Dems eye increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices

[eagle7_31]

And it will blow up in their face again if they get the chance and deservedly so.

Dems know what they are doing

Nothing says you have to have nine judges. Republicans were fine with having eight

Since when? And the GOP was good with 8 during a Presidential election year.

If 8 is OK, then 15 would be OK

Quit deluding yourself. The number stays at 9. USSC appointments do not happen in a Presidential election year and should not, no matter which party is in the White House at that point in time.

Of Course they happen in an election year.....unless you have a black President

Even McConnell says he will fill a vacancy in 2020 if one comes up

Again with stupid race card bs. And McConnell would be wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Dems know what they are doing

Nothing says you have to have nine judges. Republicans were fine with having eight

Since when? And the GOP was good with 8 during a Presidential election year.

If 8 is OK, then 15 would be OK

Quit deluding yourself. The number stays at 9. USSC appointments do not happen in a Presidential election year and should not, no matter which party is in the White House at that point in time.

Of Course they happen in an election year.....unless you have a black President

Even McConnell says he will fill a vacancy in 2020 if one comes up

Again with stupid race card bs. And McConnell would be wrong.

McConnell has made it clear that filling Supreme Court seat is political

Seating 15 judges would be political
Seems fair

 

[eagle7_31]

Since when? And the GOP was good with 8 during a Presidential election year.

If 8 is OK, then 15 would be OK

Quit deluding yourself. The number stays at 9. USSC appointments do not happen in a Presidential election year and should not, no matter which party is in the White House at that point in time.

Of Course they happen in an election year.....unless you have a black President

Even McConnell says he will fill a vacancy in 2020 if one comes up

Again with stupid race card bs. And McConnell would be wrong.

McConnell has made it clear that filling Supreme Court seat is political

Seating 15 judges would be political
Seems fair

Stays at 9. TS otherwise.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democratic Candidates are now pushing the idea to their base that they will either increase the number of Justices in the Supreme Court or put in term limit requirements on the ones there now.

Imagine that.........They lose and want power so bad that they would try what FDR tried to get their way. LOL

Not gonna happen, but their base will eat it up.

2020 Democrats eye dramatic increase in Supreme Court justices: 'All options are on the table'

It's become the hot new topic on the 2020 presidential campaign trail: several Democratic contenders are talking up plans to overhaul the Supreme Court, with some offering proposals to add up to 10 more members.

Candidates including Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they become president. And progressive groups are putting their money behind the message, an effort to tap into lingering liberal anger over President Trump's two nominees confirmed to the high court.

It’s not going to happen. You can stop clutching your pearls

 

[80zephyr]

So was when the Democrats used the "nuclear option". Did that bother you as well?

Mark

Did they prevent the president from appointing a scotus? Yes or no?

You don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice you nominate them and the Senate decides rather or not to confirm them. The Senate Majority leader also has the power to decide rather or not to give a nominee a hearing was what was done with Merrick Garland purely political no question McConnell rolled the dice and got the Presidential election result he wanted. Lets not forget the Democrats were willing to consider doing the same thing during the Presidency of both George H.W. Bush and George W Bush if they would have followed through we will never no as no seat opened up on the court during an election year during their Presidenicy. What we do know is sooner or later the Democrats will do the same thing and when they do most everyone will switch their views on how they feel about it.

You set a precedent. And it is not a good one.

If the Dems do it, my thought is - it serves you right. But that doesn't make it right and we both know it.

If they do it, I won't excuse it. It's a bad precedent.

Yes and Harry Reid and the Democrats also set a bad one in 2013 when they used the nuclear option to get lower court judges and cabinet nominees confirmed on a simple majority vote instead of the 60 vote.

Yup after the Republicans attempted to block all off Obama's court nominees. In fact, Obama holds the record for number of unfilled judicial vacancies blocked. A huge jump from Bush.

Is this the way things are going to continue? Is it good for our country?

The history of wholesale blocking of nominess started with Bush II. The Dems did it to him and the GOP provided pay back when Obama was elected.

