»
Topic: Dems and packing the Supreme Court
Replies: 45   Last Post: Apr 20, 2021, 5:36 PM by: T3Tiger®
[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 45  

Dems and packing the Supreme Court

emoji_events [6]
Apr 16, 2021, 1:30 PM
flag     Reply

Dems keep talking about a 6-3 Court and Merrick Garland. If he had been confirmed, it would still be 5-4. Or maybe 4.5/4.5 considering Roberts. Maybe they are already counting him idk. Heck they might actually have a majority now with him.

Also she talks about SCOTUS “favoring corporate interests” yet I have hardly seen any corporations working to promote Conservative or Republican causes lately.

Why is it that Biden previously said packing the Court is a “bonehead idea” and RBG said 9 was a good number but now things have suddenly changed after 152 years? Why is it 13 is their magic new number? Oh, because that gets them to a 7-6 majority.

Do they think people are stupid and can’t see through this?

No this isn’t about restoring balance. It’s about one party rule, period.

They say Trump was undermining our institutions but they are immediately trying to change the Senate rules and the SCOTUS composition.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1382817760615497736

https://mobile.twitter.com/standamericanow/status/1382748458415763461

https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronDonalds/status/1382715675429470233

2021 orange level member link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 1:45 PM
flag     Reply

There's no rationale to this except to say democrats are the party of lie-cheat-and-steal.

This is the steal part, but they will lie their way through it.

Same as Voter ID. These people are scum of the earth.

link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 1:47 PM
flag     Reply

Haha pubs never lie. They ALL lied through their teeth to get the last judge confirmed...

2021 white level member link

What-aboutism***


Apr 19, 2021, 7:35 AM
flag     Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

Hate to break it to you, but both parties are guilty


Apr 16, 2021, 5:47 PM
flag     Reply

of lying.

link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 19, 2021, 7:24 AM
flag     Reply

It's called political payback for how Scalia abd Ginsberg were replaced. One seat was held open for a year to "let the people decide" and the other was rushed through to avoid letting the people decide. Now put on your tap dance shoes and give us a reasonable explanation as to why the two cases were handled drastically different? You know it was McConnell playing politics, which you were more than thrilled with. But if the other side were to do it, you will get triggered and cry like a little girl. "Lie, cheat and steal" LOL. Amirite?

2021 white level member link

I’m not sure my opinion on the topic


Apr 19, 2021, 7:30 AM
flag     Reply

To answer your question:

Those two you mentioned replaced existing positions (yes, treated very differently, but only replacing)

Now we are talking about adding four more.

The equal political payback would be using these tactics to replace the next open vacancies, not adding four more spots

link


Re: I’m not sure my opinion on the topic


Apr 19, 2021, 8:08 AM
flag     Reply

You can't be serious. How often do supreme court justices die during an election year?

2021 white level member link

Probably not often, I’ve never done the research


Apr 19, 2021, 11:09 AM
flag     Reply

But I’d think it’s not often

I’m still trying to figure out why the answer to this situation is to add justices to the court

I’m trying to think an analogy, but can’t really

I’m happy to be convinced that it’s something other than, we don’t like the way these two scenarios happened and therefore the only correction is to add 4 more justices for the first time since 1869

link


Re: Probably not often, I’ve never done the research


Apr 19, 2021, 2:35 PM
flag     Reply

Do you not believe in accountability?

2021 white level member link

Yes, yes I do


Apr 20, 2021, 7:32 AM
flag     Reply

So if I’m following along correctly

Democrats do not like the way that 2 justices were allowed in and therefore want to add 4 more justices

Is this the same line of thinking?
I think that Clemson unfairly lost the football game to UofSC. The only way to hold UofSC accountable for the dirty plays that caused Clemson to lose is to make them play an overtime period with 7 players to get the result I want

I’m still happy to hear and try to understand any explanation that isn’t we didn’t get the result we liked and are now moving the goalposts to get the result we wanted

link


Re: Yes, yes I do


Apr 20, 2021, 8:50 AM
flag     Reply

LOL. You're complaining about the dems wanting to add 4 more judges, but seem to be perfectly fine with the way the 2 judges were confirmed. Why are you such a blatant hypocrite? You don't believe McConnell should be held accountable, even though he was warned and did it anyway You like most Trumpkins, love it when your side plays dirty, but cries when the other side does it. Amirite?

