Should we have another 9 Supreme Court Justices to increase the number of cases ruled on each year?

[JGalt]

You as the other libs who have so far responded don't even have a clue what "packing the court" is. It isn't nominating, vetting, and appointing members of the Judicial system. That is the normal democratic means of filling Judicial vacancies, as was stipulated by our Constitution.

No, it's filibustering all of the other Party's nominees and refusing to vet and appoint members of the judicial system so that you can hold those seats open for when your Party can fill those seats.

That's a form of court-packing: gaming the system in order to pack your ideological judges into office.

Holding open a SCOTUS seat for 11 months is court-packing, to - hopefully - get your ideological Justice into that office.

Are you referring to the "Biden Rule" and Merrick Garland? That "The Senate should hold off on additional confirmation hearings until after the 1992 presidential election", citing the combative nature of Thomas’s confirmation?

Maybe your candidate should have held his tongue back in '92, eh? Oh, and if you happen to see Harry Reid, please thank him for that Nuclear Option.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is no Biden Rule.

 

[Synthaholic]

You as the other libs who have so far responded don't even have a clue what "packing the court" is. It isn't nominating, vetting, and appointing members of the Judicial system. That is the normal democratic means of filling Judicial vacancies, as was stipulated by our Constitution.

No, it's filibustering all of the other Party's nominees and refusing to vet and appoint members of the judicial system so that you can hold those seats open for when your Party can fill those seats.

That's a form of court-packing: gaming the system in order to pack your ideological judges into office.

Holding open a SCOTUS seat for 11 months is court-packing, to - hopefully - get your ideological Justice into that office.

Are you referring to the "Biden Rule" and Merrick Garland? That "The Senate should hold off on additional confirmation hearings until after the 1992 presidential election", citing the combative nature of Thomas’s confirmation?

Maybe your candidate should have held his tongue back in '92, eh? Oh, and if you happen to see Harry Reid, please thank him for that Nuclear Option.

And no, that’s not what I was referring to, but nice try with the bullshit deflection.

I’m talking about all the federal judges. Watch Turtle Mitch say the quiet part loud because he JUST. CAN’T. HELP. HIMSELF! He wanted that hyper-partisan credit from FoxNation.

Watch the clip:

 

[Synthaholic]

^ THAT’S court-packing. ^

 

[Auld Phart]

There is no Biden Rule.

 

[JGalt]

There is no Biden Rule.

Ok then, Obama Rules:

1. "Elections have consequences."

2. "We President now."

 

[JGalt]

You as the other libs who have so far responded don't even have a clue what "packing the court" is. It isn't nominating, vetting, and appointing members of the Judicial system. That is the normal democratic means of filling Judicial vacancies, as was stipulated by our Constitution.

No, it's filibustering all of the other Party's nominees and refusing to vet and appoint members of the judicial system so that you can hold those seats open for when your Party can fill those seats.

That's a form of court-packing: gaming the system in order to pack your ideological judges into office.

Holding open a SCOTUS seat for 11 months is court-packing, to - hopefully - get your ideological Justice into that office.

Are you referring to the "Biden Rule" and Merrick Garland? That "The Senate should hold off on additional confirmation hearings until after the 1992 presidential election", citing the combative nature of Thomas’s confirmation?

Maybe your candidate should have held his tongue back in '92, eh? Oh, and if you happen to see Harry Reid, please thank him for that Nuclear Option.

And no, that’s not what I was referring to, but nice try with the bullshit deflection.

I’m talking about all the federal judges. Watch Turtle Mitch say the quiet part loud because he JUST. CAN’T. HELP. HIMSELF! He wanted that hyper-partisan credit from FoxNation.

Watch the clip:

I will now invoke the Hillary Rule:

"What difference at this point does it make?"

Have you not figured out by now that no matter what you say, no matter how your moan, groan, scream, or cry, nothing is going to stop Amy Coney Barrett from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice?

Is it really up for debate? It's pretty much a done deal, mmmkay?