Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Something like that is inevitable. Repubs stole the seat from Obama so the bar will be lowered soon. Things just get worse and worse.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
That sure would be nice.Something like that is inevitable. Repubs stole the seat from Obama so the bar will be lowered soon. Things just get worse and worse.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
Yeah, I think a Constitutional amendment aimed at fixing the Court size is needed, but it should also include provisions to prevent the shenanigans re: Garland.
Well, the taxing power has been pretty widely interpreted. I COULD be limited to only taxing for an enumerated power, but then that's general welfare …. which lets in a lot of stuff.Just eliminate the SC. All they have done for some time now, is protect the wealthy and powerful. They haven’t done their constitutional duty so they’re a criminal enterprise. Just like Congress and the Executive branch.I really don't see Biden trending this way. Clyburn isn't either. Biden's mentioned something vague in term of reforming (or changing) the federal courtsTrump could get that done in a few weeks.
Just line up a list of 50 hardcore right wing candidates and ask the Senate to confirm every Goddamn one. You'll get an amendment in short order.
Well, the problem would be increasing the size of the Court to begin with - which would require the House to be on board as well. The only way it will happen is if one party has control of everything (WH and all of Congress). Which may very well be what we're facing if the "blue wave" comes to fruition.
In the past, Biden has recognized how stupid that would be - but stupidity is trending.
Yeah. I've seen that a couple of times. Something about a bipartisan commission to study "court reform". It's either a dog whistle for court packing, or he's placating progressives with ambiguity.
And I'm not sure he's gonna win anyway.
They'd also need to take the Senate. Both are definitely possible.
Time to start over.
They certainly haven't done a great job enforcing limits on state power. But I don't really buy the line that they protect the "wealthy and powerful". I think they're just kinda cowardly. They don't want to be seen as blocking the "will of the people". But that's their fucking job.
Robert's ACA decision was the perfect example. He outlined exactly why the mandate was wrong, but then copped out with "but we've been doing it for a long time, so I'm not gonna block it". Lame.
I woulnd not be knee jerk against requiring the senate to give a nominee a vote in certain amount of time. A century or two ago, the Senate just let nominations did with no votes rather than vote to not confirm. IF Garland had a vote, we'd have saved some anguish with Barrett.Something like that is inevitable. Repubs stole the seat from Obama so the bar will be lowered soon. Things just get worse and worse.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
Yeah, I think a Constitutional amendment aimed at fixing the Court size is needed, but it should also include provisions to prevent the shenanigans re: Garland.
A mistake that is yet to be corrected, but should be. Hamilton's "general welfare" exploit basically cut in half the Constitution's power to limit government.Well, the taxing power has been pretty widely interpreted.
As I understand it, Congress can impeach a SCOTUS justice for any reason they wish. Just sayn'.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
I woulnd not be knee jerk against requiring the senate to give a nominee a vote in certain amount of time. A century or two ago, the Senate just let nominations did with no votes rather than vote to not confirm. IF Garland had a vote, we'd have saved some anguish with Barrett.Something like that is inevitable. Repubs stole the seat from Obama so the bar will be lowered soon. Things just get worse and worse.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
Yeah, I think a Constitutional amendment aimed at fixing the Court size is needed, but it should also include provisions to prevent the shenanigans re: Garland.
As I understand it, Congress can impeach a SCOTUS justice for any reason they wish. Just sayn'.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
If you could read a post, the answer might gobsmack you.I woulnd not be knee jerk against requiring the senate to give a nominee a vote in certain amount of time. A century or two ago, the Senate just let nominations did with no votes rather than vote to not confirm. IF Garland had a vote, we'd have saved some anguish with Barrett.Something like that is inevitable. Repubs stole the seat from Obama so the bar will be lowered soon. Things just get worse and worse.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
Yeah, I think a Constitutional amendment aimed at fixing the Court size is needed, but it should also include provisions to prevent the shenanigans re: Garland.
So you think all Republican SCOTUS appointments have gotten a Senate vote? Want to wager on that?
If you could read a post, the answer might gobsmack you.I woulnd not be knee jerk against requiring the senate to give a nominee a vote in certain amount of time. A century or two ago, the Senate just let nominations did with no votes rather than vote to not confirm. IF Garland had a vote, we'd have saved some anguish with Barrett.Something like that is inevitable. Repubs stole the seat from Obama so the bar will be lowered soon. Things just get worse and worse.Saw this from the supreme douchebag:
We need a Constitutional amendment preventing court packing. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a Court. Nor a Constitution.
Yeah, I think a Constitutional amendment aimed at fixing the Court size is needed, but it should also include provisions to prevent the shenanigans re: Garland.
So you think all Republican SCOTUS appointments have gotten a Senate vote? Want to wager on that?
I'm not sure it's a mistake. Voters can elect a govt to do something. Since 1980 we've been electing govts to spend more than they raise in revenue. The const may give us the power to destroy our country.A mistake that is yet to be corrected, but should be. Hamilton's "general welfare" exploit basically cut in half the Constitution's power to limit government.Well, the taxing power has been pretty widely interpreted.
Bork and Garland nomiantions were IDENTITCAL Kaz. Only idiots deny this. It's plain as the blue nose on Moscow Mitch's face. Now fuck off
With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and Biden in the White House, anything is possible.Fudge, courts...those RatZ will pack anything.
The statutory number of seats is nine. To change that number will require new legislation nullifying the following act:
Judiciary Act of 1869 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, anything is possible.Fudge, courts...those RatZ will pack anything.
The statutory number of seats is nine. To change that number will require new legislation nullifying the following act:
Judiciary Act of 1869 - Wikipedia
Just stating the facts. I know how much you hate that.With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, anything is possible.Fudge, courts...those RatZ will pack anything.
The statutory number of seats is nine. To change that number will require new legislation nullifying the following act:
Judiciary Act of 1869 - Wikipedia
Makes you stick your hand down your pants, doesn't it, "Republican?"
Just stating the facts. I know how much you hate that.With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, anything is possible.Fudge, courts...those RatZ will pack anything.
The statutory number of seats is nine. To change that number will require new legislation nullifying the following act:
Judiciary Act of 1869 - Wikipedia
Makes you stick your hand down your pants, doesn't it, "Republican?"
But not to do anything. The whole point of the Constitution is to constrain what voters can "do" with government.I'm not sure it's a mistake. Voters can elect a govt to do something.A mistake that is yet to be corrected, but should be. Hamilton's "general welfare" exploit basically cut in half the Constitution's power to limit government.Well, the taxing power has been pretty widely interpreted.
