Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Republicans deserve to have a packed court after their stunt with Garland. The American people however do not. Really bad idea, I agree with Breyer on this, I hope this does not gain much traction. :(

"We should get to do whatever we want . . . because REASONS!"

You're really just phoning in these lame justifications at this point.
Is that really what you got out of that post?
She's a rightwing parrot, hypocrisy is her singular virtue. If the Dems had pulled the crap her party did with Garland and the Pubs were in charge, she would be demanding court packing.
Crepitus is a leftist parrot. Just saying...

Coyote is a leftist parrot. I can't remember the last time she posted something that wasn't cut-and-pasted directly from the talking points memos laughingly referred to as "media articles". If she ever had an original thought, she'd probably kill herself from the shame of having betrayed her beloved masters.

So the irony of being called a parrot by someone who's every single post is fed to her by others is really funny. And being told that I would act just like her if the roles were reversed, because her mindless drone ass is somehow "what all people are like" is downright insulting.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.

There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so. When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases. In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload. THAT is a valid reason.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
47,804
Reaction score
12,765
Points
2,190
No, we don't. We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.

What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?

Fuck you.

Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).

Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.

Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.

Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under. You're out of your league here.

Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
What record are you referring too?

Specifically

All concerned with the subject, specifically.
So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?

Historical records. They are numerous and free. Avail yourself of them.
Lol, you can't think of anything, can you.

View attachment 480535

DC Statehood pops immediately into mind. For The People Act. Equality Act. Federal gun control. 16th Amendment. Jim Crow. Designation of protected classes of citizens.

Just off the top.
Nothing unconstitutional there, except maybe the jim crow laws, and they weren't thought to be at the time.
 
OP
Disir

Disir

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
25,629
Reaction score
8,007
Points
910
A system in which the politics of Scotus judges is their first priority, has already fatally failed!

And again, Americans expose their dirty laundry to the rest of the world. America is a social failure with very little will amongst it's people to reform.

Does this mean a certain fall to fascism?

Biden can't bring the 'big gifts' to the people fast enough!
That's a whole lot of nonsense you got going on there.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
33,979
Reaction score
9,761
Points
1,330
No, we don't. We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.

What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?

Fuck you.

Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).

Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.

Non sequitur, since they themselves ignore it.
Yes, Billy, your comment is a non sequitur, because your assertions do not logically follow from your words.

Your "I know you are but what am I?" defense only works on fifth-graders and under. You're out of your league here.

Democrat disdain for the Constitution is a matter of public record.
What record are you referring too?

Specifically

All concerned with the subject, specifically.
So the record of Democratic disdain for the constitution is found where?

Historical records. They are numerous and free. Avail yourself of them.
Lol, you can't think of anything, can you.

View attachment 480535

DC Statehood pops immediately into mind. For The People Act. Equality Act. Federal gun control. 16th Amendment. Jim Crow. Designation of protected classes of citizens.

Just off the top.
Nothing unconstitutional there, except maybe the jim crow laws, and they weren't thought to be at the time.
Despicable effort to politicize the High Court.
 

eagle7-31

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
1,435
Reaction score
2,199
Points
1,938
No, we don't. We want Bart O'kavenaugh removed for cause, and then you need to decide whether you wanna keep goresuch or barrett, because by your own reasoning one or the other is illegitimate.

What cause? Because the Nazis slandered and libeled him?

Fuck you.

Bring in the Chinese, Motherfucker. That's your end game - take this civil war the Nazi democrats are waging against America - this treason of the fuckwad scum democrats - and push it to the point that decent people take up arms against the Nazi fucks. Then the Nazis will turn to you, to your country, and ask you to invade with the help of the democrats, to "restore order."
You seem disturbed you lost the election. The Dems have restored order.
I see you didn't know that 52% of the little girls whose parents paid for them to get across the Rio Grande and the U.S.- Mex. Border are raped on the way here; 11% of them have Covid-19 and some frightening variants that could decimate border states and red states they are arbitrarily bussed to by blue state deciders. Hate and retaliation follow Biden before he fucks a billion dollars out of his target(s).

Stop pretenses that you didn't see the videos of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian top cop fired for asking what Hunter Biden's credentials were for his seat on Burisma's board in which he was not required to attend board meetings to merit leeching a million a year outta Burisma. And Daddy Biden dearest threatened to use his vice presidential power to criminally extort a billion of the $3.5 billion American taxpayers furnished for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian genocide like the starvation of Ukrainian farmers beyond the end of World War II when the KJB was into making dissenters of Russian Satellite states sorry for resisting taxation without representation.
Oh yes Biden got the billion from Ukraine 6 hours later' an hour before Air Force took off. And not a nickel of that billion went to charity.
Democratic Party only wants votes. Why they want to stack the Court.
Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.
Since when? LOL
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
766
Points
140
It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.
What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month. Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE." What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.
What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month. Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE." What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.

I said stack the court not packing the court. Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?

