Pack The Supreme Court? Absolutely

[blackhawk]

When the Republicans turn around and do the same and you bitch, piss, moan and rant about how wrong it is your hypocrisy will be duly noted.

I‘m willing to risk it
Republicans will need to win the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.

May take a while.

Didn't someone post here in 2016 the next Republican President hasn't been born yet? Gievn how hyper-partisan both sides have become the voters might not give either side all three for a very long time.

 

[TheHardTruth]

More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses.

What is extreme about it?

Democrats think Trump being elected is extreme and requires an extreme response.

YOU LOST! Deal with it.

Ginsberg died...it happens...now she needs to be replaced...so what is extreme? The leftists aren't getting their way?

So you need to "justify" your extreme responses by calling a normal situation "extreme"?

Yes, she should be replaced. After the election. If Trump wins, ACB gets confirmed and I'll have no issue with that. If Trump loses, Biden gets to nominate his own judge. McConnell set this standard. I don't give two shits if Trump is an incumbent. There is still a possibility of a new President being selected. The people deserve a say in the matter.

"The people deserve a say in the matter."

You are absolutely right. And they do and did have a say in the matter....They elected Donald J Trump as their President ( Yes he is the President and you should probably get over it already) for 4 years....not 3 years and 9 months....4 years. Their choice for 4 years...not 3 years and 9 months....has made his choice for the next Supreme Court Justice. The people also had their say in the Senate for a term of 6 years, one third of which ends January 2021....Not November 2020. Now, their advise and consent to the next Supreme Court Justice will be made doing the peoples will.

Again, I don't care about advise and consent. You lost that argument when you denied Obama his pick. Unless I've been asleep, he was to serve until January, 2017. So it's irrelevant. McConnell set the standard. You don't get to alter the standard just because it's your guy in the Oval Office.

"You don't get to alter the standard just because it's your guy in the Oval Office."

Not trying to "Alter the Standard" You are the one wishing the "Standard" could be "Altered"

If you look at history, the "Standard" is....that when the party that has won the White House ( Yes the Republicans won the White House and President Donald J Trump is Presidency which you really need to get over already) and the Party that has won the Senate ( Yeah, the Republicans and Mitch McConnell control the Senate) are one and the same, then the nomination is made and the advise and consent is done. YOU.... You don't get to alter the standard just because your guys (or gals) AREN'T in the Oval Office and the Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

When the Republicans turn around and do the same and you bitch, piss, moan and rant about how wrong it is your hypocrisy will be duly noted.

I‘m willing to risk it
Republicans will need to win the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.

May take a while.

Didn't someone post here in 2016 the next Republican President hasn't been born yet? Gievn how hyper-partisan both sides have become the voters might not give either side all three for a very long time.

I am willing to bet on Trump taking the Republican Party down with him and Democrats gerrymandering the House for the next decade.

Go for the throat Democrat’s

 

[blackhawk]

When the Republicans turn around and do the same and you bitch, piss, moan and rant about how wrong it is your hypocrisy will be duly noted.

I‘m willing to risk it
Republicans will need to win the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.

May take a while.

Didn't someone post here in 2016 the next Republican President hasn't been born yet? Gievn how hyper-partisan both sides have become the voters might not give either side all three for a very long time.

I am willing to bet on Trump taking the Republican Party down with him and Democrats gerrymandering the House for the next decade.

Go for the throat Democrat’s

Funny the left said the same thing about Trump in 2016 didn't work out the way they thought it would.

 

[Zorro!]

With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of a polar opposite replacement, only one response that makes any sense: Expand the Supreme Court....

Fake News. RBG replace Byron White, a Conservative, and yet, that wasn't grounds to expand SCOTUS.

... The only real question is by how much...

No. The real question is just how badly should Democrats be punished for attacking the independence of the Judiciary.

... Yes, some call it an extreme step....

No shit?

... this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses...

No it isn't. Just as RGB replacing Byron White didn't, neither does the Notorious ACB replacing RBG. It's simply Karma. RBG could have retired while Dems controlled the Senate and the Presidency and she didn't, cuz karma.

... As Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield tweeted on Sept. 21:
The pipe dream of a Christian theocracy, with unfettered capitalism, is about to run up on a snag.

He sounds like your typical anti-Christan leftwing professor moron.

The Notorious ACB to follow the "RGB Rule" when asked how she will decide specific cases.

 

[skews13]

With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of a polar opposite replacement, only one response that makes any sense: Expand the Supreme Court. The only real question is by how much. There are other responses that can do some good — perhaps even more good. But without court expansion, the existing court can, and almost certainly will, strike them down.

