# Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court



## Disir

Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.

Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.

Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”

“What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.








						Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
					

Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…




					nypost.com
				




It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.


----------



## I c h i g o

Packing the court would threaten the “rule of law and judicial independence.” He reasoned, “While the press tends to focus on the small handful of 5-4 decisions in high-profile cases, the justices more often find themselves in broad agreement on the most difficult legal issues of the day. And when there are disagreements, they are based on legitimate and reasonable differences of opinion about the law, not the justices’ personal policy preferences.

 Plus, the Supreme Court is fiercely independent, undercutting a simplistic view of its partisan leanings. Of the 67 decisions in 2019, the four Democrat-appointed judges voted together 51 times and the five Republican-appointees 37 times. Only 7 cases had the expected political split. 

The Supreme Court should not be subjected to the rank political machinations at the heart of court packing.


----------



## occupied

Disir said:


> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.


Just let them hand down some overly broad and unpopular partisan decision overturning what has been considered settled law and it very well may happen.


----------



## Moonglow

Here's a head scratcher for the judge, how is the Dems gonna pack the court without the votes to expand it in Congress?


----------



## Disir

How about that study group? How about the nimrods that are actually telling this man that he needs to retire ASAP?


----------



## Rye Catcher

*It is a study group, and it will most likely conclude some smaller adjustments; such as require the Senate to bring forth the President's nominee within the 30 days of nomination, taking away turtle's abuse of power; all records to be brought forth taking away the power of the Judicial Committee leader to cherry pick said records.*


----------



## Uncensored2008

occupied said:


> Just let them hand down some overly broad and unpopular partisan decision overturning what has been considered settled law and it very well may happen.



The court will declare the power grab by the Reich to be unconstitutional, per Breyer.  The question is how far the Nazi party is willing to go?  Pelosi and her Nazi goons have already gone further than I ever imagined.  Will the Nazi democrats dissolve the court and declare a dictatorship? A very strong likelihood that they will.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Moonglow said:


> Here's a head scratcher for the judge, how is the Dems gonna pack the court without the votes to expand it in Congress?



By ending the filibuster making a simple majority all that is needed.

Put the bong down and pay attention once in awhile.


----------



## Disir

Rye Catcher said:


> *It is a study group, and it will most likely conclude some smaller adjustments; such as require the Senate to bring forth the President's nominee within the 30 days of nomination, taking away turtle's abuse of power; all records to be brought forth taking away the power of the Judicial Committee leader to cherry pick said records.*


It is being created specifically to explore the addition of other judges and term limits.  Get a grip.


----------



## beautress

Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?

foxnews.com


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

beautress said:


> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com



So...it must be true huh? 
Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??


----------



## Hossfly

JackOfNoTrades said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
Click to expand...


No. Biden.


----------



## JLW

JackOfNoTrades said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
Click to expand...

Remember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Communist democrats intend to never be dislodged again.  They are fashioning a system of justice in which they are always right.


----------



## MisterBeale

Yeah. . . I can't see it happening.

The rule change would have to go through Congress.   All of the GOP would oppose it, and there, would be, presumably, some sane Democrats that would oppose it to.


----------



## Kondor3

I hope they fail.

Nine is a good number.


----------



## JLW

Kondor3 said:


> I hope they fail.
> 
> Nine is a good number.


It will never happen. Dems would never get the required Congressional  votes.


----------



## jillian

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges


----------



## beautress

JackOfNoTrades said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
Click to expand...

I think you are right about it being Tucker. I also think that Tucker believes it is true based on good sources, and I hope the Democrat Party loses this desperate desire to make Communism the law of the land instead of the Constitution. They see this as an opportunity to get rid of all American opponents since they see Americans displeased with the Border crisis, a President who forgets what he is saying midsentence, the minute he utters the phrase, "come on, man."


----------



## marvin martian

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com



FDR packed the court with lefty justices so he could get away with interning Americans in concentration camps and sending Jewish holocaust refugees back to Europe to be murdered.


----------



## Moonglow

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


I think FOX News is lying to you.


----------



## Moonglow

marvin martian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR packed the court with lefty justices so he could get away with interning Americans in concentration camps and sending Jewish holocaust refugees back to Europe to be murdered.
Click to expand...

Don't quit yer day job to be a history teacher.


----------



## frigidweirdo

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com



Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner. 

It shouldn't be political at all.


----------



## StormAl

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right


----------



## beautress

jillian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
Click to expand...

What a shame you have resorted to vituperative namecalling calling rather than factual information.
I didn't steal any judges and have no scum under my fingernails. My uncle was a judge in Harris county Texas and he was one of the fairest judges of them all who cared that justice was correct in every way the law says. Some people don't like what the law says but I assure you the Constitution was intended to serve the people of the United States.


----------



## Crepitus

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.


----------



## beautress

Moonglow said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> I think FOX News is lying to you.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the Democrat Party is going to cancel this opportunity to never have to say they're sorry for their litany of improprieties on Nov. 3, 2020?


----------



## TransLivesMatter

JackOfNoTrades said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
Click to expand...










						Democrats 'to pack the Supreme Court with four new justices'
					

The Supreme Court will expand from its current nine members to 13 under a plan, which The Intercept said will be unveiled on Thursday in both the House and the Senate.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				



Nope it’s happening!

Make it happen Biden ! You said you were the most progressive candidate. We haven’t expanded the Supreme Court since 1869. It’s time for CHANGE

I was hoping for at least 7 more. Hopefully, this is just a start.

Pretty soon we’ll have the power to impeach 90% of the Republican Party!


----------



## OldLady

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.  
It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.


----------



## Moonglow

OldLady said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
Click to expand...

They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.


----------



## otto105

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


Totally agree as your republic ones asked for the review with ramming amy thru.

Seems simple, do you have a hard time with simple.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Elections have consequences. I hope the Democrats push this through as well as defund the police. Let’s go to the bottom.


----------



## TransLivesMatter

OldLady said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
Click to expand...




Moonglow said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.
Click to expand...

Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices


----------



## beautress

Crepitus said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
Click to expand...

You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

TransLivesMatter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
Click to expand...

13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!


----------



## otto105

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Elections have consequences. I hope the Democrats push this through as well as defund the police. Let’s go to the bottom.


With republic policies we have bottom.

We want better.


----------



## OldLady

frigidweirdo said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
Click to expand...

If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

beautress said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
Click to expand...

Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.


----------



## TransLivesMatter

beautress said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
Click to expand...

“No amendment is absolute” - the president of the United States


----------



## otto105

AzogtheDefiler said:


> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
Click to expand...

What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections have consequences. I hope the Democrats push this through as well as defund the police. Let’s go to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> With republic policies we have bottom.
> 
> We want better.
Click to expand...

What is a “republic policy”


----------



## Esdraelon

MisterBeale said:


> Yeah. . . I can't see it happening.
> 
> The rule change would have to go through Congress.   All of the GOP would oppose it, and there, would be, presumably, some sane Democrats that would oppose it to.


All Schumer has to do is get a simple majority to change the rules in the Senate.  If Manchin and Sinema go along, the Dems can pretty much make whatever changes they want.  The question is, what's NEXT after they do it?


----------



## OldLady

Moonglow said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.
Click to expand...

It's Tucker desperately trying to keep the rabble roused.  Fighting chimeras is his specialty.  Fuck him and all that do it like him.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
Click to expand...

No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.


----------



## XponentialChaos

I don't see this happening.

But I also don't see _any_ Supreme Court nominations getting voted on unless the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President.


----------



## Moonglow

OldLady said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's Tucker desperately trying to keep the rabble roused.  Fighting chimeras is his specialty.  Fuck him and all that do it like him.
Click to expand...

The Dems do not have the votes in Congress to do anything to the size of the Supreme Court..


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

OldLady said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's Tucker desperately trying to keep the rabble roused.  Fighting chimeras is his specialty.  Fuck him and all that do it like him.
Click to expand...

Ratings. He gets em. It’s News Entertainment not news.


----------



## otto105

AzogtheDefiler said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections have consequences. I hope the Democrats push this through as well as defund the police. Let’s go to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> With republic policies we have bottom.
> 
> We want better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a “republic policy”
Click to expand...

Your republic polices.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

XponentialChaos said:


> I don't see this happening.
> 
> But I also don't see _any_ Supreme Court nominations getting voted on unless the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President.


Yep. 100% partisan and it is happening, leftist. 20 Justices. Maybe 30. Why not? Expand the Govt!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elections have consequences. I hope the Democrats push this through as well as defund the police. Let’s go to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> With republic policies we have bottom.
> 
> We want better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a “republic policy”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your republic polices.
Click to expand...

Name em. No idea what you’re talking about it, filthy human.


----------



## otto105

AzogtheDefiler said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

Again you portray yourself as a strict constitutional republic and you don’t know what the document states?


----------



## Thinker101

Moonglow said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's Tucker desperately trying to keep the rabble roused.  Fighting chimeras is his specialty.  Fuck him and all that do it like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dems do not have the votes in Congress to do anything to the size of the Supreme Court..
Click to expand...


If you lie/cheat/steal enough...they do.


----------



## OldLady

otto105 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree as your republic ones asked for the review with ramming amy thru.
> 
> Seems simple, do you have a hard time with simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, they asked for it--with Garland.  Amy was going to happen, either before the election or during the lame duck session.  I don't see how that was out of line except that they could have waited for the body to be cold.  But that's just manners. But who expects that?


----------



## TransLivesMatter

Moonglow said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are doing a study this hit piece in the OP is projection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's Tucker desperately trying to keep the rabble roused.  Fighting chimeras is his specialty.  Fuck him and all that do it like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dems do not have the votes in Congress to do anything to the size of the Supreme Court..
Click to expand...

Once the filibuster is gone Harris = 51 !


----------



## beautress

TransLivesMatter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
Click to expand...

Changing the Constitution for nefarious gain does not make me feel love but it does make me feel repulsed by the Alinski push toward Marxist hell the Democrat Party desire for the expedient picking of taxpayer pockets with no opposition.


----------



## theHawk

jillian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
Click to expand...

“Steal” judges?


----------



## OldLady

theHawk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Steal” judges?
Click to expand...

Yes, "stole."


----------



## theHawk

OldLady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Steal” judges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, "stole."
Click to expand...

Which ones?


----------



## OldLady

theHawk said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Steal” judges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, "stole."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which ones?
Click to expand...

Why don't you read the thread?  It's not that long!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Johnlaw said:


> emember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.


Yeah, who would be silly enough to believe the democrats want to pack the court... the way FDR did.
So that Ruth Ginsberg had to issue a public comment squashing the idea.
They way they tried to make DC a state or Puerto Rico, to gain more members in Congress. Or excommunicate any politician who sided with Trump...to gain more support in Congress.

Who can believe all that, I wonder.


----------



## shockedcanadian

I'm a Canadian and I saw this coming, along with quite a number of decisions meant to alter your system.  How many of you laughed when some suggested this would be the play?  It appears it is precisely what some believed it would be.









						Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court
					

Several House Democrats are set to unveil legislation Thursday to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.




					www.foxnews.com
				




Democratic lawmakers are set to unveil legislation Thursday to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., will hold a press conference on Thursday to introduce the proposal on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Given their control of the White House and the Senate, the legislation could allow them to supersede the current conservative majority by "packing" the Court with liberal justices.


Spokespeople for the lawmakers’ offices did not return Fox News’ requests Wednesday night for further details.

*The Intercept** reported on Wednesday that the legislation will propose expanding the court to 13 justices, from nine.*

The Supreme Court has had nine justices since the 19th century, though it is not required by the Constitution.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced legislation earlier this year that included a constitutional amendment to preserve the current number of sitting justices, as well as provisions prohibiting congress from passing legislation to expand the number.

Cruz first introduced that legislation in October, as some Democrats indicated an openness to expanding the size of the high court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg’s vacancy was filled by Donald Trump-appointee Amy Coney Barrett, marking Trump’s third appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett also tilted the ideological power balance of the court in favor of conservatives 6 to 3.


----------



## beautress

otto105 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree as your republic ones asked for the review with ramming amy thru.
> 
> Seems simple, do you have a hard time with simple.
Click to expand...

I don't mind simple. It is puerile behavior that I find inappropriate.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

TransLivesMatter said:


> Pretty soon we’ll have the power to impeach 90% of the Republican Party!


Wow! As unrealistic as you are repulsive.


----------



## AFrench2

There's already a topic that breaks the Clean Title rule ,but the mods don't care because attacking liberals cool. here you go.





__





						Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court
					

Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.  Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## OldLady

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> emember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, who would be silly enough to believe the democrats want to pack the court... the way FDR did.
> So that Ruth Ginsberg had to issue a public comment squashing the idea.
> They way they tried to make DC a state or Puerto Rico, to gain more members in Congress. Or excommunicate any politician who sided with Trump...to gain more support in Congress.
> 
> Who can believe all that, I wonder.
Click to expand...

Oh, there are some crazy gonzos in the Democrat party that would love to play this power game, but they'll never get the votes.  President Biden is against it.  If it reached his desk (which it never will) I doubt if he would sign it.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

shockedcanadian said:


> I'm a Canadian and I saw this coming, along with quite a number of decisions meant to alter your system.  How many of you laughed when some suggested this would be the play?  It appears it is precisely what some believed it would be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court
> 
> 
> Several House Democrats are set to unveil legislation Thursday to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic lawmakers are set to unveil legislation Thursday to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., will hold a press conference on Thursday to introduce the proposal on the steps of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Given their control of the White House and the Senate, the legislation could allow them to supersede the current conservative majority by "packing" the Court with liberal justices.
> 
> 
> Spokespeople for the lawmakers’ offices did not return Fox News’ requests Wednesday night for further details.
> 
> The Intercept reported on Wednesday that the legislation will propose expanding the court to 13 justices, from nine.
> 
> The Supreme Court has had nine justices since the 19th century, though it is not required by the Constitution.
> 
> Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced legislation earlier this year that included a constitutional amendment to preserve the current number of sitting justices, as well as provisions prohibiting congress from passing legislation to expand the number.
> 
> Cruz first introduced that legislation in October, as some Democrats indicated an openness to expanding the size of the high court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
> 
> Ginsburg’s vacancy was filled by Donald Trump-appointee Amy Coney Barrett, marking Trump’s third appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett also tilted the ideological power balance of the court in favor of conservatives 6 to 3.


Uhm first off, (Epstein Island) John Roberts "appointed by Establishment Progressive George Bush" is not a conservative so it is 5 to 4, if we are lucky.  But remember what Darth Bader had said..


----------



## Peace

OldLady said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
Click to expand...


Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

AFrench2 said:


> There's already a topic that breaks the Clean Title rule ,but the mods don't care because attacking liberals cool. here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.  Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


You need a good ole fashion ass spanking tonight. But you might like it too much


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you portray yourself as a strict constitutional republic and you don’t know what the document states?
Click to expand...

I do? LOL show me where, filthy human. I portray Myself as a logical citizen. You believe men may identify as women. You failed basic biology.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
Click to expand...

Biden is up there in years....


----------



## OldLady

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
Click to expand...

Stephen Breyer is 82.


----------



## OldLady

AFrench2 said:


> There's already a topic that breaks the Clean Title rule ,but the mods don't care because attacking liberals cool. here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.  Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


That clean start thing was a momentary fad.


----------



## Peace

OldLady said:


> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stephen Breyer is 82.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I am writing about Conservative Judges that could be replaced in the next two years and Thomas and Alito are the two if something were to happen to them...


----------



## beautress

Johnlaw said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.
Click to expand...

It must not mean much. Mr. Carlson brings home the bacon to Foxnews along with Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, McEnanney, Bongino, Pirro, Rivera, Watters, et al.


----------



## OldLady

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
Click to expand...

They're only in their early 70's, although I heard Thomas was beginning to make noises about retiring a few years ago.
Breyer, on the other hand, is one of those considered "liberal," and a lot of Dems want him to git while the getting's good, before the 2022 elections when the Republicans could retake the Senate and we end up with another RBG situation if he got ill.


----------



## Peace

OldLady said:


> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're only in their early 70's, although I heard Thomas was beginning to make noises about retiring a few years ago.
> Breyer, on the other hand, is one of those considered "liberal," and a lot of Dems want him to git while the getting's good, before the 2022 elections when the Republicans could retake the Senate and we end up with another RBG situation if he got ill.
Click to expand...


If Biden get Reparations passed you can bet the House and Senate are gone in 2022 and any possible plans to do anything else will be DOA including Justices being appointed...