2021 white level member link

Rurite? No


Apr 20, 2021, 5:12 PM
flag     Reply

In order

Do you think adding 4 is comparable to the process of 2. I don’t, I think it’s very “politics as usual” that those 2 scenarios played out. I see politics being politics. I don’t feel as I am a hypocrite because I don’t think playing politics to get your way is fair for anyone. McConnell handling as such is not cool. Adding 4 more for revenge isn’t cool. I feel that is not playing sides or being a hypocrite.

I’m not a Trumpkin.

I think you finally answered my main question that this is just political revenge for the way those two situations were handled.

link


Re: Rurite? No


Apr 20, 2021, 5:29 PM
flag     Reply

How else do you propose the Dems hold McConnell and the Repubs accountable? He was warned that this may happen and he ignored it and did it anyway. You will just get run over if you continure to let people run you over. What's your solution?

2021 white level member link

As I said before


Apr 19, 2021, 11:11 AM
flag     Reply

You can’t argue that Garland should have been voted on and not Barrett. It’s one or the other and either way still would have been 5-4.

2021 orange level member link

Re: As I said before


Apr 19, 2021, 11:33 AM
flag     Reply

Both should have been voted on, but that’s not what happened.

A 6-3 majority is more substantial than a 5-4 majority. Not that hard to understand.

2021 student level member link

Re: As I said before


Apr 19, 2021, 11:35 AM
flag     Reply

A majority is a majority. Apparently y’all can’t understand that. What’s even worse is they aren’t even supporting your argument because they haven’t voted in a partisan way at all so far. Different justices have been on different sides too.

2021 orange level member link

A majority is a majority coming from the guy who believes


Apr 19, 2021, 2:44 PM
flag     Reply

80 million votes is less than 70 million

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 1:45 PM
flag     Reply

Things change, things evolve. Just coz we have 9 doesn’t mean it always has to be 9. It’s not written in stone or anything

I have always thought the filibuster is a bad idea, no matter who is in power. So getting rid of it is fine with me.

Adding to the Supremes... I’m fine with that also. You would be too if it were reverse.
Right now it would be like lefty judges added but it all comes around. At some point right leaning will have the majority and back and forth we go.

2021 white level member link

Ok, so next time pubs add 6 more


Apr 16, 2021, 1:50 PM
flag     Reply

It's supposed to be non political but this would make it all political for sure

badge-donor-05yr.jpg2005_majors_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-xtiger.jpg link


Re: Ok, so next time pubs add 6 more


Apr 16, 2021, 1:55 PM
flag     Reply

With what they are supposed to do, it should probably be more like 5 or 7 total on the court.

Clarification
Message was edited by: p6fuller®


2021 orange level member link

You are the epitome of the end justifies the means

[1]
Apr 16, 2021, 2:14 PM
flag     Reply

Same thing with your cop videos. You don’t care about the actual laws, precedent, institutions, or whatever. As long as it benefits Dems and particularly black people, you’re good with it.

Please explain why things suddenly need to change after 152 years...other than you want them to. The reality is the Dems lost the SCOTUS majority, even not counting Garland, because of just timing, and now they’re off the rails about it because they can’t legislate from the bench anymore. That’s why they’re trying to run Breyer off now too.

You can’t have it both ways. If you say Garland should be there, then you can’t complain about Barrett. Either way there’s still a Conservative majority.

The rules were designed exactly so things do NOT change, or at least in a drastic manner. You don’t just change them to get your way.

2021 orange level member link

Re: You are the epitome of the end justifies the means


Apr 16, 2021, 4:02 PM
flag     Reply

News flash for T3 and some others. Lots and lots of things have changed since we started this great country.
Laws, institutions included.

2021 white level member link

Re: You are the epitome of the end justifies the means


Apr 19, 2021, 8:40 AM
flag     Reply

That's the dumbcrat 140 character answer for you.

link

The amount has changed 6 times in our history


Apr 19, 2021, 2:48 PM
flag     Reply

has been set at 9 since the civil war.

Has changed from a low of 5 to a high of 10.

It's not unprecedented.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Re: The amount has changed 6 times in our history


Apr 19, 2021, 2:49 PM
flag     Reply

Yes 1869. What changed recently to suddenly make it an issue now? Dems lost their majority and could no longer legislate from the bench.

2021 orange level member link

McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 19, 2021, 2:50 PM
flag     Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 19, 2021, 3:00 PM
flag     Reply

Still would be 5-4 and Harry Reid started it with the nuclear option. Next.

