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.
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -
.
One does not equal the other.
But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
Only because you are his intellectual heir - who the fuck is going to take the Court seriously once it is shown that the court is nothing more than an extension of the President's cabinet.
BTW, you are still a dumb ass extraordinaire.
.
He did no such thing.
March 9, 1937
We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.
In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.
What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
So you admit Polk was right?
I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...
One does not equal the other.
But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....
He also never did pack the Court. So i'm not certain how a threat could "abolish" the court anyway.
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.
I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
I'm not.
The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
Newsflash for ya: this about as "current" an event as the Carter Presidency.
I'm not.
The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
March 9, 1937
We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.
In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.
What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt
So you admit Polk was right?
I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...
It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.
I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...
I'm not.
The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
Mr. Radioman is not having difficulty following C's argument because as a zombie his mind is enslaved. He is unable to stand on his own two feet - as a parasite he thinks he has a right to receive federal largesse. He has a right to have a federal bureacrat by his side guiding his every step of the way i
His Battle Cry is:
"Feed Me Seymour"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
I'm not.
The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
Is THAT what he's arguing?
Damn....
I know I've said it a million times...
but Nazi's were Nazi's... comparing them to unrelated and non-analogous things just diminishes the meaning of the word.
So you admit Polk was right?
I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...
It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.
So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
.
I get your drift....the only reason Hitler was bad is because he spoke German and wore a funny looking mustache.
Otherwise his policies were cool......
I'm not.
The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
Is THAT what he's arguing?
Damn....
I know I've said it a million times...
but Nazi's were Nazi's... comparing them to unrelated and non-analogous things just diminishes the meaning of the word.
I'm not.
The US government are modern day Nazi's. Pretty simple argument (for a pretty simple mind).
It's also pretty simple to shred apart too, no matter if the Republicans or Democrats are in power, as long as the shredder is intellectually honest and not caught up in all the (R's or D's) are NAAAAAAZZZIIII'SSSSS!!!
Mr. Radioman is not having difficulty following C's argument because as a zombie his mind is enslaved. He is unable to stand on his own two feet - as a parasite he thinks he has a right to receive federal largesse. He has a right to have a federal bureacrat by his side guiding his every step of the way i
His Battle Cry is:
"Feed Me Seymour"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
So after having all of your arguments cut out from under you...you claim that one of the cutters has no leg to stand on?
Puh-leese. Classic case of projection.
And just for yer info, I'm a conservative, not a hand-out seeking or advocating liberal. I realize that this usually puts me on opposite sides of the fence as Jillian and Polk, but not in this case. See, there is nothing I can stand worse than having some idiot so-called conservative (in their mind) giving the rest of us a bad name. I would much rather have a discussion with a thinking liberal than a shit-spewing conservative. Hones my own skills.
You are an embarrassment, stupid, and have no critical thinking skills.
It's not like I'm going to argue the court-packing plan was a good idea, but changing the rules of selection is not the same as abolishing.
So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
.
If he's got the votes.
So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
I get your drift....the only reason Hitler was bad is because he spoke German and wore a funny looking mustache.
Otherwise his policies were cool......
I think now it's your turn to miss *my* point.
Nothing compares to what Hitler did... and diminishing what he did by calling anything in this country "nazi" is absurd.
Mr. Dumb Ass Sir:
I am NOT a "conservative"
.
So once SCOTUS declares one of Obama's program unconstitutional he has a right to increase the number of Justices to ....15......20.......
.
If he's got the votes.
I get the needling of C in your post, but realistically Obama (nor any other president in our lifetimes i'll wager) will ever have those votes.
