Looks like it is time to stack the Court

[rightwinger]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

 

[Indeependent]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

I say we need 1,000 justices on the USSC; what say you?

 

[Darkwind]

I say we need 1,000 justices on the USSC; what say you?

1,000 more than any number they stack the court with. More Conservative.

 

[rightwinger]

I say we need 1,000 justices on the USSC; what say you?

Let the Congress decide

 

[Indeependent]

Let the Congress decide

Why? Almost all of them are ignoramuses.

 

[TeeDub]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

Obama was many things but in this case you speak of, he was a lame duck, so no vote on Garland. That was put in place by POS Harry Reid. You did support Harry, a proud dem, right schmuck?

 

[Pellinore]

Not without Joe Manchin, it isn't. I would be very surprised if he signed up.

 

[yidnar]

Let the Congress decide

yeah ! let Manchin and Sinama break the tie ! lol !

 

[yidnar]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

you need to be stacking 5 gallon buckets of dry beans and rice with the leadership we have in the WH instead of worrying about stacking the SC .

 

[Pellinore]

Obama was many things but in this case you speak of, he was a lame duck, so no vote on Garland. That was put in place by POS Harry Reid. You did support Harry, a proud dem, right schmuck?

Scalia died in February, and McConnell announced the next day that they would refuse any posting. Obama had almost a full year left in his term.

There is no provision in the nomination procedure for Presidents near the end of their terms. There is also no tradition of it, started by Harry Reid or anyone else. Reid attempted a symbolic filibuster against Alito, but didn't have votes, and they didn't refuse to hold the nomination hearing.

Fourteen Justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including six in the 20th century. One of them was recently-retired Justice Kennedy, who was nominated by Reagan and confirmed in a year when he definitely was not returning. Trump then added to the number by nominating Justice Barrett, who was quickly confirmed and seated after people had already started voting.

This doesn't fly.

 

[Cougarbear]

Scalia died in February, and McConnell announced the next day that they would refuse any posting. Obama had almost a full year left in his term.

There is no provision in the nomination procedure for Presidents near the end of their terms. There is also no tradition of it, started by Harry Reid or anyone else. Reid attempted a symbolic filibuster against Alito, but didn't have votes, and they didn't refuse to hold the nomination hearing.

Fourteen Justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including six in the 20th century. One of them was recently-retired Justice Kennedy, who was nominated by Reagan and confirmed in a year when he definitely was not returning. Trump then added to the number by nominating Justice Barrett, who was quickly confirmed and seated after people had already started voting.

This doesn't fly.

It all flies. This is politics you are talking about. All legal. If it was wrong for Trump to call a rally on January 6th, then it's wrong for Democrats to call for rallies, violence and making the Supreme Court baseless.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

Stacking the court can cut both ways.
Eventually you'll have a supreme court that has 100 judges.
Let's face it....if Democrats can't earn what they want then they try to force everyone to do what they want.
If you make a law that prevents them from doing it....then they go around the law.
The fact is....Democrats are dishonest and evil and are up to no good.

 

[Cougarbear]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

I find no Justice appointed by Trump lied about their stance on Roe v Wade. They simply said that when the SCOTUS sided in behalf of abortion on demand that it was the law of the land at that point. There is no reason that it can't be overturned as the 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion. It was a huge stretch to apply it and only leftist judges could do it.

 

[Ringtone]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

There is no constitutional (adjective and adverbial forms are not capitalized) requirement that the Senate confirm or even regard a president's nominees.

But, then, you knew that when you dishonestly implied otherwise in the above.

 

[Cougarbear]

There is no constitutional (adjective and adverbial forms are not capitalized) requirement that the Senate confirm or even regard a president's nominees.

But, then, you knew that when you dishonestly implied otherwise in the above.

Even Ginsberg thought Roe v Wade was bad law. The 14th amendment was never a reason for allowing abortion to become a constitutional law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mitch McConnell stole a seat from Obama to nominate
TRUMP justices lied about their support of Roe v Wade

There is no Constitutional requirement on the number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Is it Nine? Thirteen? Twenty?

It is up to the Senate to decide

No, it’s time for Democrats to take control of state governments, vote neo-fascist Republicans out of office, and codify the rights and protected liberties of the people in the Constitution, making them safe from attack by the authoritarian right.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no constitutional (adjective and adverbial forms are not capitalized) requirement that the Senate confirm or even regard a president's nominees.

But, then, you knew that when you dishonestly implied otherwise in the above.

Nope there isn’t any
Nor is there a requirement for 9 judges

Let Congress decide on the number of Judges

13 is better than 9

 

[rightwinger]

I find no Justice appointed by Trump lied about their stance on Roe v Wade. They simply said that when the SCOTUS sided in behalf of abortion on demand that it was the law of the land at that point. There is no reason that it can't be overturned as the 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion. It was a huge stretch to apply it and only leftist judges could do it.

They specifically lied to Senator Collins when she asked them directly to get her vote

If they thought the 14th amendment didnt apply, they should have said so

 

[Cougarbear]

isThey specifically lied to Senator Collins when she asked them directly to get her vote

If they thought the 14th amendment didnt apply, they should have said so

Roe is, “as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearing, referring to the legal doctrine that means the court should respect its precedents.
Gorsuch, during his hearing in 2017, called the abortion-rights ruling a “precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed.”

Did anyone think in 1973 that the Justices then would reverse course and call Roe v Wade applicable based on the 14th amendment and not a States Rights issue? Remempber, they aren't just repealing Roe v Wade. This came to them as a law based in Mississippi, a State concerning when an abortion cannot take place anymore. Not that abortion is all illegal. To judge this case is a new precedent that may need to just give States back their rights under the Constitution.
Here's a poll from Gallup last year: Abortion
Not sure why the 1973 SCOTUS sided with legalizing abortions. It's never been a thing that a majority has approved for all circumstances. It's always been a conditional reason for an abortion. If only 32% believe today that abortion on demand at any state in the pregnancy and any reason should be legal, then I see no reason that the SCOTUS now has the guts to overturn something hardly anyone agreed with in 1973 including Ruth Ginsberg.
I find the polling rather amusing in that 49% say they are pro-choice and yet only 32% say abortion on demand is illegal. It seems a large number of people look at this as a woman's issue and not the baby's issue. Yet, it's the baby that dies in abortions.

 

[Ringtone]

Even Ginsberg thought Roe v Wade was bad law. The 14th amendment was never a reason for allowing abortion to become a constitutional law.

Roe v. Wade derives from the Griswold v. Connecticut line of decidendi, which asserted that a general right of privacy is implicitly inherent to the collective penumbra of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

Ginsberg failed to observe that the essence of the Bill of Rights is natural law, under which the rights to life, liberty and private property are inalienable. Accordingly, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Texan law that was struck down by the Court in Roe v. Wade, as that law provided for the proper medical care to preserve the life of both the mother and the child.

But, of course, Ginsberg was a leftist who abhorred the imperatives of natural law as their observance stands in the way of her statist inclinations and are anathema to abortion on demand per convenience. On the other hand, she felt that abortion on demand as an absolute right per Roe v. Wade is absurd for any number of reasons that should be obvious. She agreed it was bad law insofar as it wrongfully curtailed the people's legitimate, collective right to regulate it. Ironically, she understood why elevating the right to abort to an absolute, inherent right was madness.