Backintheday544 Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, realtruelove said: It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them. Power is what they seek. They do not represent the people. Would you please point to the section of the Constitution that says either how many Supreme Court justices there are or that more cannot be added? Thanks! 7 hours ago, Big Blitz said: So do this because you can't win legitimately? I guess Republicans should have been packing the SCOTUS in the first 2 years of Trump's presidency. You people are unhinged. They literally would have won the Senate, House and Presidency legitimately for them to pack the Supreme Court. Republicans basically did work on packing the court the second McConnell refused to give advice and consent on Garland. Also none of this Court packing talk happens if Republicans wait until after January to try to get a justice on the Supreme Court like they demanded be done with Garland. Edited October 12, 2020 by Backintheday544
Westside Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 It will be funny when Trump wins, he decides he's going to pack the court with more conservatives. Can you picture the meltdown? Lol 2
SectionC3 Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, westside2 said: It will be funny when Trump wins, he decides he's going to pack the court with more conservatives. Can you picture the meltdown? Lol How exactly would Trump accomplish that on his own? On 10/2/2020 at 12:08 AM, Big Blitz said: Lol yep. Don't get me wrong. I want Trump to win and believe he will. But my biggest reason for voting how I do for my Senators and POTUS is bc of the Courts the Left needs to shove their agenda no one agrees with down our throats. And the inevitable replacement for RBG (may God rest her soul) was at the top of my list of reasons he absolutely has to win. Everyone knew this. Getting ACB on the SCOTUS has completely obliterated whatever stress level I had over this rigged election. Trump's mission, getting us to a 6-3 conservative court to protect America for the next 30 plus years, and now as we see here with this tremendous news, may also strike down Roe, has been achieved. Think about this leftists. Had Hillary won, the SCOTUS would be 6-3 Lib for the next 30 years. We truly saved this country in 2016. Next time, visit Wisconsin. Hoax. The election isn't rigged. You're just making things up again. Sad.
All_Pro_Bills Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: How exactly would Trump accomplish that on his own? Hoax. The election isn't rigged. You're just making things up again. Sad. When referring to "rigged" people should really speak about voter fraud and voter suppression. Voting by those that have no valid citizenship claim to the district or state they are voting in or voting multiple times or actions to suppress or prohibit citizens from casing valid ballots. The Dems say Reps are vote suppressors and the Reps say the Dems are voter fraudsters. That I think sums up the playing field here.
SectionC3 Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: When referring to "rigged" people should really speak about voter fraud and voter suppression. Voting by those that have no valid citizenship claim to the district or state they are voting in or voting multiple times or actions to suppress or prohibit citizens from casing valid ballots. The Dems say Reps are vote suppressors and the Reps say the Dems are voter fraudsters. That I think sums up the playing field here. Even this, though perhaps well-intentioned, is misleading. I am a citizen of the United States of America. I am a resident of my state, locality, and election district. To the extent you're suggesting that someone commits "fraud" by voting in the wrong "district," that claim simply is misleading. Those votes typically are made by affidavit ballot, and the affidavit vote isn't counted if the affiant reported to the wrong polling location. 1
shoshin Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 10 hours ago, realtruelove said: It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them. Power is what they seek. They do not represent the people. Congress can change the number of justices. Not a constitutional issue. The tradition of 9 Justices aligns with the number of Circuit Courts of Appeal in the late 1800s. Today there are 11 Circuit Courts of Appeal plus DC and the Federal Circuit. I don't want any change in the number of Justices but there's ample historical justification for 11 at least and 13 at most. Let's hope that the parties playing procedural politics with Justices like doesn't lead to this.
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 At work so half paying attention through youtube The comments going through whenever a Dem speaks is hilarious!
section122 Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 3 hours ago, westside2 said: It will be funny when Trump wins, he decides he's going to pack the court with more conservatives. Can you picture the meltdown? Lol If packing the court would make you mad if the dems did it, it should make you mad if the republicans do it.... Put differently, if you disagree with an issue it shouldn't matter which side is pushing that issue forward. 1
Niagara Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Republicans basically did work on packing the court the second McConnell refused to give advice and consent on Garland. When Kennedy demonized a Constitutional scholar Robert Bork, that was it for me. No more Mr. nice guy. The Republicans got to appoint Souter who was a liberal. The Democrats stole that seat. When has a nominee from a Democrat President not been confirmed bc he is too liberal? Garland was pay back for Bork. 3
ALF Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Niagara said: When Kennedy demonized a Constitutional scholar Robert Bork, that was it for me. No more Mr. nice guy. The Republicans got to appoint Souter who was a liberal. The Democrats stole that seat. When has a nominee from a Democrat President not been confirmed bc he is too liberal? Garland was pay back for Bork. After Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his impending retirement, Reagan nominated Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, precipitating a contested Senate debate. Opposition to Bork centered on his stated desire to roll back the civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre. His nomination was defeated in the Senate, with 58 of the 100 Senators opposing his nomination. That Supreme Court vacancy was eventually filled by another Reagan nominee, Anthony Kennedy. David Hackett Souter (/ˈsuːtər/ SOO-tər; born September 17, 1939) is a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from October 1990 to his retirement in June 2009.[2] Appointed by US President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat that had been vacated by William J. Brennan Jr., Souter sat on both the Rehnquist and the Roberts Courts. A Supreme Court Justice should be bipartisan 60 vote to avoid extremists Edited October 12, 2020 by ALF
CarpetCrawler Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 30 minutes ago, section122 said: If packing the court would make you mad if the dems did it, it should make you mad if the republicans do it.... Put differently, if you disagree with an issue it shouldn't matter which side is pushing that issue forward. I guess you don't know what lol means, lol. Look up definitions of sarcasm and irony.
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 27 minutes ago, ALF said: A Supreme Court Justice should be bipartisan 60 vote to avoid extremists Honestly I don't care what side of the aisle they fall on as long as they are originalists and only interpret the law as written, not trying to add any hidden meanings 4
B-Man Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 Democrats delegitimize the Supreme Court because they fear losing power over the rest of us Washington Examiner, by Editorial Original Article “It is a decision of the Supreme Court,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi said in 2005, speaking about the eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London. “If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken.” This florid reverence for the high court ought not be lost on the reader, especially given where Pelosi and other Democrats find themselves today. As the Senate prepares to confirm President Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, they have begun to say outright that the nomination and confirmation procedure outlined in the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate.
Big Blitz Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 4 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. The election isn't rigged. You're just making things up again. Sad. Where have you been the last 7 months? Fyi on Friday we enter month 8 of just "15 days..."
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) Anyone else notice each Dem Senator is reading story of someone with health issues, but NONE OF THEM are from their own states? Hirona now is reading about someone in NC but she is Hawaii smdh Talk about out of touch! Edited October 12, 2020 by Cinga 1
Backintheday544 Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 28 minutes ago, B-Man said: No one should have a problem with the confirmation of Barrett. She is well qualified for the position. I doubt there would be any pushback from the left of it wasn't for Garland.
B-Man Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: No one should have a problem with the confirmation of Barrett. She is well qualified for the position. I doubt there would be any pushback from the left of it wasn't for Garland. Nice try. History did NOT start 4 years ago. 1
Recommended Posts