Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, you actually CAN have it both ways, when one way is simply following the procedure in place, and the other way is radically changing the system.

I get that you somehow think the operating formula here is, "Which party gets to appoint more Justices?" but it's actually not.

So by all means, keep whining to us about how appointing a Justice to an open seat is exactly the same as restructuring the court. It certainly doesn't matter to us if you make a laughable partisan fool out of yourself if it doesn't matter to you.
There is no procedure in place to not put seats on the Court or take them away, for that matter. That is where you fail. Miserably.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,377
Reaction score
13,212
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, you actually CAN have it both ways, when one way is simply following the procedure in place, and the other way is radically changing the system.

I get that you somehow think the operating formula here is, "Which party gets to appoint more Justices?" but it's actually not.

So by all means, keep whining to us about how appointing a Justice to an open seat is exactly the same as restructuring the court. It certainly doesn't matter to us if you make a laughable partisan fool out of yourself if it doesn't matter to you.
There is no procedure in place to not put seats on the Court or take them away, for that matter. That is where you fail. Miserably.

Sorry, but YOUR straw man is not MY failure. As far as I'm concerned, this is just an admission that you know my post was correct, and you don't want to admit it. So you just pretend you didn't understand the words.

Your surrender is noted, and your dishonest cowardice is laughed at.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
887
Points
210
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,377
Reaction score
13,212
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.

"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
 

Pellinore

Silver Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
343
Reaction score
84
Points
90
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.

"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,377
Reaction score
13,212
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.

"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.

So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.

Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect. Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.

"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.

So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.

Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect. Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
Believe that all you want but I don't litigate matters that are already settled.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
51,377
Reaction score
13,212
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.

"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.

So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.

Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect. Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
Believe that all you want but I don't litigate matters that are already settled.

I have no doubt that YOU consider "Other people have told me what to think" to be "settled".

One does wonder why you bother to take up space on this board, insofar as all you have to say is, "Ditto what they said." Seems to me I can dispense with your presence entirely, since you take offense at being asked to say things for yourself and pretend that you have thoughts.

Consider yourself dismissed and forgotten, vaporous nobody.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.

"Go look it up" is ignorant leftist-speak for "I can't make an argument, and I'm too big a liar to admit it!"
It's ignorant righty-ism to keep asking for answers that have been so properly provided so many times before. This has been answered. Tough.

So we'll just assume that you can't produce an answer for yourself, and you just think whatever you and the rest of the herd have been told to think.

Not tough at all, since I already viewed you as unworthy of any respect. Would have been tougher if you'd surprised me by being a thinking person.
Believe that all you want but I don't litigate matters that are already settled.

I have no doubt that YOU consider "Other people have told me what to think" to be "settled".

One does wonder why you bother to take up space on this board, insofar as all you have to say is, "Ditto what they said." Seems to me I can dispense with your presence entirely, since you take offense at being asked to say things for yourself and pretend that you have thoughts.

Consider yourself dismissed and forgotten, vaporous nobody.
It's already been settled. Move along.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,805
Reaction score
2,220
Points
1,940
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
The 'Splain was Bullshit. Just because a commie Lib croaked? The President at the time had the right to nominate. The Senate had the right to approve. So you Lie.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
The 'Splain was Bullshit. Just because a commie Lib croaked? The President at the time had the right to nominate. The Senate had the right to approve. So you Lie.
It has been explained, so your nonsense is . . . nonsense. It was an abuse of power. The move for D.C. statehood is an abuse of power. It is what political parties do.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
887
Points
210
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
This has been competently explained many times, so go look it up.
The only argument I've seen is that trump nominated her and the senate confirmed her. Yes, during an election year. There is a gentleman's agreement about nominations during election years, but no laws against it.

Its something that any president would have done, and in fact, Obama tried to do it with garland. The only difference between the two, and the only reason garland didn't get a senate hearing was the senate majority at that time. Had democrats had control, garland would have been confirmed.

Crappy deal, yes, but nothing that either side wouldn't have done if given the chance.

What the Republicans did not do, however, was try to expand the court to make it harder for the demo to wrestle control.

There is no law against the left adding more Supreme Court justices, but make no mistake, its ALL about power.

The fact that we argue about democrats or Republicans on the scotus is proof that our justice system is messed up, and we are appointing them for the wrong reasons.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
887
Points
210
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
 

StormAl

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
640
Points
893
And that is why we are going to see an expanded SCOTUS and DC statehood.

It is all about power, and Moscow Mitch is going to witness first hand it on steroids.
 

Pellinore

Silver Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
343
Reaction score
84
Points
90
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
You are correct, but I didn't say "in an election year." I said "after many people had already voted."
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
887
Points
210
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
You are correct, but I didn't say "in an election year." I said "after many people had already voted."
Ok, I fail to see how the number of people voting has any relevance. A president is president until they are no longer president. Again, had Obama had a Democrat senate, garland would have been confirmed.

I'll grant you that, if the agreement is that no judge will be confirmed in an election year, then a president shouldn't nominate one, in an election year. That goes for both sides.
 

Pellinore

Silver Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
343
Reaction score
84
Points
90
The Merrick Garland fiasco and Amy Coney Barrett were abuse of power grabs, indeed.
Garland perhaps yes, but because of mconnell. Barret? I don't agree. A seat was vacant, and it was filled. That's how any president would have done it.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. It was an abuse of power.
How was it an abuse of power? Was a seat not vacant? Would any other president not have done the exact same thing? Would you also say that any of those other presidents would be guilty of an abuse of power?

Like I said, if you want to complain about garland, I get that, but trumps appointments cannot be considered a power grab because seats were vacant.

What congress is proposing now, to expand scotus, THATS a power grab.
If the Barrett nomination/ratification was not an abuse of power then neither is increasing the court. You can't have it both ways.
How is the barret nomination an abuse of power?
I have heard the argument that it was an abuse of power because she was nominated, confirmed, and seated after many people had already voted.
There is no law that says a president can't nominate in an election year. The democrats tried to do it with merrick garland.
You are correct, but I didn't say "in an election year." I said "after many people had already voted."
Ok, I fail to see how the number of people voting has any relevance. A president is president until they are no longer president. Again, had Obama had a Democrat senate, garland would have been confirmed.

I'll grant you that, if the agreement is that no judge will be confirmed in an election year, then a president shouldn't nominate one, in an election year. That goes for both sides.
I agree. At this point, I would like to see a solid law passed establishing a definite deadline. I don't even care that much when it is, as long as it is consistent between administrations.

I don't have a whole lot of confidence in that happening; as a country, we don't seem to be doing very well setting aside our partisan goals in order to preserve the strength of our shared democracy.
 

Colin norris

Active Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
175
Reaction score
155
Points
43
Democrats want to pick 4 more anti Republican Supreme Court Justices. I saw this a few minutes ago on Fox tv. What do you think?

foxnews.com
Oh the irony. You never objected when trump stacked it with 3 Republican appointments. Where's your independence of the court now.


The appointments should be taken from the president and done by independent qualified people to do it.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top