Democrats to unveil plan to pack SCOTUS because they're losers

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Heck ya, can't let that radical rabble of a Republican mob rule take power back. 

 

 

Mob rule = majority rule.

 

Which we are not.  

 

That is what the Founders who's names are being removed from schools your kids are no longer allowed to go to intended when they created a checks and balances Republic.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

35 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It has zero chance of passing.  Which makes me wonder what the political play is here?

My guess is the commissions job will be to figure out if there is some other way. 
 

I can’t believe this is just a political sideshow. Everything the democrats are doing and I mean EVERYTHING is a very deliberate effort to lock in the imbalance of power. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

My guess is the commissions job will be to figure out if there is some other way. 
 

I can’t believe this is just a political sideshow. Everything the democrats are doing and I mean EVERYTHING is a very deliberate effort to lock in the imbalance of power. 

Some have suggested a recommendation of term or age limits for Supreme Court justices which a lot of lawmakers might get behind.  Personally, I could entertain the idea as long as the changes are extended include term limits for members of the House and Senate.   

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

extended include term limits for members of the House and Senate.   

This time a million!! The lifer politicians are way more of a problem than the intermittent doofus presidents. 

[BillStime]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

The thing is, it wasn’t a campaign promise. Every time he was asked about it he refused to answer.

 

He promised a commission.

[TH3]

11 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

At the QAnon forum for smart people, we have constructive discussions that don't resemble the banter of a child that was given a Twitter account and told to go troll.  

 

Same question for you.  

 

What do you think this *commission* lol found that 4 more judges are necessary?  What went wrong the last 50 years that made 9 judges insufficient?

 

Desegregation?

Gay marriage?

Abortion?

Obamacare?  

 

Total failure I guess.  

Yes...and those were all "liberal" decisions.....and went with overwhelming public sentiment...and history has proven them to be popular decisions

 

OTOH The repeal of the VRA of 1965 and the Citizens United decision - both of which overturned massively bipartition legislation and fit the definition of "activist" judging and were both "conservative" ....and both are horribly regarded by most 

Edited April 15, 2021 by TH3

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

My guess is the commissions job will be to figure out if there is some other way. 
 

I can’t believe this is just a political sideshow. Everything the democrats are doing and I mean EVERYTHING is a very deliberate effort to lock in the imbalance of power. 

 

OMG!!!!!!

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

OMG!!!!!!

 

 

Didn’t say they aren’t trying to fight back. They are too impotent to operate at the federal level, so they’ve retreated to the state level. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

29 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

OMG!!!!!!

 

 

What's comical about the voter rights issue is the left thinks Republicans are working to suppress the voter rights of legitimate voters and the right think Democrats are working to ignore and eliminate voter verification requirements in order to allow anyone and everyone to vote regardless of their ability to meet legal requirements like being registered or citizens. 

 

What this all reminds me of is a quote which says "there's three sides to every story.  Yours, mine, and the truth".

Edited April 15, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[B-Man]

Signs of Democrat desperation as legislators bypass Biden's commission and plan to introduce court-packing legislation today

By Thomas Lifson

 

 

Why have a group of congressional Democrats symbolically flipped the bird to "the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States" that President Biden created by executive order only six days ago?   Andrea Widburg has an excellent blog on these pages today on the announcement and its place in the broader plan of the Dems to alter the institutional framework of governance so as to ensure permanent Democrat majorities.

 

That group of purported "experts" appointed by Biden's executive order was stacked to likely yield a result congenial to expanding the Court so as to hand a rubber-stamp majority to the Dems, as Bloomberg reported:

 

The commission skews left, with progressives holding a 3:1 ratio to conservatives, according the Ilya Shapiro, of the libertarian Cato Institute think tank.

 

The panel also leans heavily on professors, with just a handful of members whose experience isn't primarily in legal or political academics. Moreover, approximately 80% are graduates or otherwise affiliated with just two schools — Harvard and Yale.

 

 

{snip}

 

 

So what's up?  Why not wait 180 days for the fig leaf presidential commission to bolster the flimsy case?

 

I can think of two possible reasons, which are not mutually exclusive.

 

One is the incredible narrowness of the Democrats' control of Congress.  The Senate is tied 50-50, so only Kamala Harris's tiebreaker vote as V.P. gives the Dems the ability to pass legislation — if the filibuster is not invoked or if it is repealed.  In the 435-member House, Nancy Pelosi can only lose two Democrat votes if she wants to pass legislation, so narrow is her majority.