2021 orange level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 11:12 AM
flag     Reply

We wouldn't even be discussing this had McConnell treated both nominations the same. Your another one of those who only believes in accountability when it affects your side. Why is that?

2021 white level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 11:18 AM
flag     Reply

I’ve seen you post this same thing several times now yet you refuse to answer the fact that it’s irrelevant because it would still be 5-4. You also had no problem with Harry Reid using the nuclear option to get federal judges through. Only care about one side?

2021 orange level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 12:40 PM
flag     Reply

You are the master of the tap dance. You're triggered because the Dems want to pack the court, but you were perfectly fine with how the nominations were handled. Again, who started this? I'll wait.

2021 white level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 12:47 PM
flag     Reply

Look up Harry Reid and nuclear option. There is no tap dance. I’ve made the same 5-4 argument the whole way through. You don’t seem to be able to debate either point so you still keep crying about Garland which is a moot point.

2021 orange level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 12:56 PM
flag     Reply

Lol at your deflection with the nuclear option. McConnell started this and you fully supported it. Now your triggered. And is Robert's considered a conservative, cause I've been hearing Trumpkins b!tch about him being nothing but RINO. So what is it?

2021 white level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 1:07 PM
flag     Reply

How is it a deflection? You asked who changed the rules first and I gave you the answer...Harry Reid in 2013. You can choose to believe it or not.

I have no idea about Roberts. He has voted on both sides in cases, as have the other new justices. So that also makes your argument moot, in addition to the 5-4 thing.

In the end, I guess you and others are admitting that packing the court is all about “payback” and not really about improving the court. Just want to make sure we’re all clear here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters


2021 orange level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 5:31 PM
flag     Reply

What does the Nuclear option have to do with holding up a SCOTUS nomination for over year to "let the people decide", and then ram one through to the people cannot decide? I'll wait.

2021 white level member link

Re: McConnell's bull ####***


Apr 20, 2021, 5:36 PM
flag     Reply

You’re arguing in circles. Bye now.

2021 orange level member link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court

[1]
Apr 16, 2021, 1:50 PM
flag     Reply

When the Republicans gain the executive and legislature (and they will at some point) maybe the number of Supreme Court justices should be 25. See how this works.

2021 orange level member link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 1:52 PM
flag     Reply

Haha ok
You mean the pubs will do something they were opposed to when dems tried to it?
* naw they’d never do that

2021 white level member link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 1:56 PM
flag     Reply

Only if the Dims go down that road

2021 orange level member link

That’s not the right way to look at it. The Dems are


Apr 20, 2021, 1:17 PM
flag     Reply

Threatening to court pack because they don’t like the make up of the court and they believe adding members when they control the government will allow them to have activist judges that will allow them to pass laws that a strict Constitutionalist would reject.

The Republicans argue that elections have consequences and this is a slippery slope.

If the Democrats do it, they have set a precedent. For the Republicans to then pretend that the new number has any validity is just being naive. They would be well within their right to pull the same Stu t that they now object to.

NOW, if the Democrats choose not to move forward with this court packing or actually vote against it, then yes, the Republicans would be hypocritical to then pack the court when they are in command of the government.

link

null


Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 2:04 PM
flag     Reply

I don't think this would make it through the senate.

2021 orange level member link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 2:38 PM
flag     Reply

Go with it.


Republicans will win in landslides in 22 if dems go forward with this.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court

[1]
Apr 16, 2021, 2:47 PM
flag     Reply

Personally I think they already have the majority because they are scared for theirs and their families safety if they don't vote the progressives way.Remember the yelling and screaming in the chambers about ruling on voter fraud and how they were scared about having riots and violence if they ruled there was voter fraud.Just my take on the matter.

link

Ya that never actually happened. Don’t believe everything


Apr 16, 2021, 5:52 PM
flag     Reply

you read on Parler. The Supreme Court wasn’t even meeting in person then.

link

Re: Dems and packing the Supreme Court


Apr 16, 2021, 9:29 PM
flag     Reply

would be one branch attacking another

insurrection

military_donation.jpg link

Expand to 13. Require Biden to pick 2 liberal and 2


Apr 19, 2021, 2:43 PM
flag     Reply

conservative justices. Also require a justice from each appellate circuit (this can be phased in when justices die)

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Replies: 45  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Package Deal - Asking $2500 2 Seats - On the Aisle - Low in the upper deck - Only 7 rows up from t...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
878 people have read this post