As Republicans near winning every level of government, do Democrats still endorse ending the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court?

[Missourian]

Just curious is Democrats still want to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court?

How about ending the Electoral College as Trump leads nationally and there's a chance Harris could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college?

Vote now.

 

[ozro]

I am sure they do since several here have argued vehemently to do so.
What was the plan? I am too lazy to go search for all those threads I read. Something like 51 votes can ditch the filibuster, then we can shut an those pesky lengthy debates.
Add 4-6 justices and impose an age limit.
Oh I am certain they still support these actions.

 

[1srelluc]

Anything retarded I'm sure they stand four-square behind.....That's how the evil and bat-shit crazy dems roll.

 

[Votto]

I am sure they do since several here have argued vehemently to do so.
What was the plan? I am too lazy to go search for all those threads I read. Something like 51 votes can ditch the filibuster, then we can shut an those pesky lengthy debates.
Add 4-6 justices and impose an age limit.
Oh I am certain they still support these actions.

Democrats have so many agendas to pass.

They just want an easier road to do it with.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm for two votes on the filibuster.

1. IF the GOP gets the majority, eliminate the filibuster and kick Mitch to the back room and tell him to shut the hell up.

{

a. Pass a balanced budget law.
b. Pass a single-subject legislation law.
c. Do away with baseline budgeting.

}

2. Reinstate the filibuster with the caveat that it requires 2/3's vote to remove it in the future.

 

[Polishprince]

My guess is that the libs will just show what kind of hypocrites they are.

Expect immediate legislation in January to expand the Supreme Court to 13 members, and expect the D's to oppose it with every fiber in their beings.

 

[elektra]

How about ending the Electoral College as Trump leads nationally and there's a chance Harris could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college?

Democrats like to point out when they win the popular vote without thinking that the presidential canidates do not run a campaing to win the popular vote.

The candidate's run a campaign to will electoral college votes.

If it was a popular vote, candidate's campaigning would be much different.

 

[rightwinger]

I support ending the Fillibuster. It is minority rule and is being abused.

I don’t support expanding the court but support a 20 year term for Justices. I also believe Congress should be required to act on a nomination and not sit on it

 

[Independent thinker]

Just curious is Democrats still want to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court?

How about ending the Electoral College as Trump leads nationally and there's a chance Harris could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college?

Vote now.

Democrats are always teaching Republicans how to do things and then get upset when Republicans do what democrats taught them how to do.

 

[ozro]

Democrats are always teaching Republicans how to do things and then get upset when Republicans do what democrats taught them how to do.

Actually....the first thing that needs to be done is to stop their spreading of disinformation. You know...to protect the REPUBLIC.

That is sarcasm for those that don't get it

 

[imawhosure]

I support ending the Fillibuster. It is minority rule and is being abused.

I don’t support expanding the court but support a 20 year term for Justices. I also believe Congress should be required to act on a nomination and not sit on it

Winger is an ass, but he has made a reasonable idea.

20 years doesn't cut it Winger, but an age limit does. For the SC, we should insist that they can not be put up below a certain age, and must retire at a certain age.

Now of course, we will now hear that so and so was great until 90, or 85, or whatever. And that so and so was a genius at 25, so he/she could have been nominated.

And yet folks..........we always hear about common ground? Well here is at least one thing we can ALL get behind. Age limitations for Supreme Court Justices. Just always remember a fact, no matter which side of the aisle you reside on------------>their unbridled opinions in their youth, are just as damaging as their dementia decisions as they get very old, although there is one significant difference------>when they are very old, (just check back on how many Supreme Court Justices resigned from either party because of age) their underlings begin to write their opinions........people you never even heard of but reside in their office.

And so, if you are a realist, you should agree that there should be a bottom and a top as far as age, for the Supreme Court. Again, Winger is not my cup of tea as far as political opinions, but on this one, he hit the nail on the head!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Democrats like to point out when they win the popular vote without thinking that the presidential canidates do not run a campaing to win the popular vote.

The candidate's run a campaign to will electoral college votes.

If it was a popular vote, candidate's campaigning would be much different.

Putrid Pluralities

The Dementiacrats didn't win the Popular Vote in 2000 and 2016. They got less than 50% of the vote. Just as in the Electoral College, a candidate has to get over 50% to win. All this fuss shows the absolute ignorance that is broadcast by the media.