 

The prospects of holding on to the support of all Democrat senators and House members 180 days from now (i.e., half a year closer to the 2022 election) are not good, considering the escalating crisis on the border, which is a matter of grave and ongoing concern across the country.  Add in the possibility of a military crisis overseas as Russia masses troops near Ukraine and China makes escalating threats against Taiwan and expansionist moves in the South China Sea.

 

So it might be that the Democrats jumping the gun see this particular moment as possibly their last chance to remove the Supreme Court as a check on their ability to govern tyrannically.

 

The second possibility relates to an already established pattern of Democrat legislative legerdemain: abuse of the budget reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster, which Senators Manchin and Sinema both swear they will protect.  

 

 

All in all, the Democrats seem desperate, as if they see their last chance to hold onto power possibly slipping from their grasp unless they change what amounts to the rules of the game right away, while they still have the narrowest possible majority and a senescent president still holding onto office.

 

Were it not for the fully propagandistic role of the major media supporting them, the public would already have turned against them with fury for the incompetence of Biden's first three months in office and the unleashing of racialist mobs.  With public approval of the media roughly at the level of used car salesmen, that media cofferdam will not hold against the public through November 2022.  It is now or never, I believe a growing number of Democrats believe.

 

They are going for broke.  It's our job to make sure they fail and do go broke, politically.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/04/signs_of_dem_desperation_as_legislators_bypass_bidens_commission_and_plan_to_introduce_courtpacking_legislation_today.html

[ALF]

Common sense would say they can't pack the SC , if FDR could not then no one can.

[BillStime]

17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What's comical about the voter rights issue is the left thinks Republicans are working to suppress the voter rights of legitimate voters and the right think Democrats are working to ignore and eliminate voter verification requirements in order to allow anyone and everyone to vote regardless of their ability to meet legal requirements like being registered or citizens. 

 

What this all reminds me of is a quote which says "there's three sides to every story.  Yours, mine, and the truth".

 

LMAO - love the term - legitimate voters.   Jim Crow sends his best.

 

[B-Man]

By the way, don't forget Joe's response back in October about "packing the court"

 

Biden says voters ‘don’t deserve’ his stance on packing Supreme Court

 

 

Voters don’t “deserve” to know Joe Biden’s stance on packing the Supreme Court, the Democratic nominee said this week.

 

In a prickly interview with a Las Vegas news station Friday, the Biden doubled down on his refusal to say whether he supports  expanding the highest court in the land to more than nine justices.

 

“This is the number one thing that I’ve been asked about from viewers in the last couple of days,” began KTNV’s Ross DiMattei.

 

“Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans,” Biden sarcastically responded.

 

“Don’t the voters deserve to know where you stand on …” DiMattei continued.

 

“No, they don’t deserve,” Biden snapped. “I’m not going to play his game.”

 

 

https://www.ktnv.com/news/political/elections-local/interview-with-joe-biden-during-presidential-campaign-stop-in-las-vegas

 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/08/biden-wont-reveal-his-scotus-packing-stance-until-after-election/

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

Hahahahahaha.

 

 

Well apparently today's theatrics were just to try and pacify the extremists.

 

Pelosi Says She Has “No Plans” to Bring Nadler’s Bill to Expand Supreme Court by Four Seats to House Floor (VIDEO)

What she means is she doesn't have the votes to pass it.

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by B-Man

[Boatdrinks]

Don’t forget that they hate America as founded, and the loathe the Constitution. Caucasian men are their devil incarnate.

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

LMAO - love the term - legitimate voters.   Jim Crow sends his best.

 

 

What term would you prefer?  

Do you not think there is such a thing as illegitimated voters?  

[Doc]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Hahahahahaha.

 

 

Well apparently today's theatrics were just to try and pacify the extremists.

 

Pelosi Says She Has “No Plans” to Bring Nadler’s Bill to Expand Supreme Court by Four Seats to House Floor (VIDEO)

What she means is she doesn't have the votes to pass it.

Yup. But I doubt it will pacify the nut jobs. 

[B-Man]

So for 151 years 9 was ok.

 

But now they feel they need to change it because Trump put a few in there.

 

This ***** is ridiculous

 

 

 

Democrats..........

 

Adding is Subtracting

 

Up is Down

 

War is Peace.

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

OMG!!!!!!

 

 

 

I'm sorry but what does this even mean?  Are all these "voter suppression" Bills being offered up by Republicans?  What makes all these Bills suppressive?  Again feels couched as facts.  

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What term would you prefer?  

Do you not think there is such a thing as illegitimated voters?  

 

Illegitimated?