Senator Warren wants to pack 4 more judges on the Supreme Court

[EyeBRollin]

What idiot libs fail to realize is that the Republicans could find themselves in a position to do the same thing at some point in the future.

So what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. Pack the court. Steamroll the conservatives.

And thus, further demonstration of your hyper-partisan bigotry.

 

[otto105]

Second change should be to the little handmaiden judge. She will be required to sit in the courts breakroom and read the text a man gives her.

 

[Canon Shooter]

So what?

Because the democrats are stupid enough to believe that packing the court now would be a good idea.

But when Republicans try to do it even more later on, democrats will go fucking nuts...

 

[EyeBRollin]

Because the democrats are stupid enough to believe that packing the court now would be a good idea.

But when Republicans try to do it even more later on, democrats will go fucking nuts...

That’s politics. Pack the court. Watch the other side scream.

 

[BackAgain]

The Court is acting like was feared

While they claimed to be responsible, they are reverting to far right dogma

The court is not reverting. It is deferring to the Constitution. It is correcting past mistakes (like Dred Scott). They ARE being responsible in so doing. And it’s not far right dogma. It is moving closer to making proper decisions based on why the Constitution actually says.

Sooiler alert: while some interpretation is necessary and inevitable, it turns out that there are no actual penumbra clauses in the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

Like allowing the Texas abortion law to stand
Blatantly unconstitutional

No. It isn’t. Your merely disagree. That’s not the standard.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes. Pack the court. Steamroll the conservatives.

Then when the GOP is in charge, they should pack the courts and steamroll Liberals? The stupidity of partisans is mind numbing.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Then when the GOP is in charge, they should pack the courts and steamroll Liberals? The stupidity of partisans is mind numbing.

They’re welcome to try.

 

[Staidhup]

The Supreme Court was founded upon the premise that it would act to serve as a check in the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government,in such a manor as in guaranteeing the constitutional rights of “all” citizens and states within the Republic. The founders strongly believed the court should not be a political tool, controlled by the “current” majority party controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, which is why it was designed to be composed of 7 justices, approved by the US Senate, for a life time appointment. The court has proven itself numerous times that regardless of the chief executive’s political affiliation who appointed the candidate the constitutionality of the issues brought before the court remained it’s sole focus. Over the years there has been justices that believed in evolutionary constitutional interpretation, by today’s standards, and those subscribing to strict interpretation of the constitution, as it was written, which was anticipated by the founders.
When the day comes that the court becomes a political tool the very freedoms and right(s) of the people the constitution was designed to protect, and serve, exists no longer, the fear the founders expressed and outlined in the Federalist papers becomes a reality and the republic will fail.
Elizabeth Warren, and several other of her fellow party members in the legislative branch’s, sole objective is absolute power, totalitarian rule, which politicalizing the court would provide at the expense of our constitutional freedoms. The very fundamental basis for forming a republic was to avoid what Warren and her fellow legislators have proposed.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That’s politics. Pack the court. Watch the other side scream.

I prefer it when leftist dimwits scream and complain.

The Supreme Court will not be hijacked by partisan morons.

 

[Papageorgio]

They’re welcome to try.

So are the Democrats, when FDR tried to add to the court, even Democrats were against it because their constituents back home were against it. If they do they do, but it happens often that these political ploys backfire and payback can be a bitch. Either way is fine by me.

 

[EyeBRollin]

So are the Democrats, when FDR tried to add to the court, even Democrats were against it because their constituents back home were against it. If they do they do, but it happens often that these political ploys backfire and payback can be a bitch. Either way is fine by me.

I agree. I also don’t care; pack the court.

 

[Auld Phart]

The supreme court has become partisan and should be changed.

The supreme court has become partisan and should be changed.

and as soon as it changes to at least 5-4 with a liberal advantage, it will be fine.

Correct?

 

[struth]

Second change should be to the little handmaiden judge. She will be required to sit in the courts breakroom and read the text a man gives her.

typical....dems are very scared of strong, independent, free thinking women....put her in that back room! How dare she be out front!

 

[candycorn]

Dumb idea. Leave the court number as it is.

We do need to institute an age-out level though. 85, 90, 95...whatever....

 

[BackAgain]

They’re welcome to try.

IzB just reconfirmed his dedication to being thoughtless.

 

[otto105]

and as soon as it changes to at least 5-4 with a liberal advantage, it will be fine.

Correct?

The change needs to be that judges nominated should have ABA approval.

A better evaluation process which would weed out judges who lack temperament like kauvannaugh.

 

[Resnic]

She just wants to keep adding more till they get enough on their side to tip the scales.

Right or wrong, good or bad, American or anti American. All they care about is having more of their people, than the people who disagree with them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The change needs to be that judges nominated should have ABA approval.

Good luck with -that- amendment.