 

[ozro]

Winger is an ass, but he has made a reasonable idea.

20 years doesn't cut it Winger, but an age limit does. For the SC, we should insist that they can not be put up below a certain age, and must retire at a certain age.

Now of course, we will now hear that so and so was great until 90, or 85, or whatever. And that so and so was a genius at 25, so he/she could have been nominated.

And yet folks..........we always hear about common ground? Well here is at least one thing we can ALL get behind. Age limitations for Supreme Court Justices. Just always remember a fact, no matter which side of the aisle you reside on------------>their unbridled opinions in their youth, are just as damaging as their dementia decisions as they get very old, although there is one significant difference------>when they are very old, (just check back on how many Supreme Court Justices resigned from either party because of age) their underlings begin to write their opinions........people you never even heard of but reside in their office.

And so, if you are a realist, you should agree that there should be a bottom and a top as far as age, for the Supreme Court. Again, Winger is not my cup of tea as far as political opinions, but on this one, he hit the nail on the head!

Actually....I think that could get support from both parties.
I would think term limits for senate and house seats could get public support, but I don't think the senators or representatives would like it all.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I support ending the Fillibuster. It is minority rule and is being abused.

I don’t support expanding the court but support a 20 year term for Justices. I also believe Congress should be required to act on a nomination and not sit on it

I think that both would require constitutional amendments. Good luck on that.

 

[rightwinger]

I think that both would require constitutional amendments. Good luck on that.

Filibuster is a Senate tradition and can be changed at will.

Term limits on the President took a Constitutional Amendment.
If there is bipartisan support, I could see a limit on justices.

 

[rightwinger]

20 years doesn't cut it Winger, but an age limit does. For the SC, we should insist that they can not be put up below a certain age, and must retire at a certain age.

An age limit is discriminatory
There is nothing to say someone in his 90s is no longer functional.
20 year limit would apply if you are nominated at 50 or at 70

Right now, the trend is to nominate younger and younger with the intent of a lengthy term of service

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Filibuster is a Senate tradition and can be changed at will.

Yes, but that's not what I was talking about. I meant the change required to limit how long is required to vote on a nomination.

Term limits on the President took a Constitutional Amendment.
If there is bipartisan support, I could see a limit on justices.

I don't see any bipartisan support for it. This term limit idea is a transparent attempt to get rid of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, but that's not what I was talking about. I meant the change required to limit how long is required to vote on a nomination.

I don't see any bipartisan support for it. This term limit idea is a transparent attempt to get rid of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.

Current Justices have lifetime appointments
Term limits would only apply to newly appointed judges

Seems Republicans favor term limits for Congress and Democrats favor term limits for judges

 

[imawhosure]

Actually....I think that could get support from both parties.
I would think term limits for senate and house seats could get public support, but I don't think the senators or representatives would like it all.

I agree with you. It is an unbelievable act of hubris to state that only THEY can be in congress, is it not! Not to mention-------->how unlikely is it that THEY vote themselves term limits???????????

You know, I understand that even mentioning Hitler sends your thread in the tank, but I must bring him up, to point out this truth------->

When Germany was collapsing, all of his Reich Marshalls tried to assume control.......from Himmler, to Goering, etc. Why? The mighty Reich had already been basically destroyed. We should all ask ourselves, who/whom would want to take control of a dying country on the brink of chaos.

ANSWER--------->people with HUBRIS like Joe, Kamala, and their handlers...........and do not think these people only reside on the Left. But the real question is-------->who has the highest probability of escaping the problems!

Is Trump right/correct? I dunno, but what I do know is that these people have been controlling this country for 12 out of the last 16 years. When was it the best, ask yourselves that question!

If/when you ask yourself that 1 question, everything changes, it really does. To try and proclaim Trump screwed Obama for years before he was elected, and screwed Biden for years after Biden was elected, is an exercise is laughable politics. Understand all, Trump is also responsible for Kamala FAILING, lol.

If you actually believe what the Left is telling you, then you really are a victim.........a victim of the Lefts nonsensical bullsh**!

 

[imawhosure]

An age limit is discriminatory
There is nothing to say someone in his 90s is no longer functional.
20 year limit would apply if you are nominated at 50 or at 70

Right now, the trend is to nominate younger and younger with the intent of a lengthy term of service

You a union worker Winger? If you are, how many years of service before you can you retire? And, how old before they can FORCE you out!