Mark

 

[Muhammed]

Your crazed conspiracy hallucinations are noted and laughed at as always.

^^^
Projection

 

[Dragonlady]

Democratic Candidates are now pushing the idea to their base that they will either increase the number of Justices in the Supreme Court or put in term limit requirements on the ones there now.

Imagine that.........They lose and want power so bad that they would try what FDR tried to get their way. LOL

Not gonna happen, but their base will eat it up.

2020 Democrats eye dramatic increase in Supreme Court justices: 'All options are on the table'

It's become the hot new topic on the 2020 presidential campaign trail: several Democratic contenders are talking up plans to overhaul the Supreme Court, with some offering proposals to add up to 10 more members.

Candidates including Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they become president. And progressive groups are putting their money behind the message, an effort to tap into lingering liberal anger over President Trump's two nominees confirmed to the high court.

Democrats are criminals.
They can't play by the rules so they try to change them when they lose.

Says a supporter of the party who refused to even interview Merrick Garland who should be sitting on the SC now. That was a "change in the rules" I'm guessing you approved of, didn't you, Bucko?

The Constitution doesn't establish or set number of Supreme Court justices. Originally, there were 6 Justices. The number of justices changes 6 times before the current 9 was established in 1869.

So, unlike refusing to interview Obama's nomination, changing the number of justices, isn't changing the rules.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Where does the Constitution state there has to be 9 members on that bench?

LOL... it doesn't say that, you just may wish it did if trump wants to add 2 more seats.

 

[Faun]

Did they prevent the president from appointing a scotus? Yes or no?

You don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice you nominate them and the Senate decides rather or not to confirm them. The Senate Majority leader also has the power to decide rather or not to give a nominee a hearing was what was done with Merrick Garland purely political no question McConnell rolled the dice and got the Presidential election result he wanted. Lets not forget the Democrats were willing to consider doing the same thing during the Presidency of both George H.W. Bush and George W Bush if they would have followed through we will never no as no seat opened up on the court during an election year during their Presidenicy. What we do know is sooner or later the Democrats will do the same thing and when they do most everyone will switch their views on how they feel about it.

"You don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice you nominate them and the Senate decides rather or not to confirm them."

Why do you dumbshits post about things you clearly know nothing about?? Of course the Constitution states a president appoints replacements....

Article II, Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.​

Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them.

"The Senate Majority leader also has the power to decide rather or not to give a nominee a hearing was what was done with Merrick Garland purely political no question"

No one is denying the Senate Majority Leader has that power. The argument is that he abused that power to prevent a Liberal justice from being added to the Supreme Court. Which that same Senate Majority Leader now says he won't do if trump is faced with the exact same circumstances Obama faced. In other words, the excuses he gave back in 2016.... a president shouldn't get to appoint replacements during an election year ... and ... the people should get to decide which president nominates replacements ... was all just a lie.

So why shouldn't Democrats return the favor now and abuse any power granted them by the people and the Constitution; to return the favor...?

"Lets not forget the Democrats were willing to consider doing the same thing during the Presidency of both George H.W. Bush and George W Bush if they would have followed through we will never no as no seat opened up on the court during an election year during their Presidenicy."

That's utter bullshit. What Republicans did was to deny a duly elected sitting president his Constitutional power to appoint a replacement for nearly an entire year of his presidency.

No Democrat ever suggested that with Bush. What Biden did suggest was to delay, not deny, confirmation hearings until after the election should a seat have opened within a few months, not a year, prior to the election.

Read your own link, he NOMINATES and then IF the Senate Agrees he appoints your own link says so.

Dumbfuck, where did I ever say otherwise?

You argued with someone saying that it is in this quoted string.

Dayum, you're fucking stupid.

This is what I said...

Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them.​

... what part of that does your deformed brain inform you is inconsistent with the Constitution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is wrong with Dems stacking the Supreme Court?

