Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

[NYcarbineer]

I'm never dishonest.....you Lefties can never defeat the facts I post....notice how quickly the 'honest debate' refers to lil' ol' me rather than the facts.



Let's take the obvious meme you've attempted to resort to.....that Senator Joseph McCarthy wasn't a hero.

Challenge: can you name any non-communist whose life he was responsible for 'ruining'?
I always ask that question, as it proves my case....none of your has been able to answer successfully.

Wanna try?

We both know you'll be back, don't we....I'm the flame to you moths.

You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional.

That is not a fact.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject


Today ....he's employed a combination of trick #1 and trick #2....

"You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional."

I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation.

Too nuanced for you?


Good to see I'm keeping you busy, NYLiar.

You're getting as mindlessly repetitive as Kosh.

Now there's a goal to aspire to.

I'm never dishonest.....you Lefties can never defeat the facts I post....notice how quickly the 'honest debate' refers to lil' ol' me rather than the facts.



Let's take the obvious meme you've attempted to resort to.....that Senator Joseph McCarthy wasn't a hero.

Challenge: can you name any non-communist whose life he was responsible for 'ruining'?
I always ask that question, as it proves my case....none of your has been able to answer successfully.

Wanna try?

We both know you'll be back, don't we....I'm the flame to you moths.

You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional.

That is not a fact.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject


Today ....he's employed a combination of trick #1 and trick #2....

"You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional."

I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation.

Too nuanced for you?


Good to see I'm keeping you busy, NYLiar.

You are wrong. There is no constitutional prohibition on the president and legislature from setting the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh right, you're a RWnut.

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

 

[Contumacious]

You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional.

That is not a fact.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject


Today ....he's employed a combination of trick #1 and trick #2....

"You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional."

I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation.

Too nuanced for you?


Good to see I'm keeping you busy, NYLiar.

You're getting as mindlessly repetitive as Kosh.

Now there's a goal to aspire to.

You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional.

That is not a fact.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject


Today ....he's employed a combination of trick #1 and trick #2....

"You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional."

I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation.

Too nuanced for you?


Good to see I'm keeping you busy, NYLiar.

You are wrong. There is no constitutional prohibition on the president and legislature from setting the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh right, you're a RWnut.

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject


Today ....he's employed a combination of trick #1 and trick #2....

"You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional."

I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation.

Too nuanced for you?


Good to see I'm keeping you busy, NYLiar.

You're getting as mindlessly repetitive as Kosh.

Now there's a goal to aspire to.

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject


Today ....he's employed a combination of trick #1 and trick #2....

"You called FDR's proposed legislation to expand the number of judges on the Court unconstitutional."

I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation.

Too nuanced for you?


Good to see I'm keeping you busy, NYLiar.

You are wrong. There is no constitutional prohibition on the president and legislature from setting the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh right, you're a RWnut.

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

 

[regent]

Where does the Constitution give the Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?

 

[Contumacious]

You're getting as mindlessly repetitive as Kosh.

Now there's a goal to aspire to.

You are wrong. There is no constitutional prohibition on the president and legislature from setting the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh right, you're a RWnut.

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

 

[hipeter924]

No. The founders interpretation of a legal document or constitution being adaptive with the times (hense the amendment process) vs a constitution that never changes (despite all the amendments to say the contrary).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

Why don't we still have 6 justices on the Court?

 

[hipeter924]

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

Why don't we still have 6 justices on the Court?

Here's the answer: Why Are There 9 Supreme Court Justices
Because it changes according to Congressional limits, whether justices retire and so on. Can go from 6 to as high as ten.

 

[Nosmo King]

It does not make things interesting. Posing loaded questions forces the respondent to first thrash your loaded question strawman. And, in the course of that thrashing, things get off topic or derailed in a quagmire of tangents. Nothing gets answered, nothing gets honest debate.

You may think of it as boring, I think of posing loaded questions as a thin disguise for the questioner. Perhaps she knows the wrongfulness of her position and tries to lead us down the primrose path of her choosing to avoid an honest answer which would refute her shaky position.

"It does not make things interesting."

Really...?

So....what are you doing here?


My motivation is simply to take commonly accepted "facts," memes, tropes that are the products of government schools and universities, and the lies of omission and commission, of the media, and reduce them to rubble.


Even those who have accepted the lies have the vague feeling that there is something wrong....but need to pretend to accept them to burnish their Liberal credentials.


And that is why you and others have the need to jump into the debate.

I will continue to stir the pot...and you will continue to find same interesting.


Put up ya' dukes, you wimp!

