Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
8,298
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
The double speak, the talking out both sides of the mouth, the hypocrisy is norm for most politicians. I fully expect the either political party to take advantage of situations that they are given and they know full well if the situation was reversed, the opposition would quickly do the same. Biden many years ago while in the Senate, stated a vote for a Supreme Court Justice while a President was a must, now he claims different. Fast forward to 2016, McConnell didn't think it was right to confirm a Supreme Court Justice during an election year, now he is saying the opposite.

I expect any party that believes their ideals and ways are better for the country will take advantage of political opportunities such as this. The Democrats would do the same and I'd expect it, it is all politics, no such thing as fair.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
7,696
Reaction score
4,148
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Of course he does but I'm quite sure Trump is willing to have Chuck Schumer kiss his rosy red ass.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
23,342
Reaction score
5,007
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
When in doubt, just ask Chuck.

Funny how all the Dems including Joe were singing the OPPOSITE tune a few years ago!

Lemme guess: it was Ruth's DYING WISH!

Has anyone actually confirmed that? How is it that only a few democrats seem, to have heard this?

Ruth, you're lucky you weren't replaced a few years ago in 2016 when you said that Trump had no consistency — I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president…Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand. When asked about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

What kind of Supreme Justice expresses such malice and bias PUBLICLY?
A democrat one
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
4,614
Reaction score
2,586
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Schuck Fumer
The fat “ salami tongue snake “
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
4,614
Reaction score
2,586
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Entire state of NY has millions of Chuck Schumer types
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
2,151
Points
1,893
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Screw that---Trump has a list and is all prepared.

One of the ladies will be nominated Friday or Saturday of this week and will be voted on within a month..............the quicker the better
 

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
448
Points
130
And now we see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatens Mitch McConnell is ‘playing with fire’ regarding his constitutionally authorized Senate duty.

[video=youtube_share;APiRa3mcJzU?t=57 ]



As you can see, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership is showing they are a threat to our very system of government!

JWK

BEWARE! The Biden/Harris Administration, in wanting to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ want to take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
6,184
Points
360
There is every legal precedent for what republicans intend to do. Schumer can cram his empty threats.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
4,614
Reaction score
2,586
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans. McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.
You leftist demons would do the exact same thing
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
66,873
Reaction score
11,134
Points
2,030
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Screw that---Trump has a list and is all prepared.

One of the ladies will be nominated Friday or Saturday of this week and will be voted on within a month..............the quicker the better
Quicker the better for the political aspirations of the GOP. Not sure if the same holds true for the nation. Then again, as we've seen with Roberts, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter--all GOP presidential nominees....the court has a way of moderating itself. Gorsuch (sp?) ruled recently that LGBTs can file discrimination suits under the 64 civil rights act. Not exactly what most conservatives have in mind.
 

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
448
Points
130
There is every legal precedent for what republicans intend to do. Schumer can cram his empty threats.

Exactly! Let us not forget what Harry Reid told us:
.
.

JWK


Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to plunder, paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
25,058
Reaction score
8,143
Points
910
Location
Tejas
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.

This is really frightening.

Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”

Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…

Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?

Forewarned is forearmed

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.
Not as frightening as we will be if they try that shit.

No mercy.

This is a game for keeps.

It's an existential struggle.

We will be victorious or we will die in battle, ride the Valkyrie to feast, fight, fuck forever in Valhalla!
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,361
Reaction score
3,971
Points
280
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,639
Reaction score
12,974
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.
Will it? Frankly, that seems unlikely.

So let's be straight up that in 2022, assuming the Democrats throw out Trump and the GOP Senate, that they will probably have some reversed in the midterms because the incumbant party always does. So there's really no downside to restructuring the court with 13 Members to counter the illegal packing Trump has done.

By 2024, I doubt it will still be an issue. Let's assume that due to his age, Biden won't run for a second term. We can also assume that by 2024, the Republicans will be going through a lot of civil war trying to Purge the Trump Davidians out of their ranks. So there will be a lot of turmoil on both sides.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,361
Reaction score
3,971
Points
280
Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.
Will it? Frankly, that seems unlikely.

So let's be straight up that in 2022, assuming the Democrats throw out Trump and the GOP Senate, that they will probably have some reversed in the midterms because the incumbant party always does. So there's really no downside to restructuring the court with 13 Members to counter the illegal packing Trump has done.