As long as they get away with it, that is all that matters

How can the dems stack the supreme court since the Republicans control the senate and the white house? lol

Not for long

just like hillary was going to win

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The best way for Democrats to rectify Republicans stealing a Supreme Court seat from Obama is to stack the court with Liberals

As long as they win, that is all that matters

First you got to take the white house then the senate
Then you'll have to find sheep that will obey unconstitutional laws

 

[Faun]

Dems learned from their mistake last time
They will figure out how to make it work

And it will blow up in their face again if they get the chance and deservedly so.

Dems know what they are doing

Nothing says you have to have nine judges. Republicans were fine with having eight

Since when? And the GOP was good with 8 during a Presidential election year.

If 8 is OK, then 15 would be OK

Quit deluding yourself. The number stays at 9. USSC appointments do not happen in a Presidential election year and should not, no matter which party is in the White House at that point in time.

McConnell now says he would confirm a trump nominee next year should a seat open. So no, the number need not stay at 9. Let Democrats add 2 more if they get full control of the Congress in 2021 and we get a Democrat president. Make the court 6-5 in favor of Liberals.

 

[Faun]

Your crazed conspiracy hallucinations are noted and laughed at as always.

^^^
Projection

LOLOL

Slobbers a Birfer.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Constitution state there has to be 9 members on that bench?

LOL... it doesn't say that, you just may wish it did if trump wants to add 2 more seats.

Trump doesn't get to add seats. He needs the Congress to do that.

 

[Darkwind]

Democratic Candidates are now pushing the idea to their base that they will either increase the number of Justices in the Supreme Court or put in term limit requirements on the ones there now.

Imagine that.........They lose and want power so bad that they would try what FDR tried to get their way. LOL

Not gonna happen, but their base will eat it up.

2020 Democrats eye dramatic increase in Supreme Court justices: 'All options are on the table'

It's become the hot new topic on the 2020 presidential campaign trail: several Democratic contenders are talking up plans to overhaul the Supreme Court, with some offering proposals to add up to 10 more members.

Candidates including Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they become president. And progressive groups are putting their money behind the message, an effort to tap into lingering liberal anger over President Trump's two nominees confirmed to the high court.

Democrats are criminals.
They can't play by the rules so they try to change them when they lose.

Says a supporter of the party who refused to even interview Merrick Garland who should be sitting on the SC now. That was a "change in the rules" I'm guessing you approved of, didn't you, Bucko?

The Constitution doesn't establish or set number of Supreme Court justices. Originally, there were 6 Justices. The number of justices changes 6 times before the current 9 was established in 1869.

So, unlike refusing to interview Obama's nomination, changing the number of justices, isn't changing the rules.

Why should Garland be sitting on a SC seat? He was unacceptable in every way. The Senate rejected his nomination, rightly so.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where does the Constitution state there has to be 9 members on that bench?

LOL... it doesn't say that, you just may wish it did if trump wants to add 2 more seats.

Trump doesn't get to add seats. He needs the Congress to do that.

Why are dems wanting to give Trump more seats to fill?

 

[Faun]

Where does the Constitution state there has to be 9 members on that bench?

LOL... it doesn't say that, you just may wish it did if trump wants to add 2 more seats.

Trump doesn't get to add seats. He needs the Congress to do that.

Why are dems wanting to give Trump more seats to fill?

I didn't say they are. Reading is fundamental.

 

[eagle1462010]

Democratic Candidates are now pushing the idea to their base that they will either increase the number of Justices in the Supreme Court or put in term limit requirements on the ones there now.

Imagine that.........They lose and want power so bad that they would try what FDR tried to get their way. LOL

Not gonna happen, but their base will eat it up.

2020 Democrats eye dramatic increase in Supreme Court justices: 'All options are on the table'

It's become the hot new topic on the 2020 presidential campaign trail: several Democratic contenders are talking up plans to overhaul the Supreme Court, with some offering proposals to add up to 10 more members.

Candidates including Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they become president. And progressive groups are putting their money behind the message, an effort to tap into lingering liberal anger over President Trump's two nominees confirmed to the high court.

