Stack The Court, Genius Move Democrats!

[Winston]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

You disagree with what Doc7505 ? Are you so ignorant of how things work that you actually think that SCOTUS could repeal and amendment? What is perhaps even more ridiculous is the idea that Democrats want to repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments

What really gets me is all this talk about judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. Yet Heller was the biggest example of judicial activism in the history of this country. For over two hundred years the second amendment was a collective right, not an individual right. It had nothing, I mean nothing at all to do with personal protection. Jesus Christ, when the Constitution was signed it was too damn dangerous to allow individual citizens to keep "arms" in their home. The indians might get them. I mean for the love of God, where were the British going prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord? To the FREAKING ARMOURY, because that is where the guns were. They wouldn't even have bothered to march if everyone was keeping their guns in their home.

 

[Dick Foster]

Democrat leaders are acting like a bunch of imbeciles they are going to blow this election with their putting "stacking the Supreme Court" on the table! By threatening this consequence they are giving the Republican Party a gigantic size hypodermic needle of adrenaline for the Republican Party to inject into their base and people open to voting for them it will make a measurable difference in this election. Don't Democrat leaders monitor right wing radio, these hosts en masse are cautioning their listeners that the stakes of this election are that the Democrats if they gain power are going to pack the Supreme Court with extreme liberal Justices who will do things like take away your Second Amendment right to possess a gun, your right to private health insurance, they will dramatically diminish state and individual rights culminating in Democrat liberal elitist running your life. What has unfolded is right wing radio is scaring the hell out of people about the effect of the Democrats packing the Court, Democrat leadership is incredibly foolish for giving the Republican Party this aid for this upcoming November election!

I get why the Democrat leadership has come out with such a big threat, Republicans putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court is unfair and will turn that Court into a right-wing activist Supreme Court. Nevertheless, wisdom calls for restraint so you don't make the situation worse. Democrats need to remember that Donald Trump with his ignoring the long standing in America customs and legal standards of restraint on Presidential power changed the rules, after Trump a President can now largely do whatever he wants through Executive Order. So let's say on this ACA case currently in the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett is confirmed as a Justice and she gives the Court the additional vote to say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and even goes as far as saying therefore the ACA's whole entire scheme of the individual insurance market with communal pricing based on large enrollee pools is unconstitutional so that as a consequence people with pre-existing conditions would again be subject to insurance underwriting based on their health status in trying to get health insurance which would put the cost of that insurance out of reach for most such Americans. Well what does a President Biden do in this post-Trump world he issues an Executive Order that Medicare has to open up enrollment to Americans with pre-existing conditions unless they are high income American and he also says publicly to American seniors you are not going to pay one dollar out of your Medicare fund for this coverage expansion because I promise I will not sign one budget bill until Congress covers Medicare's monetary loss from this expansion. The bottom line is that Democrats have other options to fight this injustice and its effects other than stacking the Court!

One thing Democrats might want to consider is slightly changing the terms of the Supreme Court by this I mean the following. When one really thinks about it America has a somewhat depraved system for our Supreme Court. The current terms are that a Justice once confirmed to that bench receives a life-time appointment which necessitates the question what has that wrought America. Well in Ruth Bader Ginsburg case it wrought a hundred and seventy-five million Americans continually hoping she would not die during the Trump presidency so he would have the opportunity to choose her replacement. This RBG scenario is not the first of its kind it is often the case where the American people have to pin their hopes on a responsible Supreme Court on a responsible body which is the final arbiter of America's laws on a specific Justice not dying during a specific President's term of office, cannot we do better as a people, cannot we create a better design for the highest Court of our country! How about making the mandatory retirement age of a Supreme Court Justice seventy-two years of age that would be five years past the Social Security full retirement age, ten years past the mandatory retirement age for people in the U.S. army! If there was a mandatory retirement age than the American people would have a bigger say on who gets put on the court because they would know when a President will have a seat to fill and they could factor that in with regard to how they vote in the respective Presidential election - therefore America would be a stronger Democrat country; not to mention Justice Thomas is currently seventy-two years of age and so would have to give up his seat!

There just ain't no fixing stupid. Is that the answer you were looking for?

 

[Winston]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

You disagree with what Doc7505 ? Are you so ignorant of how things work that you actually think that SCOTUS could repeal and amendment? What is perhaps even more ridiculous is the idea that Democrats want to repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments

What really gets me is all this talk about judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. Yet Heller was the biggest example of judicial activism in the history of this country. For over two hundred years the second amendment was a collective right, not an individual right. It had nothing, I mean nothing at all to do with personal protection. Jesus Christ, when the Constitution was signed it was too damn dangerous to allow individual citizens to keep "arms" in their home. The indians might get them. I mean for the love of God, where were the British going prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord? To the FREAKING ARMOURY, because that is where the guns were. They wouldn't even have bothered to march if everyone was keeping their guns in their home.

2A was an INDIVIDUAL right, not a "Collective" right

This is why you proto Commies like you and Progressive Traitor can go get fucked

 

[Richard-H]

54% to 42%

It doesn't matter how energized the Republican base is. Trump has energized not only the Democratic base, but every other sane person in this country against him.

