Senator Warren wants to pack 4 more judges on the Supreme Court

[theHawk]

The last YEAR of his Presidency.

And when was Barrett appointed? In the last two MONTHS of Trump's Presidency?

Difference is who controlled Congress. The People spoke and wanted to block Merrick.

 

[EyeBRollin]

You're right -- the 8-1 decision that allowed the TX abortion lawsuits to proceed?
Absolute horseshit.

They are politicians in robes. If you think I’ll defend their decisions, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are politicians in robes. If you think I’ll defend their decisions, you are sadly mistaken.

Good to see you agree the TX abortion lawsuits should not be allowed to proceed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Difference is who controlled Congress. The People spoke and wanted to block Merrick.

The two occasions the same, but only for people who do not understand the reasoning behind the former and how it differs from the reasoning behind the latter.
Or the people who -do- understand the difference, but choose to lie.

 

[AZrailwhale]

FDR said the same thing.

Only he wanted to add 6.

He failed.

Actually he did an end-around and won. He cooked up a platinum parachute for sitting justices, five took it, so he still got his desired justices and the New Deal was passed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The court will routinely halt a law while the wait to rule on Constitutionality

ScOTUS almost never does that. Especially a law that hasn’t even been tried in any level of federal court yet.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

You know, you have to be the most ignorant poster I've seen in the short time I've been here. You add nothing to any thread that I have had the misfortune to see you post in.....It's pretty amazing given your volume of posts.

Yep, he's a real dingleberry. Though sometimes I wonder if he's just trolling 100% of the time.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The last YEAR of his Presidency.

And when was Barrett appointed? In the last two MONTHS of Trump's Presidency?

Obama faced a hostile congress, historically presidents rarely got partisan appointments passed in their last year. If Obama had been willing to nominate someone acceptable to the Republicans, there wouldn’t have been a problem. We can see from the AG’s partisan actions, what a disaster he would have been as a justice.

 

[hadit]

That's speculation

As opposed to the FACT that Republicans DID do just that

It's a safe bet. Politicians always take advantage of opportunities and spout inanities to justify themselves. If faced with that situation, Quid Pro will act the same way.

 

[Lesh]

Obama faced a hostile congress, historically presidents rarely got partisan appointments passed in their last year. If Obama had been willing to nominate someone acceptable to the Republicans, there wouldn’t have been a problem. We can see from the AG’s partisan actions, what a disaster he would have been as a justice.

We'll never know. McConnell blocked that nomination without it ever getting a vote...and then discarded then "rule" he used to do that.

And that "hostile Congress" never had to face the fact that they voted against Obama's nominee

 

[Lesh]

It's a safe bet. Politicians always take advantage of opportunities and spout inanities to justify themselves. If faced with that situation, Quid Pro will act the same way.

Thanks for your cynical take on things.

I would posit that you are projecting REPUBLICAN actions tonto the opposition

 

[Papageorgio]

FDR said the same thing.

Only he wanted to add 6.

He failed.

It was very unpopular during FDR and the Democrats at the time would not back him because they needed to get re-elected. It was a blatant attempt by FDR to pass his political agenda. At that time the Democrats held the House, Senate and of course the Presidency.

 

[sartre play]

What Mitch MC did was political game playing and wrong. If it gave some of you what you wanted you are most willing to disregard honesty in government when it serves your desired aim. Both party's need to stop the dishonesty it has divided our nation into waring factions.

 

[hadit]

That credibility has already been lost

It is already

Only in the minds of a few partisans is that true, and if the democrats make a naked power grab like adding Justices, that credibility will vanish in the minds of a LOT more people. Then, of course, there will be the inevitable backlash when Republicans follow suit and add more Justices they like, and the ones now urging that the court be packed will be shrieking bloody murder when it actually is.

 

[hadit]

The Supreme Court has no credibility.

To the majority, it still does. Only to democrat partisans does it not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We'll never know. McConnell blocked that nomination without it ever getting a vote...and then discarded then "rule" he used to do that.

You know this is not true - and thus, your statement, above, is a lie.

 

[Nostra]

Dimtards are such whiny asswipes. A few ruling don't go the way they want, and their answer is to pack the court.

What childish morons.

 

[hadit]

Thanks for your cynical take on things.

I would posit that you are projecting REPUBLICAN actions tonto the opposition

Republicans have not packed the court. democrats are seriously talking about packing the court, just adding more Justices until they get the rulings they want. It's a safe bet that Quid Pro would leap at a chance to nominate justices in the last few months of his one term, despite opining to the contrary earlier.

 

[Nostra]

Like allowing the Texas abortion law to stand
Blatantly unconstitutional

^^^^Childish Moron #1^^^^

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dimtards are such whiny asswipes. A few ruling don't go the way they want, and their answer is to pack the court.
What childish morons.

Whenever Demcorats lose, they whine and cry and demand a change in the rules.