Democrats Hound Biden To Pack The Supreme Court, Establish Term Limits After More Decisions They Don’t Like

[OKTexas]

So everyone is too corrupt to institute ethics rules?

What a stupid claim.

There's already ethics rules for the court, it's called the impeachment process.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok. There is a process to expand the court in the Constitution; not by pen in the President’s office.

Actually it only requires both houses of congress to pass a bill and the presidents signature. The Constitution only establishes the court, it doesn't specify the number of justices.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Whatever the hell that's supposed to be about, I wasn't talking about that.

Calm down, snowflake.

Stop acting like you know something when you clearly don't, or you had no clue what you were agreeing to. Try reading Article 1 of the Constitution.

.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually it only requires both houses of congress to pass a bill and the presidents signature. The Constitution only establishes the court, it doesn't specify the number of justices.

.

This POS supreme Court is a great argument against the Republicans and could give us Democratic landslides for some time

 

[Pappadave1]

Republicans used every means possible to build this activist right wing Court.

They have ruled against decades of progress...removed rights for the first time ever in the SC.

Yes...it's time to expand the Court

What "rights" has the court removed? Can you name a single one?

 

[Pappadave1]

Abortion was a RIGHT...until Dobbs

That's just the most obvious

Abortion is STILL a "right." You just have to travel to a state where baby-killing is still "legal."

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It absolutely WAS a right. The fact that you approve of taking away that right notwhithstanding

1. Ending affirmative action​

• Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
• Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

Two cases could see the Supreme Court decide that colleges can no longer consider race as one of several factors when making admissions decisions, a move that would overturn four decades of precedent and deal a major blow to efforts to diversify college campuses and address historic inequality. Affirmative action has given a chance to those historically shut out of the system because of their race, ethnicity, income, or identity. Students of color remain underrepresented on many campuses; and in states that have eliminated affirmative action, public universities have seen dramatic declines in the number of minority students admitted.
Affirmative action helps promote diversity in ways that a focus on economic disparity alone cannot. Race-conscious remedies, including protections for voting rights and affirmative action, are supported by the Constitution. They have long been part of American history and are fundamental to equal opportunity.

The thing that is driving me crazy most about the reaction to this case is that nobody seems to be actually addressing what they court really said, and they are instead spouting off vague generalities like performing surgery with a baseball bat.

The court hasn't precluded colleges from taking race into consideration during the admissions process. They have simply said that colleges cannot make blanket assumptions about people on account of their race. They cannot simply "check the box" as the Justices have repeatedly said.

 

[j-mac]

This court was created by unconstitutional means McConnell efused to allow a president his costitutional right to nominate a judge, then he rushed another in during an election that a republican eventually lost. Both those seats woulld have stopped what we see nnow..

Um no....You really don't know what 'advice and consent' means do you?

Obama nominated his pick in Garland....And thank God that corrupt POS didn't get in....

 

[j-mac]

Abortion is STILL a "right." You just have to travel to a state where baby-killing is still "legal."

Abortion is NOT a RIGHT...Never was....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

When are you commies going to realize the Senate is the upper chamber of congress? And both of your suggestions would require a constitutional amendment. Good luck, LMAO.

.

What gave you the idea I didn't know that?
Virtually everyone, no matter what party they support, believes there should be term limits in the houses. How you turned that into this, I don't know. And how that makes someone a "commie" is pure fantasy.

 

[Independent thinker]

Ya mean like holding a SC seat open until you get a Republican President and then slamming another appointee in weeks before the next Presidential election?

Like that?

Did they do anything against the law?

 

[Lesh]

Did they do anything against the law?

No. And neither would expanding the Court be against the law

 

[Lesh]

If congress thinks a justice has violated proper ethics they have the impeachment process. That is the only constitutional remedy.

.

There’s a saying


“Impeachment is political”

The GOP will protect their corrupt Justices no matter what

 

[Independent thinker]

No. And neither would expanding the Court be against the law

Good luck with that. Maybe you can do that right after you get rid of the electoral college. LOL

 

[Lesh]

Good luck with that. Maybe you can do that right after you get rid of the electoral college. LOL

It can be done right after we have 53 Dem Senators elected (53 because two existing ones vote with Repubs)

 

[22lcidw]

It can be done right after we have 53 Dem Senators elected (53 because two existing ones vote with Repubs)

Term limits for all. Supreme Court judges, House and Senate members. Repeal the 17th Amendment and give the power to front Federal Senators to the State legislatures again. You want democracy or a republic.

 

[scruffy]

It can be done right after we have 53 Dem Senators elected (53 because two existing ones vote with Repubs)

Damn. You're dumber than I thought.

 

[Independent thinker]

It can be done right after we have 53 Dem Senators elected (53 because two existing ones vote with Repubs)

Apparently you haven't looked at the Senate map for 2024. Not to worry though, after then you won't have to worry about Manchin and Sinema anymore.

 

[Lesh]

Apparently you haven't looked at the Senate map for 2024. Not to worry though, after then you won't have to worry about Manchin and Sinema anymore.

We’ll see. These recent decisions should wake voters up.

 

[Independent thinker]

We’ll see. These recent decisions should wake voters up.

LOL. Yeah, keep on thinking that.