----------



## OldLady

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stephen Breyer is 82.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I am writing about Conservative Judges that could be replaced in the next two years and Thomas and Alito are the two of something were to happen to them...
Click to expand...

And if they're as nonpartisan as they like to say they are, the balance of the Court won't affect their decisions.  But we know it affected Ruth's and it probably is on the minds of all of them.  They believe in their interpretations of the law and want to see it continued.  That's not so strange, I guess.


----------



## Peace

OldLady said:


> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stephen Breyer is 82.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I am writing about Conservative Judges that could be replaced in the next two years and Thomas and Alito are the two of something were to happen to them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if they're as nonpartisan as they like to say they are, the balance of the Court won't affect their decisions.  But we know it affected Ruth's and it probably is on the minds of all of them.  They believe in their interpretations of the law and want to see it continued.  That's not so strange, I guess.
Click to expand...


Roberts seem to be one who is not owned and swings on the big cases, but the three appointed by Trump are three that will live by their Conservative way of thinking...


----------



## OldLady

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're only in their early 70's, although I heard Thomas was beginning to make noises about retiring a few years ago.
> Breyer, on the other hand, is one of those considered "liberal," and a lot of Dems want him to git while the getting's good, before the 2022 elections when the Republicans could retake the Senate and we end up with another RBG situation if he got ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Biden get Reparations passed you can bet the House and Senate are gone in 2022 and any possible plans to do anything else will be DOA including Justices being appointed...
Click to expand...

Reparations?  I hadn't heard that the House even approved the commission to study such a thing?  (And all that budget stuff has to start in the House, doesn't it?)  What have I missed?


----------



## OldLady

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stephen Breyer is 82.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I am writing about Conservative Judges that could be replaced in the next two years and Thomas and Alito are the two of something were to happen to them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if they're as nonpartisan as they like to say they are, the balance of the Court won't affect their decisions.  But we know it affected Ruth's and it probably is on the minds of all of them.  They believe in their interpretations of the law and want to see it continued.  That's not so strange, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts seem to be one who is not owned and swings on the big cases, but the three appointed by Trump are three that will live by their Conservative way of thinking...
Click to expand...

Agreed.


----------



## beautress

marvin martian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR packed the court with lefty justices so he could get away with interning Americans in concentration camps and sending Jewish holocaust refugees back to Europe to be murdered.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Marvin Martain. I pray President Roosevelt did not know at the time that there were gas showers in Nazi detainment camps. My mom said they didn't know of the mass murders until much later as the world war two dragged on.


----------



## Peace

OldLady said:


> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're only in their early 70's, although I heard Thomas was beginning to make noises about retiring a few years ago.
> Breyer, on the other hand, is one of those considered "liberal," and a lot of Dems want him to git while the getting's good, before the 2022 elections when the Republicans could retake the Senate and we end up with another RBG situation if he got ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Biden get Reparations passed you can bet the House and Senate are gone in 2022 and any possible plans to do anything else will be DOA including Justices being appointed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparations?  I hadn't heard that the House even approved the commission to study such a thing?  (And all that budget stuff has to start in the House, doesn't it?)  What have I missed?
Click to expand...


Just a lot of hot air for now but if by some miracle it happens you can kiss 2022 and 2024 goodbye and any possibility of replacing Thomas and Alito...


----------



## OldLady

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Jack_Flint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alito and Thomas are up there in years, so it is possible those two seats flip before Biden leaves office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're only in their early 70's, although I heard Thomas was beginning to make noises about retiring a few years ago.
> Breyer, on the other hand, is one of those considered "liberal," and a lot of Dems want him to git while the getting's good, before the 2022 elections when the Republicans could retake the Senate and we end up with another RBG situation if he got ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Biden get Reparations passed you can bet the House and Senate are gone in 2022 and any possible plans to do anything else will be DOA including Justices being appointed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparations?  I hadn't heard that the House even approved the commission to study such a thing?  (And all that budget stuff has to start in the House, doesn't it?)  What have I missed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a lot of hot air for now but if by some miracle it happens you can kiss 2022 and 2024 goodbye and any possibility of replacing Thomas and Alito...
Click to expand...

Don't pull a Tucker and get everyone shaking their pitchforks over nothing, Jack.  It would take more than a common miracle to have any kind of reparations bill on the table.


----------



## XponentialChaos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see this happening.
> 
> But I also don't see _any_ Supreme Court nominations getting voted on unless the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. 100% partisan and it is happening, leftist. 20 Justices. Maybe 30. Why not? Expand the Govt!
Click to expand...


I see very partisan Supreme Court nominations.  But not stacking.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

XponentialChaos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see this happening.
> 
> But I also don't see _any_ Supreme Court nominations getting voted on unless the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. 100% partisan and it is happening, leftist. 20 Justices. Maybe 30. Why not? Expand the Govt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see very partisan Supreme Court nominations.  But not stacking.
Click to expand...

Anything is possible. The country is utterly divided.


----------



## tyroneweaver

jillian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
Click to expand...

gop judges aren't the ones letting crooks outta jail, sweetie.


----------



## frigidweirdo

OldLady said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...


Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.


----------



## OldLady

frigidweirdo said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.
Click to expand...

I never heard of it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

OldLady said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of it.
Click to expand...


And isn't that the problem? No one has ever heard of PR.

It's simple. Everyone gets one vote, their vote is equal to everyone else's vote in the country.


----------



## XponentialChaos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see this happening.
> 
> But I also don't see _any_ Supreme Court nominations getting voted on unless the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. 100% partisan and it is happening, leftist. 20 Justices. Maybe 30. Why not? Expand the Govt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see very partisan Supreme Court nominations.  But not stacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything is possible. The country is utterly divided.
Click to expand...


Indeed it is.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you portray yourself as a strict constitutional republic and you don’t know what the document states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do? LOL show me where, filthy human. I portray Myself as a logical citizen. You believe men may identify as women. You failed basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, logic and you are mutual exclusive.
> 
> In reality you're just some turd posting bullshit looking for another turd to like you.
Click to expand...

^^^Triggered^^^ LOL

Try identifying as a man and see how that goes for you


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The Communists want to destroy every institution we have.


----------



## OldLady

frigidweirdo said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And isn't that the problem? No one has ever heard of PR.
> 
> It's simple. Everyone gets one vote, their vote is equal to everyone else's vote in the country.
Click to expand...

So no EC?  I've certainly heard of that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

OldLady said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And isn't that the problem? No one has ever heard of PR.
> 
> It's simple. Everyone gets one vote, their vote is equal to everyone else's vote in the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no EC?  I've certainly heard of that.
Click to expand...


Well, the EC is pointless in the modern era. 

With the presidency you might have something like the French have, a run off system. Everyone votes for whoever they like in the first round and then between the two who got the most votes in a second round. 

Or you could have an Alternative Voting system where people vote for multiple candidates. If their first candidate is out, then their second vote is counted, or their third or fourth.

Or the US could do away with a President in the current system and have the leader of the House as the head of the executive. 

Personally I think there should be an executive with multiple members who deal with different issues. People can vote on different issues by electing different members of the executive.


----------



## Crepitus

beautress said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
Click to expand...

Bart O'kavenaugh lied under oath.  Instant disqualification.

And I notice you avoided the other point.


----------



## Crepitus

AzogtheDefiler said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
Click to expand...

Just playing to my audience.


----------



## Quasar44

Dems are the Stalins of our time


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Crepitus said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just playing to my audience.
Click to expand...

No. You’re just an immature jackass.


----------



## blackhawk

JackOfNoTrades said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
Click to expand...

Shannon Bream actually someone who has actual journalistic and legal credentials.


----------



## OldLady

frigidweirdo said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And isn't that the problem? No one has ever heard of PR.
> 
> It's simple. Everyone gets one vote, their vote is equal to everyone else's vote in the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no EC?  I've certainly heard of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the EC is pointless in the modern era.
> 
> With the presidency you might have something like the French have, a run off system. Everyone votes for whoever they like in the first round and then between the two who got the most votes in a second round.
> 
> Or you could have an Alternative Voting system where people vote for multiple candidates. If their first candidate is out, then their second vote is counted, or their third or fourth.
> 
> Or the US could do away with a President in the current system and have the leader of the House as the head of the executive.
> 
> Personally I think there should be an executive with multiple members who deal with different issues. People can vote on different issues by electing different members of the executive.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers considered an Executive Committee but decided against it because of the inevitable disagreements that would ensue, making action more difficult.  They wanted an overall manager, not ruler.  The Executive has grown enormously in its power from what the FF envisioned.

I'm with you on ranked choice voting.  It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.


----------



## Crepitus

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just playing to my audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You’re just an immature jackass.
Click to expand...

It's nice to have fans.


----------



## frigidweirdo

OldLady said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it.  In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work.  But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the only way to get real change is for the people to support Proportional Representation first. Without it, nothing will change. And even PR is an almost impossible one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And isn't that the problem? No one has ever heard of PR.
> 
> It's simple. Everyone gets one vote, their vote is equal to everyone else's vote in the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So no EC?  I've certainly heard of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the EC is pointless in the modern era.
> 
> With the presidency you might have something like the French have, a run off system. Everyone votes for whoever they like in the first round and then between the two who got the most votes in a second round.
> 
> Or you could have an Alternative Voting system where people vote for multiple candidates. If their first candidate is out, then their second vote is counted, or their third or fourth.
> 
> Or the US could do away with a President in the current system and have the leader of the House as the head of the executive.
> 
> Personally I think there should be an executive with multiple members who deal with different issues. People can vote on different issues by electing different members of the executive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founding Fathers considered an Executive Committee but decided against it because of the inevitable disagreements that would ensue, making action more difficult.  They wanted an overall manager, not ruler.  The Executive has grown enormously in its power from what the FF envisioned.
> 
> I'm with you on ranked choice voting.  It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.
Click to expand...


Yes, the put in the amendment process because they knew the system would become outdated. 

What they didn't count on was that the people wouldn't bother to change it much.


----------



## Kilroy2

It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also. 

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.


----------



## Mac-7

Disir said:


> No term limits on SCOTUS either.


Term limits does not favor either political party

the absolute power that black robes have is corrupting and should be  limited


----------



## Mac-7

OldLady said:


> with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.


I dont think you understand what you are in favor of

it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority


----------



## Mac-7

frigidweirdo said:


> What they didn't count on was that the people wouldn't bother to change it much.


And the progressive/neo marxist answer to that situation is to pack the courts with libs who will make amendments from the bench


----------



## OldLady

Mac-7 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you understand what you are in favor of
> 
> it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I know how it works.  I live in Maine, remember?  The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument.  Who knows?  Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting).  When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented.  Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.


----------



## San Souci

Uncensored2008 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a head scratcher for the judge, how is the Dems gonna pack the court without the votes to expand it in Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By ending the filibuster making a simple majority all that is needed.
> 
> Put the bong down and pay attention once in awhile.
Click to expand...

There can be no simple majority if no quorum. If 50 Repubs refuse quorum ,there is no vote. Romney and Murkowski hated Trump ,but I don't think they have any love for Schumer and Pelosi either.


----------



## San Souci

Kilroy2 said:


> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.


There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.


----------



## Kilroy2

San Souci said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving a point.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Mac-7 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they didn't count on was that the people wouldn't bother to change it much.
> 
> 
> 
> And the progressive/neo marxist answer to that situation is to pack the courts with libs who will make amendments from the bench
Click to expand...


Well, I'm sure the right would do it too.


----------



## Mac-7

OldLady said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you understand what you are in favor of
> 
> it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure I know how it works.  I live in Maine, remember?  The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument.  Who knows?  Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting).  When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented.  Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.
Click to expand...

How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?


----------



## Mac-7

frigidweirdo said:


> I'm sure the right would do it too.


We never have

the two most recent efforts to pack an expanded court were democrats FDR and biden


----------



## frigidweirdo

Mac-7 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the right would do it too.
> 
> 
> 
> We never have
> 
> the two most recent efforts to pack an expanded court were democrats FDR and biden
Click to expand...


Well, the left hasn't done it.

FDR was on the conservative side. However the Supreme Court remained at 9 justices. So he didn't pack it anyway. 

But both sides know what would happen if the other started doing it.

1870 was the last time a new Justice didn't replace anyone.


----------



## San Souci

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
Click to expand...

What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


----------



## OldLady

Mac-7 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you understand what you are in favor of
> 
> it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure I know how it works.  I live in Maine, remember?  The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument.  Who knows?  Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting).  When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented.  Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?
Click to expand...

People don't have to go back to the polls.  And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.


----------



## San Souci

OldLady said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you understand what you are in favor of
> 
> it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure I know how it works.  I live in Maine, remember?  The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument.  Who knows?  Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting).  When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented.  Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People don't have to go back to the polls.  And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.
Click to expand...

This ain't Parliament. Winner should take all.


----------



## OldLady

San Souci said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> with you on ranked choice voting. It would allow the stranglehold on politics by the two major parties to be broken.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think you understand what you are in favor of
> 
> it only affects races where no candidate wins a majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure I know how it works.  I live in Maine, remember?  The reason it would encourage more third party voting is that it eliminates the 'wasted vote' argument.  Who knows?  Independents might win (actually, we usually do have a strong Independent running, which is why we chose to use ranked choice voting).  When no one gets even half the votes, it leaves a lot of Mainers unrepresented.  Now people can at least have a second choice where their vote should go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that better than a simple runoff between the top two candidates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People don't have to go back to the polls.  And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This ain't Parliament. Winner should take all.
Click to expand...

I think in order to get some things fixed in DC, we need to be more welcoming to ideas and voices outside the established Dem/ Repub monopoly on politics.  As long as it's plurality takes all, that will never change.  All votes should count.


----------



## Mac-7

frigidweirdo said:


> FDR was on the conservative side. However the Supreme Court remained at 9 justices. So he didn't pack it anyway.


FDR was the flaming liberal democrat of his day and he wanted pack the court was was unable to do so

whether biden has better luck remains to be seen


----------



## Mac-7

OldLady said:


> And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.


You means it gives the environmental wacko, dope legalization, lbqwxyz/north American man boy love association candidates a chance to win


----------



## Mac-7

OldLady said:


> *I think in order to get some things fixed in DC, we need to be more welcoming to ideas and voices outside the established Dem/ Repub monopoly on politics.*


NO you dont

trump was the only non politician to ever be president

and he was not interested in the washington business as usual approach

but Trump was an alpha male and that was too much for your delicate psyche to handle

so you voted the same old inside washington corrupt swamp rats back into office


----------



## Bush92

Democratic Party is worried that states passing election integrity laws by ending the stuffing of drop boxes in the middle of the night with untraceable mail-in ballots will stop them from stealing elections. They need to have a packed High Court that will help them usurp democracy in America by striking down election integrity laws. Democratic Party knows they will lose control of Congress in 2022 unless they are allowed to steal elections with vote harvesting and mail-in ballot fraud.


----------



## OldLady

Mac-7 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.
> 
> 
> 
> You means it gives the environmental wacko, dope legalization, lbqwxyz/north American man boy love association candidates a chance to win
Click to expand...

Why do you go there?  You want to vote Republican forever, go for it, but the rest of us would like a choice.


----------



## Bush92

Johnlaw said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they fail.
> 
> Nine is a good number.
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen. Dems would never get the required Congressional  votes.
Click to expand...

Democratic Party is a threat to the Republic and this is just another example of their socialist power grab.


----------



## 22lcidw

Bush92 said:


> Democratic Party is worried that states passing election integrity laws by ending the stuffing of drop boxes in the middle of the night with untraceable mail-in ballots will stop them from stealing elections. They need to have a packed High Court that will help them usurp democracy in America by striking down election integrity laws. Democratic Party knows they will lose control of Congress in 2022 unless they are allowed to steal elections with vote harvesting and mail-in ballot fraud.


And that in itself tell you they are the real insurrectionists. The Constitution has been used against itself as the founding fathers warned could happen.


----------



## Bush92

OldLady said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it allows for multiple candidates to be counted.
> 
> 
> 
> You means it gives the environmental wacko, dope legalization, lbqwxyz/north American man boy love association candidates a chance to win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you go there?  You want to vote Republican forever, go for it, but the rest of us would like a choice.
Click to expand...

So you vote for the political party that wants to turn the United States into an Orwellian dystopian leftist nightmare? This is a power grab by Big Brother in Washington D.C. and Marxist-Democrat Party.


----------



## Papageorgio

StormAl said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
Click to expand...