What am I doing here? I'm seeking honest debate and calling you on your dishonesty. I am not seeking to burnish my Liberal bona fides, no matter how much you might believe that, or at least pretend to believe that.

I do not see a vast conspiracy of lies coming from schools or mass media. Paranoia is not a trait associated with Liberals. That is to say there was never a Liberal Joe McCarthy.

To Nosmo, and every other Liberal:

Do you see how I've destroyed any credibility you had in post #183?

You made a snide comment about the American hero, Joseph McCarthy.....much as other Liberals did recently about Chris Kyle......

...and I challenged you to support your Liberal meme-
Challenge: can you name any non-communist whose life McCarthy was responsible for 'ruining'?

Of course, you ran off to hide.



As I stated in post #183, I obliterate all those lies that the left so fervently believes in...and you just helped me prove it.



You leftists flock to these threads out of the mistaken belief that, since you've accepted as true these fairy tales for so long.....they must be true.
Then you find you can't support 'em.
Shouldn't you ask yourself why you never challenged them?
Makes you look both weak and stupid, huh?

I ran off to work. I have a job and I cannot wile away the hours responding to unproductive members of society.

That would be 'while.'


And that is one of the most diaphanous retreats of the day.


Have a good day at work....and take your time responding to the post.


Want me to write it for you?
Sure:
"I guess I was wrong in everything I wrote. You've convinced me that I've been lied to my whole life. I won't be a Liberal ever again!
sincerely, and so on and so forth...."

I am so sorry, chunt.

 

[Contumacious]

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

That is not the case.

Show us where in the Constitution the Congress does not have the right to set the number of justices. You're one of the many conservative douchebags who pretends he knows the Constitution...

...well prove it, or get the fuck back to bed.

 

[hipeter924]

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

Yep, it's how things tend to work with the legislature and appointing positions.

 

[hipeter924]

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

That is not the case.

Show us where in the Constitution the Congress does not have the right to set the number of justices. You're one of the many conservative douchebags who pretends he knows the Constitution...

...well prove it, or get the fuck back to bed.

Think he will just making new points, without realizing the appointment process for justices is pretty standard across appointments for other positions too.

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

That is not the case.

Show us where in the Constitution the Congress does not have the right to set the number of justices. You're one of the many conservative douchebags who pretends he knows the Constitution...

...well prove it, or get the fuck back to bed.

So if the Senate and the President are members of the same party,

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

That is not the case.

Show us where in the Constitution the Congress does not have the right to set the number of justices. You're one of the many conservative douchebags who pretends he knows the Constitution...

...well prove it, or get the fuck back to bed.

So if the Senate and the President are members of the same party,

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?

He's not allowed to. But Congress can change the number of justices legislatively.

 

[Contumacious]

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

That is not the case.

Show us where in the Constitution the Congress does not have the right to set the number of justices. You're one of the many conservative douchebags who pretends he knows the Constitution...

...well prove it, or get the fuck back to bed.

So if the Senate and the President are members of the same party,

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?

He's not allowed to. But Congress can change the number of justices legislatively.

Excuse me fucktard, if it is true that the number of justices is determined by legislative decree

If the president concludes that the SCOTUS as presently populated will be hostile to his proposals , I again ask

if the Senate and the President are members of the same party,

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're getting as mindlessly repetitive as Kosh.

Now there's a goal to aspire to.

You are wrong. There is no constitutional prohibition on the president and legislature from setting the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh right, you're a RWnut.

Gee....why are you pretending not to understand post #185?

Oh....because it skewers you, and you are a liar.

Got it.

All you said was:

"I said that his attempts to subvert the Constitution was unconstitutional.
Packing the court would have removed the check on legislation."

No it was not unconstitutional because the power to set the number of judges is a legislative power.

It was set legislatively at 6 in 1789, and raised to 9 in 1867, legislatively.

Without objection, let's agree as fact that nothing FDR did regarding the SCOTUS numbers was unconstitutional.

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

So.....why do you continue to attempt to change the subject?

Oh...right...because you've lost the argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It does not make things interesting."

Really...?

So....what are you doing here?


My motivation is simply to take commonly accepted "facts," memes, tropes that are the products of government schools and universities, and the lies of omission and commission, of the media, and reduce them to rubble.


Even those who have accepted the lies have the vague feeling that there is something wrong....but need to pretend to accept them to burnish their Liberal credentials.


And that is why you and others have the need to jump into the debate.

I will continue to stir the pot...and you will continue to find same interesting.


Put up ya' dukes, you wimp!

