Sens. Harris, Warren and Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding Supreme Court

[jc456]

Not at all. It's smart political strategy to combat cheaters.

who cheated?

/-----/ "who cheated?"
Anyone who beats a democRAT is a cheater.

This is the complaint. Do they have a legitimate gripe?

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they're willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider former President Obama's last pick for the court.
Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

And? Doesn't the senate own then the justices to the SC? so how is it they believe they can just add SCOTUS's? Don't these stupid fks know the constitution yet? is this really who we need in a position as president, someone unknowing of the country's constitution? I"m just saying, where do these traitors come from?

The constitution says that Congress cannot increase the nine justice limit? I was not aware of that. Please let us know the article, section, and clause.

don't they vote on the judges? I'm just saying show me in the past how the count got up to nine. I will show you it was from congress.

History of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

"The Judicial Branch is a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, organized by Chief Justice. The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.[1]"

Now mthr fkr, show me where a president can.

 

[22lcidw]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

If they become the president, declare a national emergency and expand the court. Easy.

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he can rape someone and then pardon himself.

Not the same thing.

Really? What is more ridiculous than a President who thinks he can pardon himself for murdering you?

Does this mean when the Repubs come back in power after the Progs the can add more to the Supreme Court also?

 

[Tehon]

who cheated?

/-----/ "who cheated?"
Anyone who beats a democRAT is a cheater.

This is the complaint. Do they have a legitimate gripe?

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they're willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider former President Obama's last pick for the court.
Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

And? Doesn't the senate own then the justices to the SC? so how is it they believe they can just add SCOTUS's? Don't these stupid fks know the constitution yet? is this really who we need in a position as president, someone unknowing of the country's constitution? I"m just saying, where do these traitors come from?

I said they dont have a legitimate gripe.

Tell me, how does the Constitution limit the quantity of judges?

so tell me. you think a president can just make up the count? then why wouldn't trump just do that? I'm puzzled by some in here.

Odd that you believe that people who don't know the Constitution are traitorous and then can't answer a question about the Constitution.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

It's a given. If they can, they'll do it.
.

tell us how?

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

If they become the president, declare a national emergency and expand the court. Easy.

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he can rape someone and then pardon himself.

Not the same thing.

Really? What is more ridiculous than a President who thinks he can pardon himself for murdering you?

He never said that.

View attachment 250910

He said could not would. Keep trying.

 

[bendog]

They should wait, til they have a chance of getting what they want.

That's what they're getting at, though. Republicans have repeatedly been successful by putting the Supreme Court on the ballot as a way to energize their voters. The Democrats are trying to replicate that for themselves. The message here is "vote for a Democratic White House and Senate in 2020 and you'll have a liberal court as well."

ummm, I think it's more a threat. Court packing wasn't really a popular wonder in FDR's day, but the Supreme's altered their ideology that was thwarting legislation that WAS popular. As the saying went "the switch in time (Justice Ownes) that saved nine"

for example. Medicare is constitutional. Private Employee sponsored healthcare only exists because congress gives private employers the biggest overall tax break in the US tax code. Congress can tax pretty much as it likes. If Roberts threatened overturning Medicare for all ... it would be a judicial stretch. If Roberts let TrumpyBear have his emergency power but denied it to a dem ......

 

[Stormy Daniels]

who cheated?

/-----/ "who cheated?"
Anyone who beats a democRAT is a cheater.

This is the complaint. Do they have a legitimate gripe?

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they're willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider former President Obama's last pick for the court.
Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

And? Doesn't the senate own then the justices to the SC? so how is it they believe they can just add SCOTUS's? Don't these stupid fks know the constitution yet? is this really who we need in a position as president, someone unknowing of the country's constitution? I"m just saying, where do these traitors come from?

The constitution says that Congress cannot increase the nine justice limit? I was not aware of that. Please let us know the article, section, and clause.

don't they vote on the judges? I'm just saying show me in the past how the count got up to nine. I will show you it was from congress.

History of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

"The Judicial Branch is a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, organized by Chief Justice. The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.[1]"

Now mthr fkr, show me where a president can.