I can also see why the Democrats want to do this. They are also control freaks.


----------



## Bush92

22lcidw said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Party is worried that states passing election integrity laws by ending the stuffing of drop boxes in the middle of the night with untraceable mail-in ballots will stop them from stealing elections. They need to have a packed High Court that will help them usurp democracy in America by striking down election integrity laws. Democratic Party knows they will lose control of Congress in 2022 unless they are allowed to steal elections with vote harvesting and mail-in ballot fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> And that in itself tell you they are the real insurrectionists. The Constitution has been used against itself as the founding fathers warned could happen.
Click to expand...

The Constitution leaves elections up to the state legislatures. Because Republican Party controls 2/3 of state legislatures via the people of those states, the Marxist-Democrat Party must find a way to crush the will of the people.


----------



## Bush92

MisterBeale said:


> Yeah. . . I can't see it happening.
> 
> The rule change would have to go through Congress.   All of the GOP would oppose it, and there, would be, presumably, some sane Democrats that would oppose it to.


Outside of Joe Manchin, there are no sane Democrats. Look at Kavanaugh hearings and remember how Democrats acted. One of the major ass clowns from that smear campaign is now the Vice-President of the United States and Mr. McGoo is our President.


----------



## Bush92

JackOfNoTrades said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
Click to expand...

Nope. The Democratic Party. Not Tucker Carlson.


----------



## Bush92

occupied said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> Just let them hand down some overly broad and unpopular partisan decision overturning what has been considered settled law and it very well may happen.
Click to expand...

Court packing is unpopular.


----------



## Bush92

Uncensored2008 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just let them hand down some overly broad and unpopular partisan decision overturning what has been considered settled law and it very well may happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court will declare the power grab by the Reich to be unconstitutional, per Breyer.  The question is how far the Nazi party is willing to go?  Pelosi and her Nazi goons have already gone further than I ever imagined.  Will the Nazi democrats dissolve the court and declare a dictatorship? A very strong likelihood that they will.
Click to expand...

They are prepared to stop at nothing to turn the United States into a one political party Soviet style state.


----------



## Death Angel

Disir said:


> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.


I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.


----------



## StormAl

Papageorgio said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can also see why the Democrats want to do this. They are also control freaks.
Click to expand...

. . . as are the GOP.


----------



## Papageorgio

StormAl said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can also see why the Democrats want to do this. They are also control freaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . . . as are the GOP.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say otherwise. I dislike the GOP and the Democratic Party for being corrupt and letting corporate America run them.


----------



## Disir

jillian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
Click to expand...

Except he didn't.  Loon.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

blackhawk said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shannon Bream actually someone who has actual journalistic and legal credentials.
Click to expand...


Shannon Beam isjust another Fox News bottled blonde. I think we had one as press secretary. 
You righties like her because she's good looking. She looks like you. And thinks like you. You can relate to her.
Now, what she actually presents on her show, is a different matter. And in that manner, she's just another right wing talking parrot.


----------



## Disir

Death Angel said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
Click to expand...

There is a reason they are appointed for life.


----------



## Death Angel

Disir said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
Click to expand...

So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?

There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.

Turn them loose at 80


----------



## Disir

Death Angel said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
Click to expand...

No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.


----------



## Papageorgio

JackOfNoTrades said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shannon Bream actually someone who has actual journalistic and legal credentials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shannon Beam isjust another Fox News bottled blonde. I think we had one as press secretary.
> You righties like her because she's good looking. She looks like you. And thinks like you. You can relate to her.
> Now, what she actually presents on her show, is a different matter. And in that manner, she's just another right wing talking parrot.
Click to expand...


No different then Rachel Maddow is for the left. The two sides are no different.


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
Click to expand...

Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
Click to expand...

As if it wasn't already.


----------



## Disir

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.
Click to expand...

But, we don't need that do we unless it's to make you feel better.  We haven't needed that in the past.


----------



## Disir

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
Click to expand...


You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?


----------



## Papageorgio

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.
Click to expand...

If there minds are still sharp and there health is good, I see no reason for them to retire. Ginsberg was sick and battled a terminal disease, she should have retired however she was motivated to stay for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Disir

I don't think she was for the wrong reasons.  I can guarantee you that these very same people on this board that are all for it now under B**** would be flipping out something fierce if Trump was asking for the study.  I promise you that.


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
Click to expand...

What game is that?


----------



## my2¢

*Let's play Jeopardy* 

*A: New York University School of Law professor and former White House Counsel to Barack Obama. 
Q: Who is Bob Bauer?*





Liberals Should Not Pack the Courts - The Atlantic​*Okay this one is yours: *

*A: He was recently named to co-chair President Biden's Commission on the Supreme Court.*
*Q: Who is _______________*

Anyone?  Anyone?
​


----------



## Disir

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
Click to expand...


The politicizing the court game. 

The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.


----------



## OldLady

Papageorgio said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there minds are still sharp and there health is good, I see no reason for them to retire. Ginsberg was sick and battled a terminal disease, she should have retired however she was motivated to stay for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

Fine, term limits aren't something I care about, but I can understand the reasoning, I guess.  A lot of the right are bitterly complaining that President Biden is senile, that RBG was senile, that others do their work, so I guess it's an issue for some people.


----------



## Aldo Raine

Rye Catcher said:


> *It is a study group, and it will most likely conclude some smaller adjustments; such as require the Senate to bring forth the President's nominee within the 30 days of nomination, taking away turtle's abuse of power; all records to be brought forth taking away the power of the Judicial Committee leader to cherry pick said records.*



I would be for this not expansion of the SC.
MAGA


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
Click to expand...

Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.


----------



## Aldo Raine

Johnlaw said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.
Click to expand...


 Is he related to the Kraken Lady?
MAGA


----------



## Disir

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
Click to expand...


Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Disir said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
Click to expand...

I did accuse him of that.  I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.

This has been a pretty good thread so far.  Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it?  You are better than that.


----------



## Disir

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did accuse him of that.  I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.
> 
> This has been a pretty good thread so far.  Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it?  You are better than that.
Click to expand...

No. You don't.


----------



## Mac-7

Papageorgio said:


> If there minds are still sharp and there health is good, I see no reason for them to retire.


That is a lot of power to place in the hands of one person

its no different than term limits for the president

the reason presidents are limited has nothing to do with age or how sharp their brain is, but rather the danger of abusing their power


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did accuse him of that.  I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.
> 
> This has been a pretty good thread so far.  Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it?  You are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't.
Click to expand...

Go hump someone else's leg, bitch. Guess I made a mistake respecting you as an intelligent poster.  Lights out.


----------



## Disir

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did accuse him of that.  I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.
> 
> This has been a pretty good thread so far.  Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it?  You are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go hump someone else's leg, bitch. Guess I made a mistake respecting you as an intelligent poster.  Lights out.
Click to expand...

Fuck off.


----------



## beautress

OldLady said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there minds are still sharp and there health is good, I see no reason for them to retire. Ginsberg was sick and battled a terminal disease, she should have retired however she was motivated to stay for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, term limits aren't something I care about, but I can understand the reasoning, I guess.  A lot of the right are bitterly complaining that President Biden is senile, that RBG was senile, that others do their work, so I guess it's an issue for some people.
Click to expand...


It (mental unfitness such as senility/dementia/Altzheimer's) certainly was an issue to the founders who wrote the United States Constitution. And Joe Biden was well on his way to profound confusion that goes with 'senility' when he was hiding himself in the basement during the campaign months. He is totally dependent on his puppeteers who used him to obfuscate their bent to take over this free land only to push Marxist theory to replace amendments by cancelling Constirutional safeguards for the common man to be equal with and oppose those whose designs target the tenets of liberty for all.

History of socialism winds up murdering opponents and not negotiation with opposition the fake will to share power. AOC put it in no uncertain terms that she would like to push her experimentalism over accounting to her opposition a few weeks ago before her fake reelection in a district fighting unemployment when she kicked out Amazon from making her district prosperous with the wealth of jobs in her New York burrough. God help the real grass roots suffering under AOC's severe incompetence and major unpopularity remedied only by crooked ballot stuffing to put her chaotic incompetence back into power. I think she is even less popular than Biden's mental decline. Sick way to get "elected" when you are that unpopular with the common people who depend on honesty to vote. That honesty is no longer there but power grabs are ruling in Democrat precincts. 

America should have enforced the 1954 law Congress passed to forbid Communism in this land. It is pure hell against human rights.


----------



## beautress

StormAl said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
Click to expand...

Welcome to USMB, Stormal. Hope you enjoy the boards, but I recommend that you loosten those tight shoestrings over your left socks.


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right



You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.

Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Crepitus said:


> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.



What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?

Fuck you.

Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."


----------



## BluesLegend

Disir said:


> Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.



RIGGING is what Democrats do. Rig social media and the press. Flood the country with millions of illegals to rig the electorate. Ignore election laws. Ignore immigration laws. Ignore the Constitution. Ignore election outcomes. Ballot 'harvesting'. 

You have to hand it to the little Dem bastards there's no evil they won't use to gain power.


----------



## Uncensored2008

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com



Fix Bayonetes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JackOfNoTrades said:


> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??



Retard, are you claiming the Reich is NOT trying to pack the court? 

Fucking Nazis.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Johnlaw said:


> Remember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.



Yo Nazi;

Before I call you a fucking liar, why don't you go ahead and link to a legitimate source on that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

MisterBeale said:


> Yeah. . . I can't see it happening.
> 
> The rule change would have to go through Congress.   All of the GOP would oppose it, and there, would be, presumably, some sane Democrats that would oppose it to.



Nope, 

The Nazis, the democrats, march in lockstep as one collective with a central hive-mind.


----------



## JLW

Uncensored2008 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo Nazi;
> 
> Before I call you a fucking liar, why don't you go ahead and link to a legitimate source on that?
Click to expand...

Google is your friend, Bozo.









						Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously
					

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




Sydney Powell is using the Tucker Carlson defense.









						Sidney Powell Uses Same Defamation Defense as Tucker Carlson's Fox Show
					

Powell's attorneys claim that reasonable people would not have believed her accusations against Dominion to be fact instead of opinion.




					www.newsweek.com
				




Her defense, like Tucker's, is that only idiots would believe what she had to say.


----------



## Nostra




----------



## StormAl

Uncensored2008 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.
> 
> Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
Click to expand...

You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.


----------



## Nostra

Looks like a veto is coming................


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.
> 
> Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
Click to expand...


DERP

A Reich Member is about to regale us with how a system where the means of production is under the absolute control of the state, in which the state sets production levels, what products will be produced. in what quantity, and at what price they will be sold under a totalitarian dictatorship, where individualism is repressed - brutally - in favor of the collective, where individual rights are supplanted in favor of group privilege, where dissent against the party, the Reich, or collectivism is a criminal act, where religion is highly regulated, and doctrine determined by the state is somehow not socialist.


----------



## Moonglow

What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.


----------



## StormAl

Uncensored2008 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
Click to expand...

You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.


----------



## StormAl

Uncensored2008 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.
> 
> Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DERP
> 
> A Reich Member is about to regale us with how a system where the means of production is under the absolute control of the state, in which the state sets production levels, what products will be produced. in what quantity, and at what price they will be sold under a totalitarian dictatorship, where individualism is repressed - brutally - in favor of the collective, where individual rights are supplanted in favor of group privilege, where dissent against the party, the Reich, or collectivism is a criminal act, where religion is highly regulated, and doctrine determined by the state is somehow not socialist.
Click to expand...

. . . which economic system and its means of production in the US is under the control of the government?

You seem very confused.


----------



## Crepitus

StormAl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
Click to expand...

He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.


----------



## Doc7505

Moonglow said:


> What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.



What you didn't say is that even if the number in SCOTUS was increased there would still be a back load, because all Justices must sit to hear the case brought before SCOTUS. It is purely a political ploy.... 
There is no way that Schumer could get this passed because there will not be  a reconciliation vote on this. It's too important and would require a 2/3rds Senate vote.....


----------



## Nostra

Moonglow said:


> What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.


Are you claiming Veggie Joe would sign a bill to implement  a "bonehead idea"?    You may be right.............he has done it before.


----------



## Moonglow

Doc7505 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you didn't say is that even if the number in SCOTUS was increased there would still be a back load, because all Justices must sit to hear the case brought before SCOTUS. It is purely a political ploy....
> There is no way that Schumer could get this passed because there will not be  a reconciliation vote on this. It's too important and would require a 2/3rds Senate vote.....
Click to expand...

Then all other changes must have been political also since we are dealing with politics I don't see how it can never be included as political.

*Politics* (from Greek: _Πολιτικά_, _politiká_, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics is referred to as political science. 








						Politics - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Moonglow

Nostra said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Veggie Joe would sign a bill to implement  a "bonehead idea"?    You may be right.............he has done it before.
Click to expand...

Why was it not a bonehead idea before 1869?


----------



## StormAl

Biden won't veto if McConnell does not give the Dems the infrastructure bill they want in full.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Never mind what Joe says he thinks. What do the people that direct his every move think?


----------



## Nostra

Moonglow said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming Veggie Joe would sign a bill to implement  a "bonehead idea"?    You may be right.............he has done it before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was it not a bonehead idea before 1869?
Click to expand...

Ask Veggie Joe.


----------



## task0778

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Never mind what Joe says he thinks. What do the people that direct his every move think?



I highly doubt Biden will veto ANYTHING that comes out of the dem-controlled Congress.  And the only unity he wants is within the Democratic Party.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Crepitus said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just playing to my audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You’re just an immature jackass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's nice to have fans.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that. I live rent free in your empty leftist, court packing, free speech hating head.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.


----------



## Viktor

Nostra said:


> Looks like a veto is coming................


Biden is an habitual liar.


----------



## OldLady

Disir said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did accuse him of that.  I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.
> 
> This has been a pretty good thread so far.  Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it?  You are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go hump someone else's leg, bitch. Guess I made a mistake respecting you as an intelligent poster.  Lights out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off.
Click to expand...

I don't deserve that.  You don't even bother reading what I wrote; you just accuse me of stuff that has nothing to do with me.

_If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it. In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work. But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid._

Politicizing the court is the last thing I want to see!.


----------



## OldLady

Crepitus said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
Click to expand...

What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!


----------



## Papageorgio

OldLady said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and requiring them to retire at a reasonable age, say 78, doesn't interfere with those reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there minds are still sharp and there health is good, I see no reason for them to retire. Ginsberg was sick and battled a terminal disease, she should have retired however she was motivated to stay for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, term limits aren't something I care about, but I can understand the reasoning, I guess.  A lot of the right are bitterly complaining that President Biden is senile, that RBG was senile, that others do their work, so I guess it's an issue for some people.
Click to expand...


Ginsberg was alert however her health took it's toll and Biden is fine, he reminds me of a grandpa with silly grandpa jokes. Maybe have a panel, I'm not sure how it could work however I am not for changing things up I would be more in favor of Congress having term limits and forced retirement than the Supreme Court.


----------



## sartre play

Have we lost our ability to think outside of the propaganda put out by our party of choice? So few people seem to grasp that both party's fight for power, not for "Domestic tranquility" or to" promote the general welfare". Do you ever see /hear voices that support any thing that is proposed by the opposing party? Hear any of them say lets work together & find a middle ground that works for the many?


----------



## bripat9643

Johnlaw said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, Fox News admitted in Court that no ”reasonable person” would believe anything that Tucker Carlson has to say.
Click to expand...

You mean Shepard Smith did, a leftwing douchebag.


----------



## OldLady

sartre play said:


> Have we lost our ability to think outside of the propaganda put out by our party of choice? So few people seem to grasp that both party's fight for power, not for "Domestic tranquility" or to" promote the general welfare". Do you ever see /hear voices that support any thing that is proposed by the opposing party? Hear any of them say lets work together & find a middle ground that works for the many?


This appeal to compromise is pretty new.  It will take a number of years to unvote the ones who are all out for power.  Instead of going after Susan Collins, the Dems should have been focusing on getting rid of Mitch McConnell.  Stupid.