It’s not going to happen. You can stop clutching your pearls

Which I said early on. It is Dems saying this and it's news. Whats is the problem reporting news that is out there. This is what they are saying just like AOC saying that if we don't get rid of fossil fuels in 10 years we are all going to die. LOL

This news to show what these idiots are saying they want to do. Of course to appeal to the Far left base to get their vote in the primaries. Later they will go moderate in the real election to try and get those votes because the Far Left will vote for them anyways. Happens every election cycle. Just like if you vote for a Republican people will be eating dog food.

 

[eagle1462010]

You don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice you nominate them and the Senate decides rather or not to confirm them. The Senate Majority leader also has the power to decide rather or not to give a nominee a hearing was what was done with Merrick Garland purely political no question McConnell rolled the dice and got the Presidential election result he wanted. Lets not forget the Democrats were willing to consider doing the same thing during the Presidency of both George H.W. Bush and George W Bush if they would have followed through we will never no as no seat opened up on the court during an election year during their Presidenicy. What we do know is sooner or later the Democrats will do the same thing and when they do most everyone will switch their views on how they feel about it.

"You don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice you nominate them and the Senate decides rather or not to confirm them."

Why do you dumbshits post about things you clearly know nothing about?? Of course the Constitution states a president appoints replacements....

Article II, Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.​

Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them.

"The Senate Majority leader also has the power to decide rather or not to give a nominee a hearing was what was done with Merrick Garland purely political no question"

No one is denying the Senate Majority Leader has that power. The argument is that he abused that power to prevent a Liberal justice from being added to the Supreme Court. Which that same Senate Majority Leader now says he won't do if trump is faced with the exact same circumstances Obama faced. In other words, the excuses he gave back in 2016.... a president shouldn't get to appoint replacements during an election year ... and ... the people should get to decide which president nominates replacements ... was all just a lie.

So why shouldn't Democrats return the favor now and abuse any power granted them by the people and the Constitution; to return the favor...?

"Lets not forget the Democrats were willing to consider doing the same thing during the Presidency of both George H.W. Bush and George W Bush if they would have followed through we will never no as no seat opened up on the court during an election year during their Presidenicy."

That's utter bullshit. What Republicans did was to deny a duly elected sitting president his Constitutional power to appoint a replacement for nearly an entire year of his presidency.

No Democrat ever suggested that with Bush. What Biden did suggest was to delay, not deny, confirmation hearings until after the election should a seat have opened within a few months, not a year, prior to the election.

Read your own link, he NOMINATES and then IF the Senate Agrees he appoints your own link says so.

Dumbfuck, where did I ever say otherwise?

You argued with someone saying that it is in this quoted string.

Dayum, you're fucking stupid.

This is what I said...

Th president nominates potential candidates and if the Senate approves of them, the president appoints them.​

... what part of that does your deformed brain inform you is inconsistent with the Constitution?

Which part of the Senate must approve them don't you understand. Lame duck Obama wasn't gonna get approval for any nomination, but at least the GOP didn't use Character Assassination like the Dems did with Kav.................Which was a disgrace to watch.

 

[eagle1462010]

And it will blow up in their face again if they get the chance and deservedly so.

Dems know what they are doing

Nothing says you have to have nine judges. Republicans were fine with having eight

Since when? And the GOP was good with 8 during a Presidential election year.

If 8 is OK, then 15 would be OK

Quit deluding yourself. The number stays at 9. USSC appointments do not happen in a Presidential election year and should not, no matter which party is in the White House at that point in time.

McConnell now says he would confirm a trump nominee next year should a seat open. So no, the number need not stay at 9. Let Democrats add 2 more if they get full control of the Congress in 2021 and we get a Democrat president. Make the court 6-5 in favor of Liberals.

At least you are honest that your side would do that if given the power. Anything to take power and force your cap and tax and Green Mean Money making machine policies down everyone's throat. Happening in Oregon right now.