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses. As Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield tweeted on Sept. 21:

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses.

"Pack" the Supreme Court? It's the only way to save democracy

There are many ways to reduce the destructive political power of the Supreme Court. They all start with more seats

www.salon.com

The pipe dream of a Christian theocracy, with unfettered capitalism, is about to run up on a snag.

 

[hadit]

Why would anyone care if a few judges are added?

More is better

You wouldn't care if TRUMP! added 4 more of his handpicked justices? Or Maybe Pence?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Very true

More judges to protect the Constitution

Or subvert it if you are a democrat, just like FDR tried to do.

 

[BuckRodgers]

With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of a polar opposite replacement, only one response that makes any sense: Expand the Supreme Court. The only real question is by how much. There are other responses that can do some good — perhaps even more good. But without court expansion, the existing court can, and almost certainly will, strike them down.

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses. As Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield tweeted on Sept. 21:

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses.

"Pack" the Supreme Court? It's the only way to save democracy

There are many ways to reduce the destructive political power of the Supreme Court. They all start with more seats

www.salon.com

The pipe dream of a Christian theocracy, with unfettered capitalism, is about to run up on a snag.

As much as your dream of a Communist America. Neither is desirable here, and neither will be permitted.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I don't think that the Democrats should pack the court. Where would it end as control shifts back and forth? It would be a temporary win for a political party but would be a near permanent loss for our country's checks and balances which is already frail in my opinion.

 

[Billiejeens]

Leftists your ideas are so bankrupt and hated by Americans you must use the court system to shove them down our throats. It's been happening for 50 years.

This.

 

[Billiejeens]

With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of a polar opposite replacement, only one response that makes any sense: Expand the Supreme Court. The only real question is by how much. There are other responses that can do some good — perhaps even more good. But without court expansion, the existing court can, and almost certainly will, strike them down.

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses. As Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield tweeted on Sept. 21:

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses.

"Pack" the Supreme Court? It's the only way to save democracy

There are many ways to reduce the destructive political power of the Supreme Court. They all start with more seats

www.salon.com

The pipe dream of a Christian theocracy, with unfettered capitalism, is about to run up on a snag.

Increase it to 11 seats and limit terms to 15 years..that will prevent any 'packing' by anybody

It won't

 

[Billiejeens]

More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses.

What is extreme about it?

Democrats think Trump being elected is extreme and requires an extreme response.

YOU LOST! Deal with it.

Ginsberg died...it happens...now she needs to be replaced...so what is extreme? The leftists aren't getting their way?

So you need to "justify" your extreme responses by calling a normal situation "extreme"?

Yes, she should be replaced. After the election. If Trump wins, ACB gets confirmed and I'll have no issue with that. If Trump loses, Biden gets to nominate his own judge. McConnell set this standard. I don't give two shits if Trump is an incumbent. There is still a possibility of a new President being selected. The people deserve a say in the matter.

"The people deserve a say in the matter."

You are absolutely right. And they do and did have a say in the matter....They elected Donald J Trump as their President ( Yes he is the President and you should probably get over it already) for 4 years....not 3 years and 9 months....4 years. Their choice for 4 years...not 3 years and 9 months....has made his choice for the next Supreme Court Justice. The people also had their say in the Senate for a term of 6 years, one third of which ends January 2021....Not November 2020. Now, their advise and consent to the next Supreme Court Justice will be made doing the peoples will.

Again, I don't care about advise and consent. You lost that argument when you denied Obama his pick. Unless I've been asleep, he was to serve until January, 2017. So it's irrelevant. McConnell set the standard. You don't get to alter the standard just because it's your guy in the Oval Office.

Poor Jackie

 

[John T. Ford]

With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the nomination of a polar opposite replacement, only one response that makes any sense: Expand the Supreme Court. The only real question is by how much. There are other responses that can do some good — perhaps even more good. But without court expansion, the existing court can, and almost certainly will, strike them down.

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses. As Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield tweeted on Sept. 21:

Yes, some call it an extreme step. But there’s a more extreme step: Simply ignore the court’s decisions — as some Republicans argued in the 1850s, in response to the Dred Scott decision. More to the point, this is an extreme situation that demands extreme responses.

"Pack" the Supreme Court? It's the only way to save democracy

There are many ways to reduce the destructive political power of the Supreme Court. They all start with more seats

www.salon.com

The pipe dream of a Christian theocracy, with unfettered capitalism, is about to run up on a snag.

Back in the day ...

America Hung traitors .....

#MAGA

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

we need laws that prevent packing the USSC