----------



## OldLady

OldLady said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a reason they are appointed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So staff can do their work when they reach the Joe Biden mental capacity?
> 
> There is a reason people retire. Except politicians cant let go of the political power they hold.
> 
> Turn them loose at 80
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. They know when they need to retire.  They have historically made that decision when appropriate.  This is being used as a weapon to politicize the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if it wasn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You knew better. You played that game anyway. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What game is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The politicizing the court game.
> 
> The game where you have an irrational melt down over nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where I did that.  I'm usually the one being mocked for saying the justices try to be nonpartisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me drop everything and go through your posts so that I can identify where you have accused Kavanaugh of being heavily partisan in a rant indicating he was incapable of being non-partisan.........as if Kavanaugh happened in a vacuum. Ima jump right on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did accuse him of that.  I was in no way hysterical about it though, and until he went on that crying jag, I didn't see any reason not to nominate him, and that's the truth.
> 
> This has been a pretty good thread so far.  Why ruin it by getting personal and not even accurate about it?  You are better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go hump someone else's leg, bitch. Guess I made a mistake respecting you as an intelligent poster.  Lights out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deserve that.  You don't even bother reading what I wrote; you just accuse me of stuff that has nothing to do with me.
> 
> _If there was a way to have the appointments made by an apolitical group of judges and Constitutional scholars far removed from the power maneuvering in Washington by the two major parties, I would support it. In order not to need an Amendment, if there could be an agreement by all that the President would appoint someone from this group's list, it could work. But the parties are too power hungry, I'm afraid._
> 
> Politicizing the court is the last thing I want to see!.
Click to expand...

What's so funny, Meister?


----------



## 22lcidw

StormAl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.
> 
> Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
Click to expand...

It is you who are killing people in large numbers. Including yourselves. You must go to not white areas, but red areas to see how much you have advanced by your rules and laws in your riots. Then you will know if there is capitulation or not.


----------



## Papageorgio

StormAl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.
> 
> Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
Click to expand...

You didn't do a damn thing, you sat and watched.


----------



## StormAl

22lcidw said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why that upsets the control freaks on the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Nazis want to seize power through any and all means.
> 
> Your Reich is determined to spark a full blown shooting war so that you can invite your Chinese overlords in to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who are killing people in large numbers. Including yourselves. You must go to not white areas, but red areas to see how much you have advanced by your rules and laws in your riots. Then you will know if there is capitulation or not.
Click to expand...

You sound confused. Nothing of the sort is happening that way.


----------



## task0778

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in deciding what is constitutional and what isn't, and thus far I think they have been fairly even-handed about it.  And just because they declare a given policy to be unconstitutional does not mean the President and the Congress can't change that policy to be lawful.  There were things that Trump and Obama wanted to do that were disallowed;  whichever side you're on shouldn't translate to mean you get to do whatever you want.  

The problem as I see it today is that the Democrats want to change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster so they can pass through everything they want with a simple majority, 50-50 plus the Harris tiebreaker.  They don't want to compromise, they want everything.  Frankly, we shouldn't be making legislating important stuff with the barest possible majority, one of which is packing the court.  Which allows them a better chance to avoid their policies from being struck down by the SCOTUS.  We are talking one-party rule here, and that is a straight line road to a totalitarian gov't.  Today we have Manchin and Sinema standing in the way, but what if they pick up a few seats in 2022 or at a later date and the Democrats don't need either of those votes any more?  

AS it is now, I don't see the legislation to increase the number of SCOTUS justices as passing in the Senate, and it'll be interesting to see if it even passes the House cuz of their slim majority.  It only takes a few people to vote NO.  But the progressives are not going to quit, of that I am convinced.  I think this is a distinct possibility at some point down the road, and the America that we knew and grew up in will be changed and not for the better.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

After listening to Ed Markey, these fuckers are not even trying to hide the fact that they want 4 liberal justices added.

We have to fight these bastards with every fiber of our being!


----------



## Moonglow

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
> It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
> It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
> It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
> When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
> Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.
> 
> View attachment 480143


So what....After Trump there is no shame game for adult consensual sex.


----------



## Moonglow

Viktor said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a veto is coming................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden is an habitual liar.
Click to expand...

So was Trump and all the others in the office...Your point being?


----------



## MadChemist

occupied said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> Just let them hand down some overly broad and unpopular partisan decision overturning what has been considered settled law and it very well may happen.
Click to expand...


Then, when the GOP takes over...what happens ?

You've lost the court.

If you lose the court, the government is no longer trustworthy (almost there anyway).

Go ahead.....start down that path.


----------



## MadChemist

jillian said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what happens when control freak trumpscum steal judges
Click to expand...


Please tell us how they were "stolen".

Or were you referencing the elections ?


----------



## Nostra

Could the Dimwingers come up with a worse bunch of morons to announce this lunacy?  Markie, Nadler, and the Island will tip over guy?


----------



## Flash

Stealing the election and then filling the Supreme Court with dumbass Libtards that have no appreciation of the Bill of Rights is how the Democrats go about making the US a Socialist shithole.

Not that much different than Leftest takeovers we have seen in other countries.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Well they're off to a gangbuster start, they have Jerry "shit my pants" Nadler and Hank "Guam is going to tip over" Johnson writing the bill.


----------



## Kilroy2

San Souci said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
Click to expand...



The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't. 

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.


----------



## Nostra

Once again the Dimwinger party ignores the will of America and acts in the interest of party over country.






						New Poll Shows 61% of Americans Oppose Joe Biden Packing the Supreme Court - LifeNews.com
					

Nearly two in three voters say they oppose 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden adding more Supreme Court justices if he is elected, according to a poll exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Marist poll, sponsored by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, found...



					www.lifenews.com


----------



## my2¢

Pray tell, what has the commission come out with as their recommendation?


----------



## Mac-7

*Vast majority of Americans oppose Dem court packing scheme.*

That won't stop biden, pelosi, schumer and AOC

Because progressive dictatorships don't care what the public thinks


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Intelligent Citizens know that the Democrats are completely dishonest and totally corrupt.
Schumer's far left extremist agenda to pack the court is an admission that the Democrats can't win without lying and cheating.


----------



## Dayton3

The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.

While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.

1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.

2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.

While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable. 

Opinions?


----------



## Mac-7

Dayton3 said:


> Opinions?


sure

My opinion is leave the court alone


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?


Why not just expand the court to 1000 justices?  Wouldnt that represent the census of the people?  How about 1 million?  5 million?


----------



## Nostra

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Click to expand...

Did Mitch violate any Senate rule?  No?

Then why are you whining?


----------



## pknopp

Nothing is going to change. If you want to appoint judges, select candidates people will support.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

The whole entire government needs to be reorganized.


----------



## DudleySmith

Nostra said:


> Once again the Dimwinger party ignores the will of America and acts in the interest of party over country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Poll Shows 61% of Americans Oppose Joe Biden Packing the Supreme Court - LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> Nearly two in three voters say they oppose 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden adding more Supreme Court justices if he is elected, according to a poll exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Marist poll, sponsored by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, found...
> 
> 
> 
> www.lifenews.com



Doesn't matter to Democrats; over 80% opposed NAFTA, and serial rapist Bill Clinton couldn't wait to sign that bill.


----------



## Rambunctious

The dems say the court is broken and they want to fix it...but the court is not broken...they don't want to fix the court they want a fixed court...but keep in mind Joe does not enjoy a clear mandate with the voters...if they push this through the dems will be a minority party for decades....and the GOP will just change it back...so go ahead stupid libs...do it....do ya feel lucky? Punks.....remember we warned ya...just like we warned Reid....


----------



## ZZ PUPPS

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?





Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?


----------



## Penelope

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?



I prefer rules, like you said, and justices should have term limits on the SC.  A president would be only allowed to vote in 2 justices. 1 for each term , 2 for a death.


----------



## Desperado

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?


Absolutely not. No compromise with the devil
Change for sake of change does not cut it


----------



## Donald H

Nonsense Americans! The Scotus is already corrupted by judges whose thinking is suitable for 19th. century superstitious beliefs.

If the will of the Scotus is to pervert justice by completely stopping a woman's right to abortion, or allowed unfettered access and use of guns, America will quickly begin to pay a huge price.

Maybe that needs to happen before America can become a normally functioning democracy. (republic blah, blah)

Biden and his big gifts initiatives is likely the last hope. If he fails then the people have already demonstrated that they won't allow corrupt government any longer.

This will almost certainly open the door to fascism in America.

On a bright note though, fascism kept under control by the M.A.D. factor.


----------



## 22lcidw

Rambunctious said:


> The dems say the court is broken and they want to fix it...but the court is not broken...they don't want to fix the court they want a fixed court...but keep in mind Joe does not enjoy a clear mandate with the voters...if they push this through the dems will be a minority party for decades....and the GOP will just change it back...so go ahead stupid libs...do it....do ya feel lucky? Punks.....remember we warned ya...just like we warned Reid....


It is already fixed in their favor. We know how each Dem judge will vote near 100 per cent of the time. That is Progressive socialist. They do not place people with left, center and right wing traditional Democratic Party philosophies. Somehow Repubs put people in who are all over the place in their votes. This is a one of the reasons our nation is in decline.


----------



## Aldo Raine

Mac-7 said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> sure
> 
> My opinion is leave the court alone
Click to expand...


Yup gotta agree here.


----------



## Donald H

Desperado said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. No compromise with the devil
> Change for sake of change does not cut it
Click to expand...

Secede is not the solution. It's a clear victory for fascism or it's defeat of fascism for the foreseeable future.

Such will be Biden's destruction of the American way of greed and income inequality.
Secessionists will always be a small minority that can be dealt with by guns and bullets.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?



My opinion is that I see no reason whatsoever that we WANT to compromise on this issue.


----------



## dblack

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?



Doesn't matter much. The only way they'll achieve either is by getting rid of the filibuster, which will open the floodgates.


----------



## Slyhunter

2022


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rambunctious said:


> The dems say the court is broken and they want to fix it...but the court is not broken...they don't want to fix the court they want a fixed court...but keep in mind Joe does not enjoy a clear mandate with the voters...if they push this through the dems will be a minority party for decades....and the GOP will just change it back...so go ahead stupid libs...do it....do ya feel lucky? Punks.....remember we warned ya...just like we warned Reid....



Do YOU trust the Republicans to have the guts and the follow-through to actually change it back if/when they get power again?  My experience with Republicans has always been that they're afraid to use political power because Democrats might say bad things about them.


----------



## task0778

Dayton3 said:


> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?



This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?  

And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.


----------



## dblack

task0778 said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?
> 
> And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.
Click to expand...


For sure. This all points straight at killing the filibuster.


----------



## StormAl

Nostra said:


> Once again the Dimwinger party ignores the will of America and acts in the interest of party over country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Poll Shows 61% of Americans Oppose Joe Biden Packing the Supreme Court - LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> Nearly two in three voters say they oppose 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden adding more Supreme Court justices if he is elected, according to a poll exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Marist poll, sponsored by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, found...
> 
> 
> 
> www.lifenews.com


You mean McConnell puts his mistaken sense of what is American above country.,


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> The whole entire government needs to be reorganized.


  We need another one of these guys...
Calvin Coolidge - HISTORY


----------



## StormAl

task0778 said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?
> 
> And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.
Click to expand...

I think the real problem, because the GOP will not compromise, is that the Republicans want to do in the future is to do whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.


----------



## StormAl

andaronjim said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole entire government needs to be reorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> We need another one of these guys...
> Calvin Coolidge - HISTORY
Click to expand...

Not at all.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

So much for that noise....

Open SmartNews and read "Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats" here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats 
To read it on the web, tap here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats


----------



## otto105

AzogtheDefiler said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you portray yourself as a strict constitutional republic and you don’t know what the document states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do? LOL show me where, filthy human. I portray Myself as a logical citizen. You believe men may identify as women. You failed basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, logic and you are mutual exclusive.
> 
> In reality you're just some turd posting bullshit looking for another turd to like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^Triggered^^^ LOL
> 
> Try identifying as a man and see how that goes for you
Click to expand...

Hardly, don’t flatter yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the Dimwinger party ignores the will of America and acts in the interest of party over country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Poll Shows 61% of Americans Oppose Joe Biden Packing the Supreme Court - LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> Nearly two in three voters say they oppose 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden adding more Supreme Court justices if he is elected, according to a poll exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Marist poll, sponsored by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, found...
> 
> 
> 
> www.lifenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean McConnell puts his mistaken sense of what is American above country.,
Click to expand...


Interesting how you think it's _McConnell _who's putting his personal preferences first, rather than President Houseplant and his handlers.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you portray yourself as a strict constitutional republic and you don’t know what the document states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do? LOL show me where, filthy human. I portray Myself as a logical citizen. You believe men may identify as women. You failed basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, logic and you are mutual exclusive.
> 
> In reality you're just some turd posting bullshit looking for another turd to like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^Triggered^^^ LOL
> 
> Try identifying as a man and see how that goes for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, don’t flatter yourself.
Click to expand...

You didn't even try. So sad. Poor triggered leftist.


----------



## Rambunctious

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dems say the court is broken and they want to fix it...but the court is not broken...they don't want to fix the court they want a fixed court...but keep in mind Joe does not enjoy a clear mandate with the voters...if they push this through the dems will be a minority party for decades....and the GOP will just change it back...so go ahead stupid libs...do it....do ya feel lucky? Punks.....remember we warned ya...just like we warned Reid....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU trust the Republicans to have the guts and the follow-through to actually change it back if/when they get power again?  My experience with Republicans has always been that they're afraid to use political power because Democrats might say bad things about them.
Click to expand...

I do with something like this...the only thing the GOP cooperated with Trump on are judges....


----------



## task0778

StormAl said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?
> 
> And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the real problem, because the GOP will not compromise, is that the Republicans want to do in the future is to do whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, the Democrats were not willing to compromise when Trump was in office and the GOP ran the Senate either.  I do not remember much talk then about packing the court from the Repubs;  I remember plenty of bitching about some of Roberts' decisions, which to me underscores the lack of a need to pack the court with more liberals who WILL vote along partisan lines virtually every time.  This court is not a rubber stamp for everything the GOP wants;  but what the Dems want is a rubber stamp for all the crap THEY want.

NO - it is the Far Left and their wild-ass, ridiculous GND programs who want the ability to do whatever they want and they don't give a flyin' fuck whether it is constitutional or not.  They want to do shit that the next president and next Congress can't change, such as abolish the filibuster and pack the court and admit DC and PR as states.  They want permanent power, and they are not going to rest until they get it.  And if and when they get it will be a sorry day indeed for this country.


----------



## StormAl

task0778 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?
> 
> And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the real problem, because the GOP will not compromise, is that the Republicans want to do in the future is to do whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, the Democrats were not willing to compromise when Trump was in office and the GOP ran the Senate either.  I do not remember much talk then about packing the court from the Repubs;  I remember plenty of bitching about some of Roberts' decisions, which to me underscores the lack of a need to pack the court with more liberals who WILL vote along partisan lines virtually every time.  This court is not a rubber stamp for everything the GOP wants;  but what the Dems want is a rubber stamp for all the crap THEY want.
> 
> NO - it is the Far Left and their wild-ass, ridiculous GND programs who want the ability to do whatever they want and they don't give a flyin' fuck whether it is constitutional or not.  They want to do shit that the next president and next Congress can't change, such as abolish the filibuster and pack the court and admit DC and PR as states.  They want permanent power, and they are not going to rest until they get it.  And if and when they get it will be a sorry day indeed for this country.
Click to expand...

Then you have no complaint now that the GOP won't comprise.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?
> 
> And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the real problem, because the GOP will not compromise, is that the Republicans want to do in the future is to do whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.
Click to expand...


Oh, right, the problem isn't the Democrats doing whatever they want without concern for the Constitution; it's what Republicans MIGHT do in the future that we really need to worry about.