Why the hell do you do this all of the fucking time? Someone points out a factual flaw in your argument, so you post a huffy-puffy-tough-guy rebuttal that restates the facts they just said, and challenge them to deny the facts that they were the ones to point out. And if you're on top of your game, you'll throw in a straw man to attempt to pin them with counter factual claims they never made.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents Congress from increasing the size of the SCOTUS. Nobody has said that a President can wave a magic wand to do it. What we have here are a handful of SENATORS who say they are open to the possibility, and would potentially support any such legislation if they were President.

 

[jc456]

/-----/ "who cheated?"
Anyone who beats a democRAT is a cheater.

This is the complaint. Do they have a legitimate gripe?

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they're willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider former President Obama's last pick for the court.
Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

And? Doesn't the senate own then the justices to the SC? so how is it they believe they can just add SCOTUS's? Don't these stupid fks know the constitution yet? is this really who we need in a position as president, someone unknowing of the country's constitution? I"m just saying, where do these traitors come from?

I said they dont have a legitimate gripe.

Tell me, how does the Constitution limit the quantity of judges?

so tell me. you think a president can just make up the count? then why wouldn't trump just do that? I'm puzzled by some in here.

Odd that you believe that people who don't know the Constitution are traitorous and then can't answer a question about the Constitution.

I posted how. go read it. And it isn't based on the constitution and I never said it was. go read my previous post. learn something.

 

[jc456]

/-----/ "who cheated?"
Anyone who beats a democRAT is a cheater.

This is the complaint. Do they have a legitimate gripe?

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they're willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider former President Obama's last pick for the court.
Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

And? Doesn't the senate own then the justices to the SC? so how is it they believe they can just add SCOTUS's? Don't these stupid fks know the constitution yet? is this really who we need in a position as president, someone unknowing of the country's constitution? I"m just saying, where do these traitors come from?

The constitution says that Congress cannot increase the nine justice limit? I was not aware of that. Please let us know the article, section, and clause.

don't they vote on the judges? I'm just saying show me in the past how the count got up to nine. I will show you it was from congress.

History of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

"The Judicial Branch is a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, organized by Chief Justice. The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.[1]"

Now mthr fkr, show me where a president can.

Why the hell do you do this all of the fucking time? Someone points out a factual flaw in your argument, so you post a huffy-puffy-tough-guy rebuttal that restates the facts they just said, and challenge them to deny the facts that they were the ones to point out. And if you're on top of your game, you'll throw in a straw man to attempt to pin them with counter factual claims they never made.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents Congress from increasing the size of the SCOTUS. Nobody has said that a President can wave a magic wand to do it. What we have here are a handful of SENATORS who say they are open to the possibility, and would potentially support any such legislation if they were President.

/-----/ "who cheated?"
Anyone who beats a democRAT is a cheater.

This is the complaint. Do they have a legitimate gripe?

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they're willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider former President Obama's last pick for the court.
Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

And? Doesn't the senate own then the justices to the SC? so how is it they believe they can just add SCOTUS's? Don't these stupid fks know the constitution yet? is this really who we need in a position as president, someone unknowing of the country's constitution? I"m just saying, where do these traitors come from?

The constitution says that Congress cannot increase the nine justice limit? I was not aware of that. Please let us know the article, section, and clause.

don't they vote on the judges? I'm just saying show me in the past how the count got up to nine. I will show you it was from congress.

History of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

"The Judicial Branch is a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, organized by Chief Justice. The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.[1]"

Now mthr fkr, show me where a president can.

Why the hell do you do this all of the fucking time? Someone points out a factual flaw in your argument, so you post a huffy-puffy-tough-guy rebuttal that restates the facts they just said, and challenge them to deny the facts that they were the ones to point out. And if you're on top of your game, you'll throw in a straw man to attempt to pin them with counter factual claims they never made.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents Congress from increasing the size of the SCOTUS. Nobody has said that a President can wave a magic wand to do it. What we have here are a handful of SENATORS who say they are open to the possibility, and would potentially support any such legislation if they were President.

dude, do you even read the OP title of a thread? to fking funny.

this thread is titled:
Sens. Harris, Warren and Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding Supreme Court

To which I was posting against. so take the object out and stick to the title.

 

[jc456]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

It's a given. If they can, they'll do it.
.

tell us how?

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
.

yep, I posted that it is congress's job. not the pres. so the title stated they wished to as pres. I responded based on the OP title.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

McConnell is the one who changed the rules when he refused to allow senators to even meet with Merrick Garland, and refused to consider his nomination.

