No, they are merely applying the Constitution to existing law. Legislating from the bench would be something like creating a brand-new constitutional right that didn't exist before without going through the constitutional amendment process.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Senator Warren wants to pack 4 more judges on the Supreme Court
- Thread starter TroglocratsRdumb
- Start date
Oh, come now, the constitution isn't that old.Apparently, they make decisions based on iron aged mythology.
No....they're cancelling out a law created by judges that Democrats have been using for 50 years, and simply sending the issue back to the legislatures where it belongs.They are legislating from the bench
HandleTheTruth
Platinum Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 3,547
- 1,940
- 903
- Banned
- #484
Well the cons packed the court.
Looks like you fell for another SNL lie.Apparently, they make decisions based on iron aged mythology.
No they didn't.Well the cons packed the court.
HandleTheTruth
Platinum Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 3,547
- 1,940
- 903
- Banned
- #487
BS they would sit garland and didn't follow the same logic under Trump. They packed the court.No they didn't.
Thank goodness that didn't happen. That would be bad.Well the cons packed the court.
They could have held the vote and rejected Garland, then The Fragile One would have had to start all over. Same result. They operated under the rules in play at the time, only moving to fill a vacancy caused by a sitting Justice leaving the bench. Packing is adding an arbitrary number of seats then finding idealogues to put in them.BS they would sit garland and didn't follow the same logic under Trump. They packed the court.
HandleTheTruth
Platinum Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 3,547
- 1,940
- 903
- Banned
- #490
They said they wouldn't seat garland a year before an election and then sat ACB with just a few months before an election. It was stolen. Obama had the right to seat his pick.They could have held the vote and rejected Garland, then The Fragile One would have had to start all over. Same result. They operated under the rules in play at the time, only moving to fill a vacancy caused by a sitting Justice leaving the bench. Packing is adding an arbitrary number of seats then finding idealogues to put in them.
Warren's threat alone might make them reconsider...The Court is acting like was feared
While they claimed to be responsible, they are reverting to far right dogma
The US democracy is in tatters... No real laws can get passed anymore...
The US system of government is showing its age... Modern democracies have different approach that makes them far better at doing things that people want.
No, he had the right for the Senate to hold a confirmation vote, which they should have held, but he didn't have the right to have his pick seated. No president does.They said they wouldn't seat garland a year before an election and then sat ACB with just a few months before an election. It was stolen. Obama had the right to seat his pick.
HandleTheTruth
Platinum Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 3,547
- 1,940
- 903
- Banned
- #493
The reason they didn't have even a hearing is because smart people would of found out that they rejected garland because the right wing wanted to wait to install their own pick and stole a seat on the supreme. You got nothing.No, he had the right for the Senate to hold a confirmation vote, which they should have held, but he didn't have the right to have his pick seated. No president does.
Still using that foil helmet to read minds, are you? I told you that thing doesn't work. They took a political gamble and won, and the reasons why are multiple.The reason they didn't have even a hearing is because smart people would of found out that they rejected garland because the right wing wanted to wait to install their own pick and stole a seat on the supreme. You got nothing.
HandleTheTruth
Platinum Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 3,547
- 1,940
- 903
- Banned
- #495
You went to insult cause you can't prove me wrong. Desperate as always. It's what you cons do when you lose. I'll take my victory lap now.Still using that foil helmet to read minds, are you? I told you that thing doesn't work. They took a political gamble and won, and the reasons why are multiple.
After Garland declared parents as "Domestic Terrorists" it's a good thing they prevented it.BS they would sit garland and didn't follow the same logic under Trump. They packed the court.
It wouldn't be a good thing to have that lying bastard sitting on the court for the rest of his life.
Obama nominated a lying POS that had a horrible record and McConnell stopped him.
It's no different from when the Democrats prevented Judge Bork from getting a seat on the SCOTUS.
Last edited:
HandleTheTruth
Platinum Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 3,547
- 1,940
- 903
- Banned
- #497
Sure he did. You believe any garbage put in front of you by right wing media. And it shows.After Garland declared parents as "Domestic Terrorists" is a good thing.
It wouldn't be a good thing to have that lying bastard sitting on the court for the rest of his life.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
What legislating are they doing? This thing could get overturned because the legislature hasn't done it's job that was given to them in 1973.They are legislating from the bench
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 284,551
- 156,000
- 2,615
After Garland declared parents as "Domestic Terrorists" it's a good thing they prevented it.
It wouldn't be a good thing to have that lying bastard sitting on the court for the rest of his life.
Obama nominated a lying POS that had a horrible record and McConnell stopped him.
It's no different from when the Democrats prevented Judge Bork from getting a seat on the SCOTUS.
You are making shit up again
Garland never said that
You just said he did, then turned around and claimed he didn't.Sure he did. You believe any garbage put in front of you by right wing media. And it shows.
The difference between you and me is I'm more informed than you because I absorb everything......not just the corrupt media's offerings. You probably aren't aware of the fact that Garland issued a terrorist warning against parents attending school board meetings.
The reason they were there is, because of the pandemic, they saw what teachers were teaching their kids.
You probably never heard of the reasons they made a fuss over it.
Garland started investigating parents because he placed them on the terrorist watch list.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 148
- Replies
- 237
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 28
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 11
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 225
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8405
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-