And since I really doubt you'll figure this out on your own, that was sarcasm.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats proposed today expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by four justices.    Obvious the goal being to pack the  Supreme Court with four Biden nominees which one could assume would compensate for the two extra justices that President Trump managed to appoint.
> 
> While it might seem like this is an all or nothing proposal,  it can be tweeked  to become a viable compromise.
> 
> 1) Expand the court by two justices effective in 2022.    This gives President Biden and the liberals a guaranteed two Supreme Court seats to fill.
> 
> 2) Expand the court by another two justices effective in 2025.    This would mean that although it is possible that Biden would have two more justices to appoint,  it is equally possible a Republican president would get to fill those seats.    Or that even if Biden (or another Democrat) was president in 2025,   that the GOP might control the Senate giving the GOP input into the filling of the seats.
> 
> While expanding the court is NOT my preference,   I think this shows that even on the most difficult issue,  compromise is doable.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not viable, there is no way the Senate Repubs are going to support allowing Biden to put 2 extra liberal justices on the Court this year.  Nor should they, that is not a compromise;  it is capitulation.  Look, at this point the democrats have no reason to believe the current arrangement is unfair or biased against them.  I think the real problem is what the democrats want to do in the future, which is ramming through whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.  And they don't want to compromise at all with the GOP, so why should the GOP give away anything for nothing?
> 
> And I believe any Repub who supports your 'compromise' is very likely to find himself out of a job as soon as they come up for re-election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the real problem, because the GOP will not compromise, is that the Republicans want to do in the future is to do whatever they can without concern for constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, the Democrats were not willing to compromise when Trump was in office and the GOP ran the Senate either.  I do not remember much talk then about packing the court from the Repubs;  I remember plenty of bitching about some of Roberts' decisions, which to me underscores the lack of a need to pack the court with more liberals who WILL vote along partisan lines virtually every time.  This court is not a rubber stamp for everything the GOP wants;  but what the Dems want is a rubber stamp for all the crap THEY want.
> 
> NO - it is the Far Left and their wild-ass, ridiculous GND programs who want the ability to do whatever they want and they don't give a flyin' fuck whether it is constitutional or not.  They want to do shit that the next president and next Congress can't change, such as abolish the filibuster and pack the court and admit DC and PR as states.  They want permanent power, and they are not going to rest until they get it.  And if and when they get it will be a sorry day indeed for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you have no complaint now that the GOP won't comprise.
Click to expand...


Congratulations.  I think this is the most random _non sequitur_ of a "What the fuck are you talking about?!" post I have seen all week.  And that's really saying something on THIS board.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rambunctious said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dems say the court is broken and they want to fix it...but the court is not broken...they don't want to fix the court they want a fixed court...but keep in mind Joe does not enjoy a clear mandate with the voters...if they push this through the dems will be a minority party for decades....and the GOP will just change it back...so go ahead stupid libs...do it....do ya feel lucky? Punks.....remember we warned ya...just like we warned Reid....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU trust the Republicans to have the guts and the follow-through to actually change it back if/when they get power again?  My experience with Republicans has always been that they're afraid to use political power because Democrats might say bad things about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do with something like this...the only thing the GOP cooperated with Trump on are judges....
Click to expand...


Let me put it this way.  If I don't see them fighting this nonsense tooth-and-nail right now, then I sure as fuck won't trust them to have the stones to put it right later.  So I'd strongly suggest the Republicans show me something in the present moment.


----------



## Rambunctious

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dems say the court is broken and they want to fix it...but the court is not broken...they don't want to fix the court they want a fixed court...but keep in mind Joe does not enjoy a clear mandate with the voters...if they push this through the dems will be a minority party for decades....and the GOP will just change it back...so go ahead stupid libs...do it....do ya feel lucky? Punks.....remember we warned ya...just like we warned Reid....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU trust the Republicans to have the guts and the follow-through to actually change it back if/when they get power again?  My experience with Republicans has always been that they're afraid to use political power because Democrats might say bad things about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do with something like this...the only thing the GOP cooperated with Trump on are judges....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way.  If I don't see them fighting this nonsense tooth-and-nail right now, then I sure as fuck won't trust them to have the stones to put it right later.  So I'd strongly suggest the Republicans show me something in the present moment.
Click to expand...

As do I...I just got into it with McCarthy's office over his silence on the capitol murder and the fence....its ridiculous...but that's what it will take.....it will take our voices shouting at them everyday until they get the message...this is what libs do to their reps....


----------



## dblack

Pelosi says she won't back this legislation. Hopefully Dems are realizing that Republicans _will_ be back. And that whatever new power they give themselves will be used against them.


----------



## San Souci

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Click to expand...

Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.


----------



## StormAl

dblack said:


> Pelosi says she won't back this legislation. Hopefully Dems are realizing that Republicans _will_ be back. And that whatever new power they give themselves will be used against them.


Republicans, sure, but the Trump Republicans are never coming back to power.


----------



## dblack

StormAl said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pelosi says she won't back this legislation. Hopefully Dems are realizing that Republicans _will_ be back. And that whatever new power they give themselves will be used against them.
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans, sure, but the Trump Republicans are never coming back to power.
Click to expand...

Hopefully not. At this point, I'm making NO bets.


----------



## StormAl

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Click to expand...

Yes, Mitchell lied.


----------



## sartre play

John Roberts brilliant man, watched his whole confirmation hearing, No way could he not be seated. Did I think he was a little more corporation minded than would be in the country's best interest yes, Did I also think he would be mindful of /and know the laws of the land. Yes. We have done some picking not from those at the top of the class. but some  quite a bit farther down the list, done In the name of political party.  Not quality of applicant.


----------



## eagle7-31

It's true: Democrats have court-packing on the menu - American Thinker

 Why the demrats and looney left wing needs to pack the courts is a good question since most of the recent rulings have been in their favor. 

News broke on Wednesday that Democrats have prepared bills for both the House and the Senate aimed at increasing the Supreme Court from the current nine justices to thirteen.  Were this to pass and new justices to be added, the Supreme Court would cease to be a body that reflects the back and forth of elections, with presidents of one party or another getting the opportunity to add new justices as old ones leave.  Instead, it would simply become an unelected quasi-legislative body that pretends every item on the leftist wish list is encompassed in a "living" Constitution.

The Intercept reports that, in the House, the legislators behind the bill are Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.).  Just to give a sense of the IQ behind this trio, Johnson thinks islands, if their population becomes too great, can tip over.  (And no, his retrofitted excuse did not remove the stain of that idiotic statement.)  Nadler is the shriveled gnome who insisted that Antifa violence in Portland is a myth.  (The myth just burned a federal building.)  Jones is the generic new Democrat: Stanford and Harvard Law grad, black, gay, demanding Sen. Josh Hawley's expulsion, refusing to work with Republicans, etc.  (And no, his "elite" credentials do not impress me since the odor of affirmative action hangs heavily around him.  He's also graduated so recently that both of those institutions were focused more on indoctrination than education.)


----------



## tyroneweaver

just can't give em enough power can ya.
If they do get total control I wonder how many atv/utv trails will be shut down out here in the west


----------



## mudwhistle

eagle7-31 said:


> It's true: Democrats have court-packing on the menu - American Thinker
> 
> Why the demrats and looney left wing needs to pack the courts is a good question since most of the recent rulings have been in their favor.
> 
> News broke on Wednesday that Democrats have prepared bills for both the House and the Senate aimed at increasing the Supreme Court from the current nine justices to thirteen.  Were this to pass and new justices to be added, the Supreme Court would cease to be a body that reflects the back and forth of elections, with presidents of one party or another getting the opportunity to add new justices as old ones leave.  Instead, it would simply become an unelected quasi-legislative body that pretends every item on the leftist wish list is encompassed in a "living" Constitution.
> 
> The Intercept reports that, in the House, the legislators behind the bill are Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.).  Just to give a sense of the IQ behind this trio, Johnson thinks islands, if their population becomes too great, can tip over.  (And no, his retrofitted excuse did not remove the stain of that idiotic statement.)  Nadler is the shriveled gnome who insisted that Antifa violence in Portland is a myth.  (The myth just burned a federal building.)  Jones is the generic new Democrat: Stanford and Harvard Law grad, black, gay, demanding Sen. Josh Hawley's expulsion, refusing to work with Republicans, etc.  (And no, his "elite" credentials do not impress me since the odor of affirmative action hangs heavily around him.  He's also graduated so recently that both of those institutions were focused more on indoctrination than education.)


Court-packing is infrastructure now....did you know that?


----------



## struth

We knew this was going to happen...it's what leftwing tyrants have done throughout history.  An independent judiciary is a threat and obstacle to authoritarianism 









						How judiciary helped Hitler and Stalin in destroying political opposition
					

Judges in Nazi Germany were instructed that in the event of any conflict between Nazi Party and law, Nazi Party should always succeed.




					theprint.in
				




Here's a great Law Review Article from 1993: "They Shoot Lawyers Don't They?" https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&context=cwilj


----------



## Coyote

Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.


----------



## eagle7-31

Coyote said:


> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.


Save the tears about Garland, when you have  spilt control of the Senate and WH in a Presidential election year that is what happens.


----------



## beautress

StormAl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).

Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KGB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force II took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.


----------



## ThisIsMe

frigidweirdo said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Supreme Court is chosen in a ridiculous manner.
> 
> It shouldn't be political at all.
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for awhile now. The fact that we fight over having left wing and right wing justices should tell you that the whole idea of the Supreme Court is out of whack. 

We shouldn't be appointing justices based on their ideology.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.



"We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"

You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.


----------



## Cecilie1200

eagle7-31 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> Save the tears about Garland, when you have  spilt control of the Senate and WH in a Presidential election year that is what happens.
Click to expand...


She has no tears about Garland.  She believes that Democrats deserve to do whatever they want, just because they want to.  Garland is just a fig leaf so that she can tell herself that she's not the selfish piece of garbage she knows she sounds like.

The lame excuses about "We deserve to act unilaterally because you refused to give us what we wanted" only ever go one way with her.


----------



## Crepitus

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just playing to my audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You’re just an immature jackass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's nice to have fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that. I live rent free in your empty leftist, court packing, free speech hating head.
Click to expand...

Lol, who's living in who's head?


----------



## Crepitus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"
> 
> You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
Click to expand...

Is that really what you got out of that post?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Crepitus said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want get rid of a man who is a Republican who was lawfully appointed to the Supreme because President Trump deemed him to be the best candidate for a job in the Supreme Court? Sorry the Constitution was obeyed to the letter on this SCOTUS personnel decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a stupid leftist. Who cares what the troll wants. He is 53 and acts 12. Sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just playing to my audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You’re just an immature jackass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's nice to have fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that. I live rent free in your empty leftist, court packing, free speech hating head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, who's living in who's head?
Click to expand...

I in yours. Need me to repeat it, leftist. 53 and acting 10


----------



## Crepitus

OldLady said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!
Click to expand...

Really?  They've been here all along as far as I can tell.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Congressional Democrats seem to believe (or simply want others to believe) that it is required the Supreme Court be "balanced" between Americans and Democrats in order for the Court to function properly.

How silly is that?


----------



## Bush92

Death Angel said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> I only disagree with him on term limits.  Their needs to be a retirement age. People love power too much.
Click to expand...

The judicial branch should not be subject to political winds of change. That's why they must base decisions upon the Constitution.


----------



## Bush92

Crepitus said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  They've been here all along as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Yep. "Crazy Town" AOC+3 other communist.


----------



## Crepitus

Bush92 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  They've been here all along as far as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. "Crazy Town" AOC+3 other communist.
Click to expand...

Nice try, kid.  Read the thread and see who acting up


----------



## Bush92

Crepitus said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  They've been here all along as far as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. "Crazy Town" AOC+3 other communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try, kid.  Read the thread and see who acting up
Click to expand...

I'm no kid. I am a United States Marine combat veteran.


----------



## Bush92

beautress said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
Click to expand...

Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.


----------



## StormAl

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Congressional Democrats seem to believe (or simply want others to believe) that it is required the Supreme Court be "balanced" between Americans and Democrats in order for the Court to function properly.
> 
> How silly is that?


You mean Americans and Republicans.


----------



## StormAl

Bush92 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
Click to expand...

Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

StormAl said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional Democrats seem to believe (or simply want others to believe) that it is required the Supreme Court be "balanced" between Americans and Democrats in order for the Court to function properly.
> 
> How silly is that?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Americans and Republicans.
Click to expand...


I see plain English escapes you.


----------



## beautress

Bush92 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  They've been here all along as far as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. "Crazy Town" AOC+3 other communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try, kid.  Read the thread and see who acting up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no kid. I am a United States Marine combat veteran.
Click to expand...

Thank you and bless you for giving your all in Marine tradition. My late dad was also a semper fi guy. So God bless you and your dear family.  ♡♡♡ You have been always faithful to this country.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

StormAl said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.


----------



## Crepitus

Billy_Kinetta said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
Click to expand...

Lol, nope.


----------



## AsherN

otto105 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

How about 1 from each of the 10 districts, 10 year terms. A new one every year. The outgoing one stays 1 year to break a tie if required.


----------



## Coyote

Crepitus said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"
> 
> You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really what you got out of that post?
Click to expand...

She's a rightwing parrot, hypocrisy is her singular virtue.  If the Dems had pulled the crap her party did with Garland and the Pubs were in charge, she would be demanding court packing.


----------



## StormAl

Billy_Kinetta said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
Click to expand...

Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.


----------



## beautress

AsherN said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> How about 1 from each of the 10 districts, 10 year terms. A new one every year. The outgoing one stays 1 year to break a tie if required.
Click to expand...

If the Constitution is being ignored I assure you partitioning 10 districts defies partitioning States to abide by their own legislature might get lost in the fistfight over federalism with 100% of the power v. Power originating in ordinary people who are equal to each other. In pure federalism the power issues from the top and trickles down to whatever is left after the fed's play "winner takes all." States rights are important to people who love their own states better than anyone else's. The founders disciplined themselves to let the people decide and also disciplined themselves to try brotherly love and equality as prime ingredients of human life being acceptable to all.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

StormAl said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
Click to expand...


Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.

Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.


----------



## otto105

AzogtheDefiler said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea. I am Not a constitutional expert. Hell make it 100. Let’s expand our Govt even more. I am agreeing with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you portray yourself as a strict constitutional republic and you don’t know what the document states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do? LOL show me where, filthy human. I portray Myself as a logical citizen. You believe men may identify as women. You failed basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, logic and you are mutual exclusive.
> 
> In reality you're just some turd posting bullshit looking for another turd to like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^Triggered^^^ LOL
> 
> Try identifying as a man and see how that goes for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, don’t flatter yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't even try. So sad. Poor triggered leftist.
Click to expand...

Are you trying elevate your pathetic poster level?


----------



## otto105

Billy_Kinetta said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

What record are you referring too?

Specifically


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

otto105 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
Click to expand...


All concerned with the subject, specifically.


----------



## Kilroy2

San Souci said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
Click to expand...




San Souci said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
Click to expand...


I said stack the court not packing the court.  Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.


----------



## beautress

Billy_Kinetta said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the chat. Nite everybody.


----------



## otto105

Billy_Kinetta said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
Click to expand...

So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?


----------



## StormAl

Billy_Kinetta said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

You should quit when you are so far behind in this thread. To increase or decrease the number of SCOTUS justices is Constitutional. You will live with it or not, which means nothing to anyone else.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Coyote said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"
> 
> You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really what you got out of that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's a rightwing parrot, hypocrisy is her singular virtue.  If the Dems had pulled the crap her party did with Garland and the Pubs were in charge, she would be demanding court packing.
Click to expand...

Crepitus is a leftist parrot. Just saying...


----------



## San Souci

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said stack the court not packing the court.  Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
Click to expand...

What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?


----------



## Crepitus

StormAl said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
Click to expand...

These guys don't know the definition of most english words, you can't expect them to get latin.


----------



## San Souci

Crepitus said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These guys don't know the definition of most english words, you can't expect them to get latin.
Click to expand...

Kiss my ass. Do ya understand THOSE words?


----------



## basquebromance

Pelosi dismisses progressive ‘court packing’ legislation
					

“I have no intention to bring it to the floor,” Pelosi said of the legislative push.




					www.politico.com
				




/thread


----------



## Crepitus

San Souci said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These guys don't know the definition of most english words, you can't expect them to get latin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kiss my ass. Do ya understand THOSE words?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bush92

StormAl said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should quit when you are so far behind in this thread. To increase or decrease the number of SCOTUS justices is Constitutional. You will live with it or not, which means nothing to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Win Presidential elections and then you can change Justices. Otherwise stop your communist power grab you miserable bastard's.


----------



## Bush92

beautress said:


> AsherN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> How about 1 from each of the 10 districts, 10 year terms. A new one every year. The outgoing one stays 1 year to break a tie if required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Constitution is being ignored I assure you partitioning 10 districts defies partitioning States to abide by their own legislature might get lost in the fistfight over federalism with 100% of the power v. Power originating in ordinary people who are equal to each other. In pure federalism the power issues from the top and trickles down to whatever is left after the fed's play "winner takes all." States rights are important to people who love their own states better than anyone else's. The founders disciplined themselves to let the people decide and also disciplined themselves to try brotherly love and equality as prime ingredients of human life being acceptable to all.
Click to expand...

States rights and state control over the direction of our nation is at the heart of the Constitution and exactly what the Founder's wanted.


