Court Packing Does NOT Address Constitutionality of Roe-V-Wade Reversal

[easyt65]

Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court, according to a leaked draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

www.foxnews.com

It's being reported Democrats are reviving the idea of packing the courts as a result of the recent leaked draft copy of Roe-V-Wade reversal brief.

Court Packing does not address the Constitutionality of the potential decision. It is just another butt-hurt, emotional liberal extremist reaction to not getting their way.

 

[forkup]

Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court, according to a leaked draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

www.foxnews.com

It's being reported Democrats are reviving the idea of packing the courts as a result of the recent leaked draft copy of Roe-V-Wade reversal brief.

Court Packing does not address the Constitutionality of the potential decision. It is just another butt-hurt, emotional liberal extremist reaction to not getting their way.

As opposed to refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS candidate 8 months before an election and rushing through another in a few weeks?

Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to stretch the constitution as far as it takes to get control of the Supreme court but are now crying foul?

As for not getting our way. This thing has been on the books for 50 years and I don't think you guys ever stopped being butt-hurt, did you?

 

[Concerned American]

This thing has been on the books for 50 years

More to the point, IT WASN'T ON THE BOOKS FOR 195 YEARS. Moron

 

[The Original Tree]

It's just another attempt of their to circumvent Democracy which is something they hate while professing to defend it.
They despise legitimate Democracy.

 

[easyt65]

Preferring personal opinion and bias to dictate law rather than the Constitution and facts is sorta like declaring you prefer your desire to float above the ground to the laws of existing gravity.

 

[easyt65]

As opposed to refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS candidate 8 months before an election and rushing through another in a few weeks?

Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to stretch the constitution as far as it takes to get control of the Supreme court but are now crying foul?

As for not getting our way. This thing has been on the books for 50 years and I don't think you guys ever stopped being butt-hurt, did you?

Being on the books for years is NOT a grounds / basis for Constitutionality. Are you aware of this fact?

 

[The Original Tree]

Being on the books for years is NOT a grounds / basis for Constitutionality. Are you aware of this fact?

They Cry CHOICE CHOICE while refusing to give THE PEOPLE THE CHOICE.

 

[easyt65]

As opposed to refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS candidate 8 months before an election and rushing through another in a few weeks?

Nice emotional rant based on another failure to get one's way.

Tell me, did you approve of the heinous attempted screwing of Kavanaugh The Democrats tried - and failed - to pull?

 

[Missourian]

It's the 2020 election all over again.

Can't win fair? Find a way to cheat.

Should be the official motto of the Democrat party.

 

[BULLDOG]

Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court, according to a leaked draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.

www.foxnews.com

It's being reported Democrats are reviving the idea of packing the courts as a result of the recent leaked draft copy of Roe-V-Wade reversal brief.

Court Packing does not address the Constitutionality of the potential decision. It is just another butt-hurt, emotional liberal extremist reaction to not getting their way.

You are correct. adding more members to the court does nothing to make RvW more or less constitutional. It will relieve the problem we now have of a partisan court. When so few new members can completely reverse the nature of the court, those members have too much power. More members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Packing the court hinges on if Manchin will agree, and I doubt he will…

 

[Concerned American]

You are correct. adding more members to the court does nothing to make RvW more or less constitutional. It will relieve the problem we now have of a partisan court. When so few new members can completely reverse the nature of the court, those members have too much power. More members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret.

The only partisans on the court are Sotomayor and Kagan, moron.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only partisans on the court are Sotomayor and Kagan, moron.

No.

 

[easyt65]

You are correct. adding more members to the court does nothing to make RvW more or less constitutional. It will relieve the problem we now have of a partisan court.

Partisan court? Nice opinion.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

No.

Actually the only non-partisan member might be Roberts and Breyer and seeing Breyer is leaving that leave Roberts…

 

[Concerned American]

No.

Yes!

 

[struth]

As opposed to refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS candidate 8 months before an election and rushing through another in a few weeks?

Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to stretch the constitution as far as it takes to get control of the Supreme court but are now crying foul?

As for not getting our way. This thing has been on the books for 50 years and I don't think you guys ever stopped being butt-hurt, did you?

as opposed to filibustering nominees? The left’s done that as well.

if the dems want to pack the court, draft the bill

 

[Ralph Norton]

You are correct. adding more members to the court does nothing to make RvW more or less constitutional. It will relieve the problem we now have of a partisan court. When so few new members can completely reverse the nature of the court, those members have too much power. More members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret.

"More members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret"
More LIBERAL members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret".
That is what you meant, isn't it?

 

[BULLDOG]

"More members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret"
More LIBERAL members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret".
That is what you meant, isn't it?

The appointment of a few republican justices drasticly changed the nature of the court in a very short time. Drastic swings to either party is detrimental to our country.

 

[whitehall]

It doesn't have to make sense and RvW hasn't been reversed. It's an October surprise a little early.