole world will get red-pilled one day. Even MA.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Look, it is a Constitutional issue. Art 2 Sect II, The President "SHALL" nominate.
Also, because the Senate was the opposite party of the Executive and blocked a prior nomination, or decided not to take up a Vote does not make it Common Law. This is the action of the Legislature, not the Judiciary. The Legislature has no Common Law precedent.
Not fair you say? What's not fair? Politics?? Yes I agree with you; politics are not fair. The Constitution is not fair? Yeah sorry about that. Please show me a more perfect Union. And if you like that Union better, move there.
So because the President and Senate of the same party executes their Constitutional duty, that is a valid reason to Pack the Court? Tell me now, because The Senate can just pack it now with conservative nominated jurists.
Yeah, didn't think so.
Same lib logic as normalizing bombing threats. Let me know if that's ok because we'll start with payback for all that have previously issued bomb threats.
|
|
|
Republicans are happy to do whatever is within their power. Great. Now Democrats need to do what's within their power as well and pack the courts.
As I mentioned earlier, the number of Supreme Court Justices has been changed in the past via passing a law. If Democrats gain both the Presidency and control of the Senate, they will be able to pass that law.
Like it or not, since power now dictates what each party is does (regardless of ethics), then Democrats should get what they want when they have the power and ability to have it their way. Simple logic.
Sure, RBG's death energized Republicans, but based on the $100 million raised in one day after her death, I bet Democrats are energized even more to gain complete control.
|
|
|
romney had a decent little spiel about it...said his liberal friends had a nice long run, few decades, with courts in their favor and now have to live with it being out of favor
|
|
|
^^^^
If Trump wins the election and the Repubs hold the Senate or even increase their lead....
Do we want them to pack the court.....let's put in Trumps entire list of Supreme Court judges and have 15 Conservatives to the 4 liberals. 19 becomes the new Supreme Court...really???
I no more want that to happen than for the Dems to disrupt a Court that has been functioning with 9 justices since 1869.
|
|
|
ISO your humanicon is a complete distraction from your argument.
Please change it when posting in serious blogs for me and MA, ok?
Thanks in advance,
flash
|
|
|
mildly....the number of justices has not changed in over 150 years....
Yep, just burn it down, tear it down, trash it, pull it down....The Dems have totally lost their minds.
|
|
|
"I no more want that to happen than for the Dems to disrupt a Court that has been functioning with 9 justices since 1869."
Agree 100% @Jazz, I was just making a point.
|
|
|
Leo Terrell changing over just blows me away...this dude hated trump so much for the first 3 years
he is loving what trump is doing for black America now and as a life long DEM/civil rights lawyer...despises them now
how did that happen? is he lying? dumb?
|
|
|
^^^
Leo actually woke up and looked at the results. What has Trump actually done during his first 3 1/2 years? Don't let his tweets and brash personality and constant 'patting himself on the back' attitude.
Look at what actually occurred to help people in this country.
Funding for predominantly Black Universities.
Lowest unemployment rates for Black Americans
Opportunity zones in black communities
Actual increase in median income for al ethnic groups
Passed the First Step Act
These were all things that Obama never did.
Leo looked at the results and not the politician.
|
|
|
Leo is seeing what 15 - 20% of Dems and 75% of independents see (my numbers, please don't freak out!).
The lying media supporting the lying House Dems destroyed our economy and freedoms all because they hate POTUS.
Now they will pay on Nov 3rd. POTUS +10pts, you heard it here first.
What happens after that with mail-in voter fraud is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
I have come to the conclusion that the LEft does not give 2 fucks about the law, constitution or rules. All they care about is getting there way and nothing is off the table when it comes to them trying to get there way.
SO expect a Civil war
Talk is just about over, Republicans would have an easier time reasoning with a pigeon then they would the Left
|
|
|
I wasn't looking for someone like you to answer that btw 
it was more a rhetorical question, or for some lib to come in and trash him as an idiot
|
|
|
The Dems blocked the 'skinny' Covid-19 relief package. Wasn't something better than nothing?
Nope not in the minds of the Dems....they didn't want Trump to get a 'win' before the election. Better for the American people to struggle because many Dem governors have their states 'locked down'. Quite honestly, it is time to start voting out ANY of our legislators on both sides who seem more concerned about reelection than us.
|
|
|
with you on the blow out
just hoping the senate keeps their seats and we get a lead in the house to stop all the bullshit
lets swap out john james for collins...time for her to go
|
|
|
If the House stays Democrat, I can imagine 4 more years of impeachment....
|
|
|
The long-term answer is to term limit all federal judges. The life expectancy from when the constitution was enacted has increased 40 years (39 to 79). There is absolutely no rational reason to allow Presidents to make generational or multi-generational appointments when they may only serve one-term. Set the limit at 15 years.
@jazz51 - how do you respond to an independent voter that asks the following question: the Senate really didn't "advise and consent" on the Garland pick. They staked out a principle - the current President should not make a pick during an election year, let the people decide. Haven't the Republicans compromised that principle? Isn't arguing that Democrats are also hypocrites a red herring?
|
|
|
Packing the court is a ridiculouslous, radical and reactionary response.
FDR tried it and lost because even those in his own party saw it for what it was, a move to politicize the court.
Roberts blasted Trump a couple if years ago for characterizing judges as Democrats and Republicans.
When you jigger the entire system to control smaller outcomes... eventually it bites you in the ass.
The left should quit whining. You could have voted for Hilary... but you didn’t.
You could have taken Senate seats in 16 and 18... but you didn’t.
President Obama said it, “Elections have consequences. The president appoints... the Senate confirms. Repubs used their political power to allow their guy (Trump) to nominate Gorsuch. The Dems would/and will do the same thing.
The Left couldn’t “rally the team” to beat Trump and take the senate. They lost out on Kennedy’s seat and now Ginsburg’s.
Take your medicine and win a dam election for crying out loud!
And don’t start that “popular vote” crap. They know the game. Play to win you wussies.
It’s like if Cleveland joined about losing the the championship because “all Golden state did was shoot 3’s”
3’s count dummy! Fight to win and represent every part of the country... not jusT the west coast and the northeast.
|
|
|
I would have preferred the Republicans in 2016 either vote for the nomination or not. Or just not say anything and let is die in chambers. They were within their constitutional rights to just say and do nothing. They should not have said the people should decide. The people already had decided...a Democratic President but a Republican Senate. That meant a late term appointment wouldn't happen this time just like it hadn't happened before under similar circumstances.
The Senate did act in the Garland appointment. They took no voting action. That is the same thing that happens when a bill that passes both houses goes to the President who does not sign the legislation. Pocket veto. That is pretty much what Mitch did in 2016.
Both parties are hypocrites. Reason I am ready to vote them all out....Dems and Repubs unless they work for US and not for their own profit and reelection.
|
|
|
Quat....Ginsburg could have resigned when Obama was president. She didn't have to hold on until 87.
|
|
|
And 16 Republican senators said that blocking a Presidential SC appointee was act of great statesmanship. You can talk power politics all you want but when half the country thinks part of the SC is illegitimate and the other half is ecstatic the country is in deep trouble.
|
| There are 45 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