----------



## Bush92

StormAl said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should quit when you are so far behind in this thread. To increase or decrease the number of SCOTUS justices is Constitutional. You will live with it or not, which means nothing to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Power grab by people who's belief system is in minority in  this nation and must steal elections and stack the Court to ensure their undemocratic and Orwellian society.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Moonglow said:


> What veto, do you even know how many votes it would take in the Senate to change the lineup of the Supreme Court? Do you know that the number of justices we have now has been changed several times over the history of the US? One reason it is increased is for caseload, the number we have now was set in 1869.



It would take 49 votes to pack the Supreme court. Then Cameltoe would be the deciding vote.

Where you Nazis might actually be in trouble is in the house. You vile vermin are only two votes ahead of the Americans now.


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.



Oh, you Nazis have "restored order?"



Democrats set Dollar Tree on fire — Riot Footage USA – CITIZEN FREE PRESS 

Civil war rages and you fascist vermin keep pouring gasoline with your racist attacks on Der Juden, the whites you so bitterly hate.

All so you can bow to Communist China.


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> . . . which economic system and its means of production in the US is under the control of the government?
> 
> You seem very confused.





The Green New Deal Explained (investopedia.com) 

You Fucking Nazis exceed your dishonesty only with your abject stupidity.


----------



## Crepitus

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"
> 
> You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really what you got out of that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's a rightwing parrot, hypocrisy is her singular virtue.  If the Dems had pulled the crap her party did with Garland and the Pubs were in charge, she would be demanding court packing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a leftist parrot. Just saying...
Click to expand...

As previously noted, it's nice to have fans.

And again I ask, who's living rent free in who's head?

Lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

Crepitus said:


> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.



Blow me, Chang.

These Nazi pigs may be your bitch, but I have nothing but contempt for you ChiCom scum.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Doc7505 said:


> What you didn't say is that even if the number in SCOTUS was increased there would still be a back load, because all Justices must sit to hear the case brought before SCOTUS. It is purely a political ploy....
> There is no way that Schumer could get this passed because there will not be  a reconciliation vote on this. It's too important and would require a 2/3rds Senate vote.....



Unless they end the filibuster and this is a simple majority vote, which is the plan of the Nazi party.


----------



## Crepitus

Uncensored2008 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> He/she is just another RWNJ brainwashing victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blow me, Chang.
> 
> These Nazi pigs may be your bitch, but I have nothing but contempt for you ChiCom scum.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you proving my point.  Thank you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OldLady said:


> What in hell just happened to this thread?  All of a sudden it's like the Crazytown bus arrived!



What "cause" does the Nazi party have to "remove" Brett Kavanaugh?

ChiCom Troll creepy claims that is the goal of the Nazi democrats, who dance at the end of Xi's leash like trained monkeys.

Creepy never answered, he just started flinging shit. The new Nazi StormfrontAI just ran around eating the shit creep flung. So the question of what the Nazis would remove a sitting justice based on remains unanswered.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> You mean Shepard Smith did, a leftwing douchebag.



Notice that the dumbest motherfucker on USMB never could support his lie?

No one ever said that about Tucker.

It was a statement by Sidney Powell and had nothing to do with Tucker. Johnlaw only lies when he posts shit, or speaks...

It's a Nazi thing, lying is a virtue to him.


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> You are the nazi fascists, Uncensored 2008, and we won by fair, democratic means, and then we defeated you at the Battle for the Capitol on January 6.



Yes, you're a fucking retard and a pathological liar - we get it.

You are a jackbooted thug goose stepping to a totalitarian party actively engaged in a war to end all civil rights. You vile Nazi scum attack freedom of speech, attack freedom of religion, attack the free press (violently) and claim peaceful protests are INSIREKSHUN.

Dumb Mother fuckers. Your stupidity is exceeded only by the abject evil that defines you fascist scum.


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> You sound confused. Nothing of the sort is happening that way.



Says the stupid motherfucker who claims that goobers taking selfies is "a battle."

One person died, shot to death without warning by, well we don't know. Might have been a cop, but looks like it was an unarmed security guard using an illegal weapon. 

{

*Definition of battle*
 (Entry 1 of 3)
1*: *a general encounter between armies, ships of war, or aircraftthe battle of Normandysoldiers who fell in battle
}

You stupid fucking Nazi (redundant).

Unarmed protestors are not engaged in "battle." The WORST protestors can do is riot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

DigitalDrifter said:


> After listening to Ed Markey, these fuckers are not even trying to hide the fact that they want 4 liberal justices added.
> 
> We have to fight these bastards with every fiber of our being!



The Nazis are at war against us.

It would be damned rude not to return the favor.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Crepitus said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"
> 
> You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really what you got out of that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's a rightwing parrot, hypocrisy is her singular virtue.  If the Dems had pulled the crap her party did with Garland and the Pubs were in charge, she would be demanding court packing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a leftist parrot. Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As previously noted, it's nice to have fans.
> 
> And again I ask, who's living rent free in who's head?
> 
> Lol
Click to expand...

You keep responding like my little lap dog that you are.


----------



## DJT for Life

Uncensored2008 said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you didn't say is that even if the number in SCOTUS was increased there would still be a back load, because all Justices must sit to hear the case brought before SCOTUS. It is purely a political ploy....
> There is no way that Schumer could get this passed because there will not be  a reconciliation vote on this. It's too important and would require a 2/3rds Senate vote.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they end the filibuster and this is a simple majority vote, which is the plan of the Nazi party.
Click to expand...


Here's what the dems are doing.

There are some important SCOTUS decisions that will be handed down in May and June.. They are hoping that it will
be enough to get Sniema and Manchin to change their mind on the filibuster.

Now Manchin is on record saying he is not for packing the court and/or ending the filibuster.  They can't primary Manchin
in 2024 because he is the only Dem that can win in WV.  The dems also are going to have some issues in Arizona.
Kelly is serving the final two years of McCain's term.  He has got to come out against the immigration issue that is
out of control in Arizona or they'll lose him in 2022 if the GOP runs anybody with a pulse.  With proper voting procedures
being followed in Georgia the Spook Senator will get beat.

Biden formed his phony committee to buy him some time and get into the next fiscal year, but they would have to get it
all done before January, an election year.  (That would give them two months filled with Thanksgiving and
Christmas breaks.)

Pelosi has said she will not bring this to a vote until the committee finshes their work.  Now the committee is fake
and we already know the outcome, but she still has 16 members in districts won by over 5 points by Trump thus she
does not want to sacrifice them.  a year from the mid-terms.

This is all probably just an intimidation factor on SCOTUS right now to influence those important decisions.  That's what many
are saying.

The GOP has been working with their state legislatures to correct the issues that plagued them at the polls
last time.

One thing the dems have done is to delay the census.  They have moved that back to September, which will not
allow enough time to rework districts and add/subtract seats in the House in 2022.  SCOTUS did rule that Federal
Judges are not in the map drawing business, so as long as a State Supreme court is controlled by the GOP
any state that redistricts can do it any way they want.

The big thing is to think of the folks that announced this packing bill today.  There wasn't the usual50 people out
there saying how this will save the country.  There were 5 of them and most are nobodies.  Nothing is etched in stone
but if Manchin defects...all of this is just a moot point that will be used as a club vs Dems in the mid-terms.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

otto105 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?
Click to expand...


Historical records.  They are numerous and free.  Avail yourself of them.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Crepitus said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These guys don't know the definition of most english words, you can't expect them to get latin.
Click to expand...


Show how my use of the Latin phrase is incorrect.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Uncensored2008 said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...it must be true huh?
> Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, Tucker??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, are you claiming the Reich is NOT trying to pack the court?
> 
> Fucking Nazis.....
Click to expand...


I'd love to see a dozen more fantastically liberal judges on the SC. If for no other
reason than to piss people like you off, Nazi Boy. 

Now, if you want to reach for that paper bag next to you and breathe into it, after a
few minutes, you'll see that this is just proposed legislation and with the current makeup
of the House and Senate, it isn't going to get far.

That being said, the SC has largely been a tool of the right wing to try and stack with conservative judges hell bent on shoving their deeply ingrained religious beliefs down the throats of every American. 
All while hiding behind the guise of "Following the Constitution"....<shiver>..
This happens with legislation and courts in a lot of states as well. There is a sect of people in this
country that do NOT want to give up power and believe that this country should stay firmly rooted
in the backwater of its history.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JackOfNoTrades said:


> I'd love to see a dozen more fantastically liberal judges on the SC. If for no other
> reason than to piss people like you off, Nazi Boy.
> 
> Now, if you want to reach for that paper bag next to you and breathe into it, after a
> few minutes, you'll see that this is just proposed legislation and with the current makeup
> of the House and Senate, it isn't going to get far.
> 
> That being said, the SC has largely been a tool of the right wing to try and stack with conservative judges hell bent on shoving their deeply ingrained religious beliefs down the throats of every American.
> All while hiding behind the guise of "Following the Constitution"....<shiver>..
> This happens with legislation and courts in a lot of states as well. There is a sect of people in this
> country that do NOT want to give up power and believe that this country should stay firmly rooted
> in the backwater of its history.



{the SC has largely been a tool of the right wing }







The lies your fucking Nazis tell..

Barrett ushers in the first conservative majority on the court in 70 years, Herr Himmler.


----------



## Crepitus

Billy_Kinetta said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical records.  They are numerous and free.  Avail yourself of them.
Click to expand...

Lol, you can't think of anything, can you.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical records.  They are numerous and free.  Avail yourself of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, you can't think of anything, can you.
> 
> View attachment 480535
Click to expand...


DC Statehood pops immediately into mind.  For The People Act.  Equality Act.  Federal gun control.  16th Amendment.  Jim Crow.   Designation of protected classes of citizens.  

Just off the top.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Disir said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is a study group, and it will most likely conclude some smaller adjustments; such as require the Senate to bring forth the President's nominee within the 30 days of nomination, taking away turtle's abuse of power; all records to be brought forth taking away the power of the Judicial Committee leader to cherry pick said records.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is being created specifically to explore the addition of other judges and term limits.  Get a grip.
Click to expand...


So you say, apparently you have no clue as to what is and what is not a study group.  Do you support McConnell's bullshit in not bringing Obama's nominee for an up and down vote?  Wasn't that a method to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives?  It seems you are out of "grip".


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Rye Catcher said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is a study group, and it will most likely conclude some smaller adjustments; such as require the Senate to bring forth the President's nominee within the 30 days of nomination, taking away turtle's abuse of power; all records to be brought forth taking away the power of the Judicial Committee leader to cherry pick said records.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is being created specifically to explore the addition of other judges and term limits.  Get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say, apparently you have no clue as to what is and what is not a study group.  Do you support McConnell's bullshit in not bringing Obama's nominee for an up and down vote?
Click to expand...


Of course.  Read.  Get help of necessary.

*Article 2, Section 2 -

He [The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. *


----------



## otto105

Bush92 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsherN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TransLivesMatter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> They're doing a six month study.  It will never happen.
> It should never happen.  However, there should be some way to make right the seat Mitch McConnell stole from Obama.  Republicans suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t worry, you’ll soon love the idea of 13 justices
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 13? Let’s make it 20. Why 13? Racist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the vaulted Constitution say about size of the court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> How about 1 from each of the 10 districts, 10 year terms. A new one every year. The outgoing one stays 1 year to break a tie if required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Constitution is being ignored I assure you partitioning 10 districts defies partitioning States to abide by their own legislature might get lost in the fistfight over federalism with 100% of the power v. Power originating in ordinary people who are equal to each other. In pure federalism the power issues from the top and trickles down to whatever is left after the fed's play "winner takes all." States rights are important to people who love their own states better than anyone else's. The founders disciplined themselves to let the people decide and also disciplined themselves to try brotherly love and equality as prime ingredients of human life being acceptable to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights and state control over the direction of our nation is at the heart of the Constitution and exactly what the Founder's wanted.
Click to expand...

No, no it’s not.


----------



## Disir

Rye Catcher said:


> So you say, apparently you have no clue as to what is and what is not a study group.



But, I do know. You just don't like it.  The above is what this thread is about.  You don't get to change what the study group is about because you don't like it.  I have very little patience for you, Rye.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional Democrats seem to believe (or simply want others to believe) that it is required the Supreme Court be "balanced" between Americans and Democrats in order for the Court to function properly.
> 
> How silly is that?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Americans and Republicans.
Click to expand...


No, he really doesn't.


----------



## easyt65

The intent to pack the courts is a pure power play to obtain the liberal Socialist Democrat majority in the court.

No?

Why add 4 Judges?  Why not just add 1 more...2 more...3 more? 

EVERYONE KNOWS WHY - because the Democrats need 4 MORE to take back control of the USSC!

IF the Democrats do it, where / when does it end? 

If the GOP retakes control of govt & 'packs the court', adding more judges to regain control, the Democrats WILL attempt to add more judges to retake the USSC if they take power back. 

How many judges are enough?  20?  21? 31 USSC Judges?

USSC JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG PUBLICLY DECLARED 9 IS ENOUGH!

Because Justice Breyer echoed Justice Ginsburg's opinion, a D-Rep, Rep Mondaire Jones, has publicly called for him to retire. 










						House Judiciary Dem: All due respect, Breyer ... get out
					

The respect from the freshman House Democrat is palpable, right? Less than three months after taking office, Rep. Mondaire Jones has determined that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has outlived h...




					hotair.com


----------



## Synthaholic

Nice try.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.

So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.


----------



## OKTexas

Synthaholic said:


> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.




Guess you haven't heard there commie. Palousey killed the house bill. Said she wants to hear what the commission has to say.

.


----------



## kaz

Synthaholic said:


> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.



Another leftist moron who doesn't know what packing the court means.

Typical leftist fascist move by the Nazi party, make up your own definition for words


----------



## Donald H

A system in which the politics of Scotus judges is their first priority, has already fatally failed!

And again, Americans expose their dirty laundry to the rest of the world. America is a social failure with very little will amongst it's people to reform.

Does this mean a certain fall to fascism? 

Biden can't bring the 'big gifts' to the people fast enough!


----------



## easyt65

Synthaholic said:


> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.


Thanks for the triggered rant, but you failed to answer the question....


----------



## Meathead

Synthaholic said:


> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.


Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## easyt65

Donald H said:


> A system in which the politics of Scotus judges is their first priority, has already fatally failed!
> 
> And again, Americans expose their dirty laundry to the rest of the world. America is a social failure with very little will amongst it's people to reform.
> 
> Does this mean a certain fall to fascism?
> 
> Biden can't bring the 'big gifts' to the people fast enough!


Democrats have already started the US on the steep slippery slide towards becoming an openly 3rd world nation....


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Oh, is that a fact?  Let's just discuss how much Democrats love and want to adhere to the Constitution, shall we?

_Article I, Section I -  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. _

Well, we already know Democrats/leftists don't like that, because they want laws to be made by executive orders, unelected bureaucrats writing regulations, and the Supreme Court handing down judicial fiats.

_Section 4 -  The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; _

We know they don't consider that part to be important, since we saw in the last election that they consider governors, secretaries of state, and pretty much any other state government employee to be just as empowered to make or change election law if they feel like it.

_Section 8 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_

Democrats/leftists have made it quite clear that they consider this extensive listing of the specific powers of Congress to be irrelevant, as they would prefer to focus entirely on the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and interpret it to mean, "Or, y'know, whatever else we feel like doing at the moment."

_To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; _

Kick that to the curb, because Democrats/leftists now want the District of Columbia to be a state in itself.

_Section 10 -  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, *enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State*, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay._ 

Can we say "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"?

And that's just the first Article.

To be continued . . .


----------



## alang1216

easyt65 said:


> The intent to pack the courts is a pure power play to obtain the liberal Socialist Democrat majority in the court.
> 
> No?
> 
> Why add 4 Judges?  Why not just add 1 more...2 more...3 more?
> 
> EVERYONE KNOWS WHY - because the Democrats need 4 MORE to take back control of the USSC!
> 
> IF the Democrats do it, where / when does it end?
> 
> If the GOP retakes control of govt & 'packs the court', adding more judges to regain control, the Democrats WILL attempt to add more judges to retake the USSC if they take power back.
> 
> How many judges are enough?  20?  21? 31 USSC Judges?
> 
> USSC JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG PUBLICLY DECLARED 9 IS ENOUGH!
> 
> Because Justice Breyer echoed Justice Ginsburg's opinion, a D-Rep, Rep Mondaire Jones, has publicly called for him to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Judiciary Dem: All due respect, Breyer ... get out
> 
> 
> The respect from the freshman House Democrat is palpable, right? Less than three months after taking office, Rep. Mondaire Jones has determined that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has outlived h...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hotair.com


I'd vote for adding one more justice since the GOP essentially stole one from Obama or Biden.  Fair's fair.