McConnell stonewalled, delayed and outright refused to allow Obama to nominate judges, and is now ramming through the most unqualified people with lightning speed to pack the judiciary. All of McConnell's work here needs to be rebalanced.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

It's a given. If they can, they'll do it.
.

tell us how?

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
.

yep, I posted that it is congress's job. not the pres. so the title stated they wished to as pres. I responded based on the OP title.

I'd imagine the President would have to sign off on it (I don't know the rule), but yeah, it would start in Congress.
.

 

[jc456]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

It's a given. If they can, they'll do it.
.

tell us how?

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
.

yep, I posted that it is congress's job. not the pres. so the title stated they wished to as pres. I responded based on the OP title.

I'd imagine the President would have to sign off on it (I don't know the rule), but yeah, it would start in Congress.
.

and again, perhaps my wording was off a bit, but it still remains the same, if someone running for president should know how the government functions. K?

 

[Mac1958]

It's a given. If they can, they'll do it.
.

tell us how?

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
.

yep, I posted that it is congress's job. not the pres. so the title stated they wished to as pres. I responded based on the OP title.

I'd imagine the President would have to sign off on it (I don't know the rule), but yeah, it would start in Congress.
.

and again, perhaps my wording was off a bit, but it still remains the same, if someone running for president should know how the government functions. K?

Sure, I was not addressing that.
.

 

[Tehon]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

McConnell is the one who changed the rules when he refused to allow senators to even meet with Merrick Garland, and refused to consider his nomination.

McConnell stonewalled, delayed and outright refused to allow Obama to nominate judges, and is now ramming through the most unqualified people with lightning speed to pack the judiciary. All of McConnell's work here needs to be rebalanced.

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, which argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate. Republicans later began to refer to this originally little-noticed idea as the "Biden rule".

 

[jc456]

tell us how?

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.
.

yep, I posted that it is congress's job. not the pres. so the title stated they wished to as pres. I responded based on the OP title.

I'd imagine the President would have to sign off on it (I don't know the rule), but yeah, it would start in Congress.
.

and again, perhaps my wording was off a bit, but it still remains the same, if someone running for president should know how the government functions. K?

Sure, I was not addressing that.
.

I know you weren't, I was merely correcting my original post for others to read, and used that post.

 

[candycorn]

If they become the president, declare a national emergency and expand the court. Easy.

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he can rape someone and then pardon himself.

Not the same thing.

Really? What is more ridiculous than a President who thinks he can pardon himself for murdering you?

He never said that.

View attachment 250910

He said could not would. Keep trying.

Oh….did that answer sound as stupid as it is in your head before you wrote it?

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he COULD pardon himself after he rapes someone’s daughter.

There, happy?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not the same thing.

Really? What is more ridiculous than a President who thinks he can pardon himself for murdering you?

He never said that.

View attachment 250910

He said could not would. Keep trying.

Oh….did that answer sound as stupid as it is in your head before you wrote it?

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he COULD pardon himself after he rapes someone’s daughter.

There, happy?

He said "legal experts told me". Never said for rape or murder. Keep trying.

 

[jc456]

Not the same thing.

Really? What is more ridiculous than a President who thinks he can pardon himself for murdering you?

He never said that.

View attachment 250910

He said could not would. Keep trying.

Oh….did that answer sound as stupid as it is in your head before you wrote it?

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he COULD pardon himself after he rapes someone’s daughter.

There, happy?

well the question is, can he? do you know?

 

[candycorn]

Anyone surprised by this? You can't win, just change the rules.


Americans can see this, if you vote for this, you can't say you weren't forewarned...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-12236254


After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

If they become the president, declare a national emergency and expand the court. Easy.

I agree that it’s a ridiculous idea but the ridiculous is now the norm in Trump’s America. We currently have a President who thinks he can rape someone and then pardon himself.

Not the same thing.

Really? What is more ridiculous than a President who thinks he can pardon himself for murdering you?

Does this mean when the Repubs come back in power after the Progs the can add more to the Supreme Court also?

This is the Pandora’s Box of emergency declarations.

Why not just have an ED to create a 3rd chamber of Congress or insists that the President speaks their own language and won’t accept any bills not written in it by the Congress while he uses an ED to fund his construction 75,000 sq. foot palaces (one per state)?

As for your question. Yep.

This is why politics is a profession and it is best left to the professionals. We’ve elected a clown and we’ve gotten a circus.