By 2024, I doubt it will still be an issue. Let's assume that due to his age, Biden won't run for a second term. We can also assume that by 2024, the Republicans will be going through a lot of civil war trying to Purge the Trump Davidians out of their ranks. So there will be a lot of turmoil on both sides.
It certainly will cause them problems, because it's a naked attempt to turn the court into a democrat rubber stamp, like FDR tried to do. If they succeeded, it would destroy the court's judicial authority, because every decision would rightly be seen as just more democrat politics.

Now, this "illegal packing" (and remember you said HAS DONE, which means in the past). TRUMP! has not done anything illegal with his picks for the court, but if you think he did, feel free to cite what law he's already broken and in which appointment. Words mean things, and when you say he DID something illegal, it's up to you to at least specify what you mean so we can laugh at you. Failing to do so just means you're spouting your feelz again.

Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing. And, just like what happened with the nuclear option, what short sighted democrats do for short term gain will bite them in the butt.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,639
Reaction score
12,974
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
It certainly will cause them problems, because it's a naked attempt to turn the court into a democrat rubber stamp, like FDR tried to do. If they succeeded, it would destroy the court's judicial authority, because every decision would rightly be seen as just more democrat politics.
Okay, you kind of defeated your own argument. FDR tried this, and a Democratic Congress said no. While there were democratic losses in Congress in 1938 (but only because the Republicans had been losing seats from 1930 to 1936, and they had nowhere to go but up.) FDR STILL easily won re-election in 1940 and 1944.

Now, this "illegal packing" (and remember you said HAS DONE, which means in the past). TRUMP! has not done anything illegal with his picks for the court, but if you think he did, feel free to cite what law he's already broken and in which appointment. Words mean things, and when you say he DID something illegal, it's up to you to at least specify what you mean so we can laugh at you. Failing to do so just means you're spouting your feelz again.
Trump's existence is illegal. He stole the election, and voiding everything he's done needs to be a priority.

Frankly, I'd like to impeach Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but that would be too much trouble. Adding 4 more justices... easily done.
 

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
448
Points
130
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.

This is really frightening.

Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”

Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…

Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?

Forewarned is forearmed

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.
Not as frightening as we will be if they try that shit.

No mercy.

This is a game for keeps.
Indeed. It is a game "for keeps". Just look at the sorry souls living in Cuba and no more need be said.

Forewarned is forearmed!

JWK


Socialist/communist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do gain political power because of such promises made, their socialist/communist iron-fisted system will enslave the very fools who elected them.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,639
Reaction score
12,974
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing.
If we are ever stupid enough to let them get back into power, yeah. There aren't enough stupid white people left to do that, though.

The GOP hasn't won a majority since 2004. They have to use tricks to get any power at all- Gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.
 

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
448
Points
130
Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing.
If we are ever stupid enough to let them get back into power. . .
I'm very curious to know who is the "we" and "them" you mention?

From where I stand, I see the forces of good and evil in a raging confrontation and our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" hanging in the balance.

Is this not what the fight is about with regard to nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices?

On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as "the rule of law" regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

On the one hand we have a system of government controlled and regulated by a written constitution which the people have agreed to, and may be altered only be its Amendment Process, which requires the people's consent as prescribed therein. On the other hand the constitution becomes a meaningless document, perverted by figure heads to accomplish nefarious goals which the people, through their Constitution, have forbidden.

So, my friend, in this fight between good and evil, who is the "we" and "them" which you mention.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
 
Last edited:

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,361
Reaction score
3,971
Points
280
It certainly will cause them problems, because it's a naked attempt to turn the court into a democrat rubber stamp, like FDR tried to do. If they succeeded, it would destroy the court's judicial authority, because every decision would rightly be seen as just more democrat politics.
Okay, you kind of defeated your own argument. FDR tried this, and a Democratic Congress said no. While there were democratic losses in Congress in 1938 (but only because the Republicans had been losing seats from 1930 to 1936, and they had nowhere to go but up.) FDR STILL easily won re-election in 1940 and 1944.

Now, this "illegal packing" (and remember you said HAS DONE, which means in the past). TRUMP! has not done anything illegal with his picks for the court, but if you think he did, feel free to cite what law he's already broken and in which appointment. Words mean things, and when you say he DID something illegal, it's up to you to at least specify what you mean so we can laugh at you. Failing to do so just means you're spouting your feelz again.
Trump's existence is illegal. He stole the election, and voiding everything he's done needs to be a priority.

Frankly, I'd like to impeach Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but that would be too much trouble. Adding 4 more justices... easily done.
So you DON'T have a law that TRUMP! broke, making his appointments illegal. That's what I thought. Next.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top