----------



## Donald H

easyt65 said:


> Democrats have already started the US on the steep slippery slide towards becoming an openly 3rd world nation....



America is on a slippery slope toward becoming a 3rd. world country, or perhaps just a 2nd world country, to be more accurate and charitable.

The political party responsible is of no interest to me. I'll just call it generic politics in general.

You have earned the right to be on my probation list. From here on in you are expected to meet some minimum standard.


----------



## easyt65

Donald H said:


> You have earned the right to be on my probation list.



Bwuhahahahahahaha..........


----------



## Donald H

alang1216 said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A system in which the politics of Scotus judges is their first priority, has already fatally failed!
> 
> And again, Americans expose their dirty laundry to the rest of the world. America is a social failure with very little will amongst it's people to reform.
> 
> Does this mean a certain fall to fascism?
> 
> Biden can't bring the 'big gifts' to the people fast enough!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have already started the US on the steep slippery slide towards becoming an openly 3rd world nation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the kind of country where the President refuses to accept the results of an election and sends a mob to overturn that election?
Click to expand...

It's an omen but I have no interest in helping to promote the ridiculous partisan politics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cecilie1200 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that a fact?  Let's just discuss how much Democrats love and want to adhere to the Constitution, shall we?
> 
> _Article I, Section I -  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. _
> 
> Well, we already know Democrats/leftists don't like that, because they want laws to be made by executive orders, unelected bureaucrats writing regulations, and the Supreme Court handing down judicial fiats.
> 
> _Section 4 -  The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; _
> 
> We know they don't consider that part to be important, since we saw in the last election that they consider governors, secretaries of state, and pretty much any other state government employee to be just as empowered to make or change election law if they feel like it.
> 
> _Section 8 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
> 
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Democrats/leftists have made it quite clear that they consider this extensive listing of the specific powers of Congress to be irrelevant, as they would prefer to focus entirely on the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and interpret it to mean, "Or, y'know, whatever else we feel like doing at the moment."
> 
> _To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; _
> 
> Kick that to the curb, because Democrats/leftists now want the District of Columbia to be a state in itself.
> 
> _Section 10 -  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, *enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State*, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay._
> 
> Can we say "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"?
> 
> And that's just the first Article.
> 
> To be continued . . .
Click to expand...


_Article II, Section I -  Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. _

Not only are Democrats enthusiastically arguing to abolish the Electoral College, which would at least require an Amendment passed through the proper channels, but may I also direct your attention yet again to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the illegal attempt to simply ignore the Electoral College entirely?

_Section 3 -  He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. _

Last time I checked, immigration law is still on the books and valid, but does anyone notice President Asterisk "taking care that" THOSE laws "be faithfully executed"?  How about the previous Democrat-in-Chief, President "I'm black and that's all that matters"?

_Section 4 -  The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. _

Two - not one, but TWO - impeachments of Donald Trump for 100% made-up bullshit.

To be continued . . .


----------



## GMCGeneral

Synthaholic said:


> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.


Garland is a far Left whackjob that deserved ZERO consideration for the USSC after Scalia was murdered by Democrats.  The Constitution says "Advise and consent" not "Rubberstamp Obama's picks}", asshole.


----------



## Burgermeister

They like to socialize something outrageous then follow up with something less and call it moderate, so I predict they will come back to 11 and tell everyone it was a massive compromise.


----------



## easyt65

So, again, how many times do 'we' keep packing the court to change the hand dealt 'we' don't like? 

And the Democrats urinate on RBG's memory by ignoring her and her opinion that 9 is enough?!

Whatever it takes to gain power, I guess.


----------



## task0778

It may not be this year or next, but it's coming if the Far Left every gets 51 votes in the Senate and controls the House and the Presidency.


----------



## Donald H

This initiative is far, far off the beaten path in that it's too extremist for the existing situation. Biden's first task is to gain the sympathy of a large enough majority of the people before any tampering with the corrupt Scotus.

When, or if, the people become sympathetic to social change that hugely benefits the working class American, Biden will have the backing to tackle more socially responsible change such as doing something to fix the Scotus.

*Or more likely, the only possible fix for the Scotus would be in changing attitudes of the justices themselves.*

Roberts has already shown signs of being more interested in a just court than being politically biased.
None of the rest show any signs of being too stubborn to change their opinions.

Issues such as allowing a rational outcome on abortion, can only be decided one way. Religious dogma too will have to be dealt with rationally and according to modern science.[/B]


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that a fact?  Let's just discuss how much Democrats love and want to adhere to the Constitution, shall we?
> 
> _Article I, Section I -  All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. _
> 
> Well, we already know Democrats/leftists don't like that, because they want laws to be made by executive orders, unelected bureaucrats writing regulations, and the Supreme Court handing down judicial fiats.
> 
> _Section 4 -  The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; _
> 
> We know they don't consider that part to be important, since we saw in the last election that they consider governors, secretaries of state, and pretty much any other state government employee to be just as empowered to make or change election law if they feel like it.
> 
> _Section 8 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> 
> To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
> 
> To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
> 
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
> 
> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
> 
> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Democrats/leftists have made it quite clear that they consider this extensive listing of the specific powers of Congress to be irrelevant, as they would prefer to focus entirely on the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and interpret it to mean, "Or, y'know, whatever else we feel like doing at the moment."
> 
> _To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; _
> 
> Kick that to the curb, because Democrats/leftists now want the District of Columbia to be a state in itself.
> 
> _Section 10 -  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, *enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State*, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay._
> 
> Can we say "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"?
> 
> And that's just the first Article.
> 
> To be continued . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Article II, Section I -  Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. _
> 
> Not only are Democrats enthusiastically arguing to abolish the Electoral College, which would at least require an Amendment passed through the proper channels, but may I also direct your attention yet again to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the illegal attempt to simply ignore the Electoral College entirely?
> 
> _Section 3 -  He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. _
> 
> Last time I checked, immigration law is still on the books and valid, but does anyone notice President Asterisk "taking care that" THOSE laws "be faithfully executed"?  How about the previous Democrat-in-Chief, President "I'm black and that's all that matters"?
> 
> _Section 4 -  The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. _
> 
> Two - not one, but TWO - impeachments of Donald Trump for 100% made-up bullshit.
> 
> To be continued . . .
Click to expand...


Any leftist trying to sanctimoniously tell us about "defending the Constitution" or "adhering to the Constitution" isn't doing too well so far, because we can see that they've shredded both the first two Articles, and we still have a LOT of document to get through.

Let's see how much Democrats/leftists "love" the Constitution in Article III, shall we?

_Article III, Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed._

Where do I even start with this?  From the Democrat insistence on judging nominations by political ideology instead of jurisprudence- and confirming people who state outright that they prefer to rule based on their own "superior" morals rather than the actual law - to their desire to have laws handed down by judicial fiat rather than going through the legislative process to their attempts to decide cases via the media and threats of mob violence instead of jury trials to their willingness to obliterate any sense of legitimacy and authority the courts have to get their own agenda through court-packing, this Article more than any other has served as Democrat/leftist toilet paper for as long as I can remember.

To be continued . . .


----------



## Synthaholic

OKTexas said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't heard there commie. Palousey killed the house bill. Said she wants to hear what the commission has to say.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I've been watching Nancy Pelosi operate for a long time. This is a tactic. Throw ice cold water on the idea from the jump, but eventually being a proponent.


----------



## Synthaholic

kaz said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another leftist moron who doesn't know what packing the court means.
> 
> Typical leftist fascist move by the Nazi party, make up your own definition for words
Click to expand...

Ok, tell me what it means, then.


----------



## Synthaholic

GMCGeneral said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland is a far Left whackjob that deserved ZERO consideration for the USSC after Scalia was murdered by Democrats.  The Constitution says "Advise and consent" not "Rubberstamp Obama's picks}", asshole.
Click to expand...

Then why did those same Republicans vote to confirm him to the lifetime appointment he held when he was nominated for SCOTUS - Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?


----------



## Synthaholic

easyt65 said:


> And the Democrats urinate on RBG's memory by ignoring her and her opinion that 9 is enough?!


Fuck you.
*New book reveals McConnell refused to let RBG lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda*


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## kaz

Synthaholic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another leftist moron who doesn't know what packing the court means.
> 
> Typical leftist fascist move by the Nazi party, make up your own definition for words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, tell me what it means, then.
Click to expand...


You're on the internet, you can google words you don't know rather than making up your own definition


----------



## EvilCat Breath

SassyIrishLass said:


> So much for that noise....
> 
> Open SmartNews and read "Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats" here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> To read it on the web, tap here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats


The reaction was huge and instantaneous.   The proposal never had a chance of passing.  The proposal might be what is necessary to completely sink all democrat chances next election.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Synthaholic said:


>


Now that Merick Garland has come into the public eye we see he never had a real chance at being confirmed.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Synthaholic said:


> GMCGeneral said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland is a far Left whackjob that deserved ZERO consideration for the USSC after Scalia was murdered by Democrats.  The Constitution says "Advise and consent" not "Rubberstamp Obama's picks}", asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did those same Republicans vote to confirm him to the lifetime appointment he held when he was nominated for SCOTUS - Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?
Click to expand...

Because they wisened up to Obama and his anti American crap.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Tipsycatlover said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for that noise....
> 
> Open SmartNews and read "Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats" here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> To read it on the web, tap here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> 
> 
> 
> The reaction was huge and instantaneous.   The proposal never had a chance of passing.  The proposal might be what is necessary to completely sink all democrat chances next election.
Click to expand...

NY is already poised to become more red because of Andy Cuomo.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

GMCGeneral said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for that noise....
> 
> Open SmartNews and read "Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats" here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> To read it on the web, tap here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> 
> 
> 
> The reaction was huge and instantaneous.   The proposal never had a chance of passing.  The proposal might be what is necessary to completely sink all democrat chances next election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NY is already poised to become more red because of Andy Cuomo.
Click to expand...

New York City is on its way to being populated exclusively by criminals.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Tipsycatlover said:


> GMCGeneral said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for that noise....
> 
> Open SmartNews and read "Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats" here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> To read it on the web, tap here: Speaker Pelosi throws cold water on a progressive bill that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats
> 
> 
> 
> The reaction was huge and instantaneous.   The proposal never had a chance of passing.  The proposal might be what is necessary to completely sink all democrat chances next election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NY is already poised to become more red because of Andy Cuomo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New York City is on its way to being populated exclusively by criminals.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the GOOD part of the state.  Not the sewer.


----------



## OKTexas

Synthaholic said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans packed the court by denying Obama's pick for 8 months because it was too close to an election, then rushing through Barrett with 8 DAYS before the election. Republicans packed the court by installing 230+ lifetime judges under Trump.
> 
> So fuck off with your bullshit. The Democrats are going to balance the courts, by adding more SCOTUS Justices and by expanding the District Courts. And hopefully, convince Breyer to retire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't heard there commie. Palousey killed the house bill. Said she wants to hear what the commission has to say.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been watching Nancy Pelosi operate for a long time. This is a tactic. Throw ice cold water on the idea from the jump, but eventually being a proponent.
Click to expand...



So you're saying she's a two face lying bitch, got it.

.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"
> 
> You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really what you got out of that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's a rightwing parrot, hypocrisy is her singular virtue.  If the Dems had pulled the crap her party did with Garland and the Pubs were in charge, she would be demanding court packing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crepitus is a leftist parrot. Just saying...
Click to expand...


Coyote is a leftist parrot.  I can't remember the last time she posted something that wasn't cut-and-pasted directly from the talking points memos laughingly referred to as "media articles".  If she ever had an original thought, she'd probably kill herself from the shame of having betrayed her beloved masters.

So the irony of being called a parrot by someone who's every single post is fed to her by others is really funny.  And being told that I would act just like her if the roles were reversed, because her mindless drone ass is somehow "what all people are like" is downright insulting.


----------



## Jets

Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jets said:


> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.



There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so.  When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases.  In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload.  THAT is a valid reason.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Jets said:


> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.


It just creates a slippery slope. Do you disagree enough to vote against those who support it?


----------



## Crepitus

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical records.  They are numerous and free.  Avail yourself of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, you can't think of anything, can you.
> 
> View attachment 480535
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DC Statehood pops immediately into mind.  For The People Act.  Equality Act.  Federal gun control.  16th Amendment.  Jim Crow.   Designation of protected classes of citizens.
> 
> Just off the top.
Click to expand...

 Nothing unconstitutional there, except maybe the jim crow laws, and they weren't thought to be at the time.


----------



## Disir

Donald H said:


> A system in which the politics of Scotus judges is their first priority, has already fatally failed!
> 
> And again, Americans expose their dirty laundry to the rest of the world. America is a social failure with very little will amongst it's people to reform.
> 
> Does this mean a certain fall to fascism?
> 
> Biden can't bring the 'big gifts' to the people fast enough!


That's a whole lot of nonsense you got going on there.


----------



## Bush92

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under.  You're out of your league here.
> 
> Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What record are you referring too?
> 
> Specifically
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All concerned with the subject, specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical records.  They are numerous and free.  Avail yourself of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, you can't think of anything, can you.
> 
> View attachment 480535
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DC Statehood pops immediately into mind.  For The People Act.  Equality Act.  Federal gun control.  16th Amendment.  Jim Crow.   Designation of protected classes of citizens.
> 
> Just off the top.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing unconstitutional there, except maybe the jim crow laws, and they weren't thought to be at the time.
Click to expand...

Despicable effort to politicize the High Court.


----------



## eagle7-31

StormAl said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't.  We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening  variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).
> 
> Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
> Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Since when? LOL


----------



## Kilroy2

San Souci said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said stack the court not packing the court.  Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?
Click to expand...


The lie is the your silly notion of non activist judges.  a truly non activist would not consider changing previous supreme court rulings. Judges are human beings they will be influenced by preconceptions, principles and bias.   The boundaries of law invite conflict between reasonable principles that demand a review by the supreme court. They will either affirm the previous ruling or change the ruling. Now that the court is stacked in your favor your friends will be bringing cases that have been already decided in a bid to change them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rye Catcher said:


> So you say, apparently you have no clue as to what is and what is not a study group.  Do you support McConnell's bullshit in not bringing Obama's nominee for an up and down vote?  Wasn't that a method to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives?  It seems you are out of "grip".




Oberfuhrer Garland?



That Nazi fuck has no business on the SCOTUS


----------



## Uncensored2008

StormAl said:


> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.





The Constitution you Nazi fucks are at war to crush?

How about you Nazi c&nts follow the Constitution yourselves? You know, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th that you shit all over?


----------



## StormAl

Uncensored2008 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution you Nazi fucks are at war to crush?
> 
> How about you Nazi c&nts follow the Constitution yourselves? You know, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th that you shit all over?
Click to expand...

You sound confused.  The argument that should be used against the Dems is not that reform the court is unconstitutional, for it is certainly not, but that is an abuse of power.


----------



## Coyote

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
> 
> 
> 
> It just creates a slippery slope. Do you disagree enough to vote against those who support it?
Click to expand...


What McConnell did in regards to Garland created a slippery slope too.

Didn't seem to change anyone's vote.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so.  When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases.  In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload.  THAT is a valid reason.
Click to expand...


There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Coyote said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
> 
> 
> 
> It just creates a slippery slope. Do you disagree enough to vote against those who support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What McConnell did in regards to Garland created a slippery slope too.
> 
> Didn't seem to change anyone's vote.
Click to expand...

Mitch is a moron


----------



## San Souci

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said stack the court not packing the court.  Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lie is the your silly notion of non activist judges.  a truly non activist would not consider changing previous supreme court rulings. Judges are human beings they will be influenced by preconceptions, principles and bias.   The boundaries of law invite conflict between reasonable principles that demand a review by the supreme court. They will either affirm the previous ruling or change the ruling. Now that the court is stacked in your favor your friends will be bringing cases that have been already decided in a bid to change them.
Click to expand...

Like ROE? That should have been Legislated.


----------



## Bush92

Kilroy2 said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny that Mitch the republican  blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election.  4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee.  Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?
> 
> now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.
> 
> Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members.  Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections  and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month.  Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.
> 
> Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE."  What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said stack the court not packing the court.  Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lie is the your silly notion of non activist judges.  a truly non activist would not consider changing previous supreme court rulings. Judges are human beings they will be influenced by preconceptions, principles and bias.   The boundaries of law invite conflict between reasonable principles that demand a review by the supreme court. They will either affirm the previous ruling or change the ruling. Now that the court is stacked in your favor your friends will be bringing cases that have been already decided in a bid to change them.
Click to expand...