What am I doing here? I'm seeking honest debate and calling you on your dishonesty. I am not seeking to burnish my Liberal bona fides, no matter how much you might believe that, or at least pretend to believe that.

I do not see a vast conspiracy of lies coming from schools or mass media. Paranoia is not a trait associated with Liberals. That is to say there was never a Liberal Joe McCarthy.

To Nosmo, and every other Liberal:

Do you see how I've destroyed any credibility you had in post #183?

You made a snide comment about the American hero, Joseph McCarthy.....much as other Liberals did recently about Chris Kyle......

...and I challenged you to support your Liberal meme-
Challenge: can you name any non-communist whose life McCarthy was responsible for 'ruining'?

Of course, you ran off to hide.



As I stated in post #183, I obliterate all those lies that the left so fervently believes in...and you just helped me prove it.



You leftists flock to these threads out of the mistaken belief that, since you've accepted as true these fairy tales for so long.....they must be true.
Then you find you can't support 'em.
Shouldn't you ask yourself why you never challenged them?
Makes you look both weak and stupid, huh?

I ran off to work. I have a job and I cannot wile away the hours responding to unproductive members of society.

That would be 'while.'


And that is one of the most diaphanous retreats of the day.


Have a good day at work....and take your time responding to the post.


Want me to write it for you?
Sure:
"I guess I was wrong in everything I wrote. You've convinced me that I've been lied to my whole life. I won't be a Liberal ever again!
sincerely, and so on and so forth...."

I am so sorry, chunt.

So nice to hear from you, Notso Kingly!

I really destroyed any idea that you knew what you were posting about, huh?
Sorry....but I call it 'tough love.'


So....you agree that it was absurd of you to claim that anyone was "ruined" by the hero, Senator Joseph McCarthy?

Great.

And,so nice of you to sign your post with your nickname.

Does that mean we're BFFs now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

HUH?

Are you fucking crazy?


FDR single handily destroyed Judicial Review and Article III Courts.


The Court and the “first” New Deal

Perhaps it is ironic that the decade that transformed the legal landscape of the United States did not begin that way. In fact, during the early years of the Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court was seen as the last bastion defending the original Constitution. Roosevelt himself openly plotted to force a change in the Court’s makeup in order to bring about rulings that would give his administration a free hand to reconfigure the law.

the Old Court stubbornly blocked FDR’s policies by invalidating on constitutional grounds the bold experiments undertaken during his first term to deal with the nation’s extraordinary economic emergency. Thwarted at nearly every turn, often by narrow five-to-four vote margins, and emboldened by his stunning reelection to the White House in November 1936, FDR responded the following winter by threatening to pack the Court with up to six additional members, thereby ensuring a more compliant majority. To diffuse that threat, the Court abruptly changed course, executing its famous “switch in time that saved nine,” and began to sustain most of the president’s policies and programs, especially in the area of economic regulation."


.

Pay attention. Where does the Constitution set the number of Supreme Court justices?

Pay attention. , how many SCOTUS "Justices" would be sitting in the Court by now if every president since scumbag FDR, had increased the justices by 6 ?


FDR was the 32nd President so there have been 12 more presidents since the FDR - if each of those presidents had nominated 6 justices there would have been an additional 72 Justices.

And the SCOTUS would have been destroyed as an institution because everyone would have known that the reason the "justces" voted in a certain way was because the court was packed.


.

How many justices are on the Supreme Court is a legislative prerogative. Prove that wrong and then we'll move you to the next level.

Stop stonewalling and answer the fucking question.

Should every president be allowed to nominate his homies as SCOTUS justices?



.

That is not the case.

Show us where in the Constitution the Congress does not have the right to set the number of justices. You're one of the many conservative douchebags who pretends he knows the Constitution...

...well prove it, or get the fuck back to bed.

You poor, sad pile of almost-humanity.

I realize that the only two things you've ever shown anything close to competence with is lying, and obfuscation.

Sorry....but neither will be allowed.




Here is the actual subject under discussion: Franklin Roosevelt's attempts to obviate and subvert the United States Constitution.

As shown earlier, he was not the first: this is the aim of every Liberal/Progressive, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Hussein Obama.



Roosevelt's strategy was to end the restrictions that the Constitution imposed on his intentions.
Roosevelt's tactic was to appoint Liberals, KKKers, simpletons, malleable individuals of every sort to the Supreme Court so as to emasculate same.

He demanded of those politicians around him that they ignore the Constitution, and obey only King Franklin the First.




Since you cannot, in truth, deny the above,,,,,,your attempts to shield the corrupt Roosevelt must involve lies and a change of subject.


I'll rein you in when you do so.