The lie is the your silly notion of non activist judges. a truly non activist would not consider changing previous supreme court rulings. Judges are human beings they will be influenced by preconceptions, principles and bias. The boundaries of law invite conflict between reasonable principles that demand a review by the supreme court. They will either affirm the previous ruling or change the ruling. Now that the court is stacked in your favor your friends will be bringing cases that have been already decided in a bid to change them.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
91,178
Reaction score
21,412
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
So you say, apparently you have no clue as to what is and what is not a study group. Do you support McConnell's bullshit in not bringing Obama's nominee for an up and down vote? Wasn't that a method to pack the Supreme Court with conservatives? It seems you are out of "grip".


Oberfuhrer Garland?

:lol:

That Nazi fuck has no business on the SCOTUS
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
826
Points
893
Democrats wish to make Republicans follow the Constitution.

:rofl:

The Constitution you Nazi fucks are at war to crush?

How about you Nazi c&nts follow the Constitution yourselves? You know, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th that you shit all over?
You sound confused. The argument that should be used against the Dems is not that reform the court is unconstitutional, for it is certainly not, but that is an abuse of power.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
91,268
Reaction score
23,440
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.
It just creates a slippery slope. Do you disagree enough to vote against those who support it?

What McConnell did in regards to Garland created a slippery slope too.

Didn't seem to change anyone's vote.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
91,268
Reaction score
23,440
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.

There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so. When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases. In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload. THAT is a valid reason.

There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
40,493
Reaction score
14,264
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
2,239
Points
1,940
It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.
What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month. Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE." What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.
What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month. Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE." What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.

I said stack the court not packing the court. Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?

The lie is the your silly notion of non activist judges. a truly non activist would not consider changing previous supreme court rulings. Judges are human beings they will be influenced by preconceptions, principles and bias. The boundaries of law invite conflict between reasonable principles that demand a review by the supreme court. They will either affirm the previous ruling or change the ruling. Now that the court is stacked in your favor your friends will be bringing cases that have been already decided in a bid to change them.
Like ROE? That should have been Legislated.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
33,979
Reaction score
9,761
Points
1,330
It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.
What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month. Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE." What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.
It is funny that Mitch the republican blocked Obama's nomination to the Supreme court on the excuse of let the people decide in the election. 4 years later when Trump had a couple of months left, he pushed the vote to install the nominee. Was that stacking the courts based on political ideology?

now repubs are complaining that the Demos are packing the court. Something that they do also.

Well Congress has the power to raise the number of court members. Personally I would love to see each party to have a select number of 5 each. Yeah there would be some dead locked but it will just take one to raise about the fray and make an impartial decision.
There are STILL 9. Do the math ,Nimrod.

Thank you for proving a point.
What point? That the President picks REPLACEMENTS with the SENATES Approval?--Simple question for your simple mind. Did Trump try to INCREASE the number of Justices to suit his agenda? He could have ,ya know.


The issues which you seem to talk over , around, and dismiss is how the Senate run by Mitchell denied Obama based on upcoming elections and quickly approval Trump nomination when there was an upcoming election with the next month. Address that if your able to. I know that you can't.

Simple question did Mitch lie in order to stack the court? If you can't answer that one, do not worry because it is obvious.
Look ,Nimrod. Read the post. The "President picks Justices AT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE." What part of that can't ya read? Filling a vacancy is NOT packing the court.

I said stack the court not packing the court. Which implies rearrange the field for an advantage and thus when your leaders lie to you then you should question it.
What lie ,dimbulb. Trump SAID he was going to appoint Non-Activist Judges to the Courts. And he DID that. Just WHERE is the fuckin' LIE?

The lie is the your silly notion of non activist judges. a truly non activist would not consider changing previous supreme court rulings. Judges are human beings they will be influenced by preconceptions, principles and bias. The boundaries of law invite conflict between reasonable principles that demand a review by the supreme court. They will either affirm the previous ruling or change the ruling. Now that the court is stacked in your favor your friends will be bringing cases that have been already decided in a bid to change them.
Rulings have been revisited and changed throughout U.S. history. Example: Olmsted v. United States 1927 then see Katz v. United States 1967.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
33,979
Reaction score
9,761
Points
1,330
Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.

There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so. When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases. In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload. THAT is a valid reason.

There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.
The people were allowed to voice their opinion on Garland. They rejected him. Funny how leftist were not too upset at the time because Hillary was going to win in this huge landslide. Not!
 

HaShev

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
3,443
Points
265
Nadler being all dramatic saying they were unpacking the court not packing it, was the dumbest comment, what does that even mean?
561z0s.jpg
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,436
Reaction score
13,268
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Completely disagree with expanding the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices.

There's really no clear, non-political reason to do so. When the number was expanded to 9 from 7, it was because they had a three-year backlog in cases. In that same piece of legislation, Congress also added more circuit judges, primarily in the South, to handle an expanded workload. THAT is a valid reason.

There was no clear non-political reason to deny Obama his right to fill a vacancy either.

Well, I appreciate your honest admission that your position is "If we don't get what we want, we get to do whatever we want, whenever we want!! We are always entitled to get our way!!!"

And who ever said that confirmation of nominees has to be non-political? Lame attempt at conflating two very different things. Aren't you ashamed of how stupid "This involves the court, and that involves the court, so that makes them the EXACT SAME THING!" makes you sound?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top