Rulings have been revisited and changed throughout U.S. history. Example: _Olmsted v. United States 1927 _then see _Katz v. United States 1967._


----------



## Bush92

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so.  When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases.  In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload.  THAT is a valid reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.
Click to expand...

The people were allowed to voice their opinion on Garland. They rejected him. Funny how leftist were not too upset at the time because Hillary was going to win in this huge landslide. Not!


----------



## HaShev

Nadler being all dramatic saying they were unpacking the court not packing it, was the dumbest comment, what does that even mean?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so.  When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases.  In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload.  THAT is a valid reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.
Click to expand...


Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!!  We are always entitled to get our way!!!"

And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political?  Lame attempt at conflating two very different things.  Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?


----------



## Donald H

The Scotus reflects the corrupt mindset of America and so is not very far from what the people prefer.
First America must reform to something more close to normal for the 21st. century and then the Scotus can be overhauled to suit.

America is out of sync  on guns, abortion rights, religious superstitious beliefs, and a lot of other issues that has brought it down to 15th. on quality of life. The Jan. 6th. riots at the Capitol was the first demonstration of discontent among the working class. Even though Trump led it and encouraged it for nothing but his own personal gain.









						Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News
					

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.




					dailyhive.com
				




The link above contains the parameters which must be addressed for America to catch up to the world's leading democracies.

Biden better deliver big and deliver fast! 

If he fails then fascism will be the people's only answer to the reform they are beginning to demand.


----------



## Polishprince

Disir said:


> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.




If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.

Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them.    If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.


----------



## StormAl

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so.  When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases.  In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload.  THAT is a valid reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!!  We are always entitled to get our way!!!"
> 
> And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political?  Lame attempt at conflating two very different things.  Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?
> [/QUOTE}You just described how McConnell ran the Senate as Majority Leader.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!!  We are always entitled to get our way!!!"



Do you normally lie this blatantly or do you have an issue with reading comprehension.  I said (and have said) I don't support changing the court size.



> And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political?  Lame attempt at conflating two very different things.  Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?



Oh my...shifting a few goal posts.  Let's see if we can clarify this.  No one said CONFIRMATION wasn't political.  Of course it is.  However, a president has never been prevented from filling the vacancy for purely political purposes before.  Keep pretending otherwise, it suits you.


----------



## Coyote

Polishprince said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.
> 
> *Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them.    If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.*
Click to expand...


Exactly.  And the non-political tradition of the court will be shredded.


----------



## StormAl

Coyote said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.
> 
> *Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them.    If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And the non-political tradition of the court will be shredded.
Click to expand...

I don't think it really has one after the election of 2000 and _Citizens United_.


----------



## Coyote

StormAl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority.
> 
> Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominated justices, aired his views shortly before President Biden on Friday announced a 36-member commission to study the issue.
> 
> Breyer, 82, denounced the idea during a webcast lecture for Harvard Law School on Thursday, saying that it could undermine “the trust that the court has gradually built.”
> 
> “What I’m trying to do is to make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” Breyer said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer warns Democrats against Supreme Court ‘packing’
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is warning Democrats against “packing” the Supreme Court as a way to undo the current conservative majority. Breyer, the longest-serving of three Democrat-nominat…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is going to undermine the trust. No term limits on SCOTUS either.  Stop politicizing the damn courts. you are doing damage that can't be repaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats thought this was really a great idea, they should have proposed it last year.
> 
> *Its obviously just a political power move, which can backfire on them.    If they move it to 13, the R's will move it to 25 next time they have control.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And the non-political tradition of the court will be shredded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it really has one after the election of 2000 and _Citizens United_.
Click to expand...


Citizens United...such a bad decision


----------



## ThisIsMe

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
> It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
> It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
> It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
> When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
> Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.
> 
> View attachment 480143


No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot?  Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration. 

That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind. 

The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.


----------



## StormAl

ThisIsMe said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
> It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
> It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
> It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
> When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
> Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.
> 
> View attachment 480143
> 
> 
> 
> No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot?  Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.
> 
> That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.
> 
> The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
Click to expand...

ThisisMe, I agree that it is a power grab, exactly as was the coordinate power grab of the Trump appointees to SCOTUS.

It is an abuse of power, even if both sides efforts were legal.


----------



## ThisIsMe

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
> It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
> It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
> It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
> When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
> Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.
> 
> View attachment 480143
> 
> 
> 
> No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot?  Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.
> 
> That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.
> 
> The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ThisisMe, I agree that it is a power grab, exactly as was the coordinate power grab of the Trump appointees to SCOTUS.
> 
> It is an abuse of power, even if both sides efforts were legal.
Click to expand...

I don't see trumps appointments as a power grab. If you want to blame mconnel for merrick garland, I get that, but trump had seats come open, and he filled them, like any president would do. 

That doesn't change my belief that the system is messed up though. Appointing justices based on their politics is just wrong, no matter who does it.


----------



## StormAl

The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.


----------



## ThisIsMe

StormAl said:


> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.


Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.


----------



## StormAl

ThisIsMe said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> eagle7-31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland.  The American people however do not.  Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction.
> 
> 
> 
> Save the tears about Garland, when you have  spilt control of the Senate and WH in a Presidential election year that is what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has no tears about Garland.  She believes that Democrats deserve to do whatever they want, just because they want to.  Garland is just a fig leaf so that she can tell herself that she's not the selfish piece of garbage she knows she sounds like.
> 
> The lame excuses about "We deserve to act unilaterally because you refused to give us what we wanted" only ever go one way with her.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!!  We are always entitled to get our way!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you normally lie this blatantly or do you have an issue with reading comprehension.  I said (and have said) I don't support changing the court size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political?  Lame attempt at conflating two very different things.  Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my...shifting a few goal posts.  Let's see if we can clarify this.  No one said CONFIRMATION wasn't political.  Of course it is.  However, a president has never been prevented from filling the vacancy for purely political purposes before.  Keep pretending otherwise, it suits you.
Click to expand...


I never lie, and I don't dignify lowlife parrot drones who presume to the authority to accuse me of anything.

And no, I didn't read your post, because you don't deserve to be read as though you were a thinking person.

Try harder to be worthy of my notice, and perhaps I'll be generous enough to let you speak to me.  Get back to memorizing your talking points, or you won't have anything to say.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ThisIsMe said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
> It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
> It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
> It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
> When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
> Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.
> 
> View attachment 480143
> 
> 
> 
> No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot?  Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.
> 
> That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.
> 
> The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
Click to expand...


Leftists don't care about legitimacy, nor do they care about the public perception of the courts, or anything else.  Their goal is a world in which they simply tell people what they must pretend to believe, because only the leftist elite have any power and everyone else is just a serf.  So what do they care about what people think?

Look at what they've done ever since they got their Trojan Houseplant into office.  They don't even care about looking like they care about what people think.  They really believe they can just order people to mouth their party line, and silence anyone who speaks out.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Dirty Democrats have to *Pack the Court*, it is an admission that they have failed.
> It is an admission that they cannot win fairly.
> It is admission that they cannot govern inside the bounds of the constitution.
> It is an admission that they are totally corrupt and completely lawless.
> When Corrupt Extremist get in control they always change the rules to stay in power permanently.(note venezuela)
> Schumer is a dangerously corrupt extremist.
> 
> View attachment 480143
> 
> 
> 
> No, its an admission that the whole system is screwed up. What can 13 justices do that 9 cannot?  Nothing. The entire purpose is to get more liberal justices so they can make decisions that benefit democrats and the Biden administration.
> 
> That is the complete wrong reason to appoint justices. It show you that justice is not blind, its very much partisan, and cases brought before them will not be ruled on with impartiality, but with an agenda in mind.
> 
> The Supreme Court is just an extension of the legislative branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ThisisMe, I agree that it is a power grab, exactly as was the coordinate power grab of the Trump appointees to SCOTUS.
> 
> It is an abuse of power, even if both sides efforts were legal.
Click to expand...


What I just heard:  "It's a power grab for Republicans to ever exercise any of the legitimate political power they're given, and that justifies Democrats doing whatever they want."


----------



## ThisIsMe

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
Click to expand...

How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.


----------



## StormAl

ThisIsMe said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
Click to expand...

If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


Yes, you actually CAN have it both ways, when one way is simply following the procedure in place, and the other way is radically changing the system.

I get that you somehow think the operating formula here is, "Which party gets to appoint more Justices?" but it's actually not.

So by all means, keep whining to us about how appointing a Justice to an open seat is exactly the same as restructuring the court.  It certainly doesn't matter to us if you make a laughable partisan fool out of yourself if it doesn't matter to you.


----------



## StormAl

Cecilie1200 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you actually CAN have it both ways, when one way is simply following the procedure in place, and the other way is radically changing the system.
> 
> I get that you somehow think the operating formula here is, "Which party gets to appoint more Justices?" but it's actually not.
> 
> So by all means, keep whining to us about how appointing a Justice to an open seat is exactly the same as restructuring the court.  It certainly doesn't matter to us if you make a laughable partisan fool out of yourself if it doesn't matter to you.
Click to expand...

There is no procedure in place to not put seats on the Court or take them away, for that matter. That is where you fail. Miserably.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you actually CAN have it both ways, when one way is simply following the procedure in place, and the other way is radically changing the system.
> 
> I get that you somehow think the operating formula here is, "Which party gets to appoint more Justices?" but it's actually not.
> 
> So by all means, keep whining to us about how appointing a Justice to an open seat is exactly the same as restructuring the court.  It certainly doesn't matter to us if you make a laughable partisan fool out of yourself if it doesn't matter to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no procedure in place to not put seats on the Court or take them away, for that matter. That is where you fail. Miserably.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but YOUR straw man is not MY failure.  As far as I'm concerned, this is just an admission that you know my post was correct, and you don't want to admit it.  So you just pretend you didn't understand the words.

Your surrender is noted, and your dishonest cowardice is laughed at.


----------



## ThisIsMe

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?


----------



## StormAl

ThisIsMe said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
Click to expand...

This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
Click to expand...


"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"


----------



## Pellinore

ThisIsMe said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
Click to expand...

I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.


----------



## StormAl

Cecilie1200 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
Click to expand...

It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.
Click to expand...


So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.

Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect.  Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.


----------



## StormAl

Cecilie1200 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.
> 
> Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect.  Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
Click to expand...

Believe that all you want but I don't litigate matters that are already settled.


----------



## Cecilie1200

StormAl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.
> 
> Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect.  Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe that all you want but I don't litigate matters that are already settled.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt that YOU consider "Other people have told me what to think" to be "settled".

One does wonder why you bother to take up space on this board, insofar as all you have to say is, "Ditto what they said."  Seems to me I can dispense with your presence entirely, since you take offense at being asked to say things for yourself and pretend that you have thoughts.

Consider yourself dismissed and forgotten, vaporous nobody.


----------



## StormAl

Cecilie1200 said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.
> 
> Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect.  Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe that all you want but I don't litigate matters that are already settled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that YOU consider "Other people have told me what to think" to be "settled".
> 
> One does wonder why you bother to take up space on this board, insofar as all you have to say is, "Ditto what they said."  Seems to me I can dispense with your presence entirely, since you take offense at being asked to say things for yourself and pretend that you have thoughts.
> 
> Consider yourself dismissed and forgotten, vaporous nobody.
Click to expand...

It's already been settled. Move along.


----------



## San Souci

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
Click to expand...

The 'Splain was Bullshit. Just because a commie Lib croaked? The President at the time had the right to nominate. The Senate had the right to approve. So you Lie.


----------



## StormAl

San Souci said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 'Splain was Bullshit. Just because a commie Lib croaked? The President at the time had the right to nominate. The Senate had the right to approve. So you Lie.
Click to expand...

It has been explained, so your nonsense is . . . nonsense. It was an abuse of power. The move for D.C. statehood is an abuse of power. It is what political parties do.


----------



## ThisIsMe

StormAl said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
Click to expand...

The only argument I've seen is that trump nominated her and the senate confirmed her. Yes, during an election year. There is a gentleman's agreement about nominations during election years, but no laws against it. 

Its something that any president would have done, and in fact, Obama tried to do it with garland. The only difference between the two, and the only reason garland didn't get a senate hearing was the senate majority at that time. Had democrats had control, garland would have been confirmed. 

Crappy deal, yes, but nothing that either side wouldn't have done if given the chance. 

What the Republicans did not do, however, was try to expand the court to make it harder for the demo to wrestle control. 

There is no law against the left adding more Supreme Court justices, but make no mistake, its ALL about power.

The fact that we argue about democrats or Republicans on the scotus is proof that our justice system is messed up, and we are appointing them for the wrong reasons.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Pellinore said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
Click to expand...

There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.


----------



## StormAl

And that is why we are going to see an expanded SCOTUS and DC statehood.

It is all about power, and Moscow Mitch is going to witness first hand it on steroids.


----------



## Pellinore

ThisIsMe said:


> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but I didn't say "in an election year."  I said "after many people had already voted."


----------



## ThisIsMe

Pellinore said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, but I didn't say "in an election year."  I said "after many people had already voted."
Click to expand...

Ok, I fail to see how the number of people voting has any relevance. A president is president until they are no longer president. Again, had Obama had a Democrat senate, garland would have been confirmed. 

I'll grant you that, if the agreement is that no judge will be confirmed in an election year, then a president shouldn't nominate one, in an election year. That goes for both sides.


----------



## Pellinore

ThisIsMe said:


> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret?  I don't agree.  A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was it an abuse of power?  Was a seat not vacant?  Would any other president not have done the exact same thing?  Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?
> 
> Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.
> 
> What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus,  THATS a power grab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, but I didn't say "in an election year."  I said "after many people had already voted."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I fail to see how the number of people voting has any relevance. A president is president until they are no longer president. Again, had Obama had a Democrat senate, garland would have been confirmed.
> 
> I'll grant you that, if the agreement is that no judge will be confirmed in an election year, then a president shouldn't nominate one, in an election year. That goes for both sides.
Click to expand...

I agree.  At this point, I would like to see a solid law passed establishing a definite deadline.  I don't even care that much when it is, as long as it is consistent between administrations. 

I don't have a whole lot of confidence in that happening; as a country, we don't seem to be doing very well setting aside our partisan goals in order to preserve the strength of our shared democracy.


----------



## Colin norris

beautress said:


> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com


Oh the irony.  You never objected when trump stacked it with 3 Republican appointments. Where's your independence of the court now.  


The appointments should be taken from the president and done by independent qualified people to do it.


----------



## beautress

Colin norris said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.  You never objected when trump stacked it with 3 Republican appointments. Where's your independence of the court now.
> 
> 
> The appointments should be taken from the president and done by independent qualified people to do it.
Click to expand...

Republican justices do not follow the Republican Party because we believe in the rule of law which encourages people to do the right thing, not what some party boss does that is abhorrent to ordinary people, most of whom believe in doing right. The minority of Democrat judges reach the middle ground like Ruth Bader did when she stated it wouldn't be fair to stack the Supreme Court with partisan ends. The Constitution was her first love and it is based on what is good for everyday people who live and work the majority of their lives. The Democrat ends do not favor American citizens.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Colin norris said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> 
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.  You never objected when trump stacked it with 3 Republican appointments. Where's your independence of the court now.
> 
> 
> The appointments should be taken from the president and done by independent qualified people to do it.
Click to expand...


Why would she object to the duly-elected President nominating Justices to fill vacant seats as prescribed in the Constitution?  You DID know that your personal political biases aren't actually obligatory for anyone else, right?


----------



## Colin norris

beautress said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?
> Why didn't you take that high moral ground when trump replaced her with a Republican stooge. Where's the consistency in that decision? You can't have it both ways.
> foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the irony.  You never objected when trump stacked it with 3 Republican appointments. Where's your independence of the court now.
> 
> 
> The appointments should be taken from the president and done by independent qualified people to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republican justices do not follow the Republican Party because we believe in the rule of law which encourages people to do the right thing, not what some party boss does that is abhorrent to ordinary people, most of whom believe in doing right. The minority of Democrat judges reach the middle ground like Ruth Bader did when she stated it wouldn't be fair to stack the Supreme Court with partisan ends. The Constitution was her first love and it is based on what is good for everyday people who live and work the majority of their lives. The Democrat ends do not favor American citizens.
Click to expand...


----------

