Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shall we point out that justice roberts took the UNPRECEDENTED action of rewriting the ACA, trying to frame it as a tax, so it would be constitutional.Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the fuck he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.
Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, fuck the laws".
Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the fuck he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.
Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, fuck the laws".
You may want others to believe you are "brilliant", and also pretend to be an expert on the judiciary. I don't claim to be an expert on the law, but I did spent a 32 year career as an Officer of the Court. I spent hundreds of hours in court, spent a substantial number of days on the golf course with judges, court reporters, clerks and bailiffs.
And yet you still vote democrat?Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the fuck he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.
Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, fuck the laws".
You may want others to believe you are "brilliant", and also pretend to be an expert on the judiciary. I don't claim to be an expert on the law, but I did spent a 32 year career as an Officer of the Court. I spent hundreds of hours in court, spent a substantial number of days on the golf course with judges, court reporters, clerks and bailiffs.
Shall we point out that justice roberts took the UNPRECEDENTED action of rewriting the ACA, trying to frame it as a tax, so it would be constitutional.Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
That was wildly in appropriate, especially considering the democrats kept saying it wasn’t a tax.
And who the fuck is eliminating Miranda rights?? When has that even come up??
strawman argument much?
And yet you still vote democrat?Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the fuck he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.
Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, fuck the laws".
You may want others to believe you are "brilliant", and also pretend to be an expert on the judiciary. I don't claim to be an expert on the law, but I did spent a 32 year career as an Officer of the Court. I spent hundreds of hours in court, spent a substantial number of days on the golf course with judges, court reporters, clerks and bailiffs.
What would you like me to research. Everything I said was accurate.Shall we point out that justice roberts took the UNPRECEDENTED action of rewriting the ACA, trying to frame it as a tax, so it would be constitutional.Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
That was wildly in appropriate, especially considering the democrats kept saying it wasn’t a tax.
And who the fuck is eliminating Miranda rights?? When has that even come up??
strawman argument much?
Maybe you should do some research before making posting. And maybe you ought to find out the meaning of the Strawman Fallacy.
Consider:
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
and,
After 33 Years of Controversy, Miranda Ruling Faces Its Most Serious Challenge (Published 1999)
Legal experts say Federal appeals court's finding that Congress overruled 1966 Supreme Court Miranda decision with little-used 1968 law that sought to make it easier for Federal prosecutors to use confessions given willingly is most serious challenge ever to Miranda ruling; say it could lead...www.nytimes.com
In SC arguments the solicitor general called it a tax. Roberts didn't do anything except apply the law. Politically the dems said it was not a tax, but …. they lied. And the gop says it hasn't changed the SC confirmation process.Shall we point out that justice roberts took the UNPRECEDENTED action of rewriting the ACA, trying to frame it as a tax, so it would be constitutional.Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
That was wildly in appropriate, especially considering the democrats kept saying it wasn’t a tax.
And who the fuck is eliminating Miranda rights?? When has that even come up??
strawman argument much?
Republicans haven't changed the Supreme Court confirmation process.In SC arguments the solicitor general called it a tax. Roberts didn't do anything except apply the law. Politically the dems said it was not a tax, but …. they lied. And the gop says it hasn't changed the SC confirmation process.
www.forbes.com
Biden has already signaled he will pack the Supreme Court by refusing to rule the matter out.
His denials are idiotic and pure Biden.
Shouldn't the NEW judge recuse herself knowing that the reason she was selected by the pos trump was because she's expected to vote against HC and Roe?Republicans haven't changed the Supreme Court confirmation process.In SC arguments the solicitor general called it a tax. Roberts didn't do anything except apply the law. Politically the dems said it was not a tax, but …. they lied. And the gop says it hasn't changed the SC confirmation process.
And by John Roberts jumping into the middle of the Obama Care fight, to the advantage of the democrats, by calling the mandate a tax (contrary to what the democrats all claimed) he illegally bypassed the House of Representatives and ergo, we have this matter in front of the Supreme Court again.
The Obamacare "Tax" That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional
Tax bills have to originate in the House, but Obamacare began in the Senate.
I wonder how Bush appointee John Roberts feels sitting there as the center of this entire mess as he must rule on Obama Care again? Shouldn't he recuse himself?
And yet you still vote democrat?Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the fuck he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.
Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, fuck the laws".
You may want others to believe you are "brilliant", and also pretend to be an expert on the judiciary. I don't claim to be an expert on the law, but I did spent a 32 year career as an Officer of the Court. I spent hundreds of hours in court, spent a substantial number of days on the golf course with judges, court reporters, clerks and bailiffs.
Of course. There is no reason to vote for the Republicans.
No. Just no.Shouldn't the NEW judge recuse herself knowing that the reason she was selected by the pos trump was because she's expected to vote against HC and Roe?
Where did you get that idea? The Constitution sets no limits on the number of justices that may be on the Supreme Court. Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? - National Constitution CenterBiden has already signaled he will pack the Supreme Court by refusing to rule the matter out.
His denials are idiotic and pure Biden.
The Constitution does not give him the authority to pack the court.
And yet you still vote democrat?Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?
And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.
So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.
But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.
Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.
Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.
Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the fuck he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.
Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, fuck the laws".
You may want others to believe you are "brilliant", and also pretend to be an expert on the judiciary. I don't claim to be an expert on the law, but I did spent a 32 year career as an Officer of the Court. I spent hundreds of hours in court, spent a substantial number of days on the golf course with judges, court reporters, clerks and bailiffs.
Of course. There is no reason to vote for the Republicans.
Shouldn't the NEW judge recuse herself knowing that the reason she was selected by the pos trump was because she's expected to vote against HC and Roe?Republicans haven't changed the Supreme Court confirmation process.In SC arguments the solicitor general called it a tax. Roberts didn't do anything except apply the law. Politically the dems said it was not a tax, but …. they lied. And the gop says it hasn't changed the SC confirmation process.
And by John Roberts jumping into the middle of the Obama Care fight, to the advantage of the democrats, by calling the mandate a tax (contrary to what the democrats all claimed) he illegally bypassed the House of Representatives and ergo, we have this matter in front of the Supreme Court again.
The Obamacare "Tax" That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional
Tax bills have to originate in the House, but Obamacare began in the Senate.
I wonder how Bush appointee John Roberts feels sitting there as the center of this entire mess as he must rule on Obama Care again? Shouldn't he recuse himself?
Where did you get that idea? The Constitution sets no limits on the number of justices that may be on the Supreme Court. Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? - National Constitution CenterBiden has already signaled he will pack the Supreme Court by refusing to rule the matter out.
His denials are idiotic and pure Biden.
The Constitution does not give him the authority to pack the court.
The plan, as reported upon, has been for Quid Pro Joe as president to preside over the annexation ofThe Constitutional gives power to Congress on setting the number of justices. Do you think the Democrats will come away from this election holding both the House and Senate along with the Presidency? I guess it's possible but if so then the matter is much the same as Trump's taxes where I along with most of the public really didn't care. He'll likely justify it on a Republican Senate not approving a Democratic President's Supreme Court nomination since 1895.
www.cnn.com