If the SCOTUS acts fairly, the Democrats won't pack the court, but if SCOTUS is nothing but a right-wing political weapon, you can bet your ass that they'll pack the court.

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

 

[mamooth]

My position in 1992 Biden Rule:

The Biden rule said that Obama should have been able to have his nomiation voted on after the 2016 election.

You didn't support that. So, you clearly did not support the Biden rule in 2016, making the charges of hypocrisy against you and all Republicans valid and correct.

 

[kaz]

My position in 1992 Biden Rule:

The Biden rule said that Obama should have been able to have his nomiation voted on after the 2016 election.

You didn't support that. So, you clearly did not support the Biden rule in 2016, making the charges of hypocrisy against you and all Republicans valid and correct.

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

 

[BULLDOG]

Democrat leaders are acting like a bunch of imbeciles they are going to blow this election with their putting "stacking the Supreme Court" on the table! By threatening this consequence they are giving the Republican Party a gigantic size hypodermic needle of adrenaline for the Republican Party to inject into their base and people open to voting for them it will make a measurable difference in this election. Don't Democrat leaders monitor right wing radio, these hosts en masse are cautioning their listeners that the stakes of this election are that the Democrats if they gain power are going to pack the Supreme Court with extreme liberal Justices who will do things like take away your Second Amendment right to possess a gun, your right to private health insurance, they will dramatically diminish state and individual rights culminating in Democrat liberal elitist running your life. What has unfolded is right wing radio is scaring the hell out of people about the effect of the Democrats packing the Court, Democrat leadership is incredibly foolish for giving the Republican Party this aid for this upcoming November election!

I get why the Democrat leadership has come out with such a big threat, Republicans putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court is unfair and will turn that Court into a right-wing activist Supreme Court. Nevertheless, wisdom calls for restraint so you don't make the situation worse. Democrats need to remember that Donald Trump with his ignoring the long standing in America customs and legal standards of restraint on Presidential power changed the rules, after Trump a President can now largely do whatever he wants through Executive Order. So let's say on this ACA case currently in the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett is confirmed as a Justice and she gives the Court the additional vote to say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and even goes as far as saying therefore the ACA's whole entire scheme of the individual insurance market with communal pricing based on large enrollee pools is unconstitutional so that as a consequence people with pre-existing conditions would again be subject to insurance underwriting based on their health status in trying to get health insurance which would put the cost of that insurance out of reach for most such Americans. Well what does a President Biden do in this post-Trump world he issues an Executive Order that Medicare has to open up enrollment to Americans with pre-existing conditions unless they are high income American and he also says publicly to American seniors you are not going to pay one dollar out of your Medicare fund for this coverage expansion because I promise I will not sign one budget bill until Congress covers Medicare's monetary loss from this expansion. The bottom line is that Democrats have other options to fight this injustice and its effects other than stacking the Court!

One thing Democrats might want to consider is slightly changing the terms of the Supreme Court by this I mean the following. When one really thinks about it America has a somewhat depraved system for our Supreme Court. The current terms are that a Justice once confirmed to that bench receives a life-time appointment which necessitates the question what has that wrought America. Well in Ruth Bader Ginsburg case it wrought a hundred and seventy-five million Americans continually hoping she would not die during the Trump presidency so he would have the opportunity to choose her replacement. This RBG scenario is not the first of its kind it is often the case where the American people have to pin their hopes on a responsible Supreme Court on a responsible body which is the final arbiter of America's laws on a specific Justice not dying during a specific President's term of office, cannot we do better as a people, cannot we create a better design for the highest Court of our country! How about making the mandatory retirement age of a Supreme Court Justice seventy-two years of age that would be five years past the Social Security full retirement age, ten years past the mandatory retirement age for people in the U.S. army! If there was a mandatory retirement age than the American people would have a bigger say on who gets put on the court because they would know when a President will have a seat to fill and they could factor that in with regard to how they vote in the respective Presidential election - therefore America would be a stronger Democrat country; not to mention Justice Thomas is currently seventy-two years of age and so would have to give up his seat!

Listeners to right wing radio are already stirred up, and easily controlled. If the Limbaugh's and Alex Joneses or the Hannitys didn't have the courts to rant about, they could easily switch to another subject, or make up something completely new to rant about, and never miss a beat. The listeners would remain just as outraged as they always are, Best to just assume that bunch will always oppose everything, as strongly as they can, and not bother trying to play to their always frantic wishes.

 

[Doc7505]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

~~~~~~
I'd say that Democrats have tried to destroy the Constitution for more than 150 years. Take for example Dem's were responsible for changing how Senators were appointed. Originally Governors appointed Senators and there was greater turn over. Today Senators are elected and spend years getting re-elected rather than doing the business of government.
Our fore fathers in their wisdom set up the legislature body of government to emulate the House of Lords (Senate) and the House of Commons (Congress). The House of Lords as appointees of the States and Congress elected by the people..

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kaz]

Democrat leaders are acting like a bunch of imbeciles they are going to blow this election with their putting "stacking the Supreme Court" on the table! By threatening this consequence they are giving the Republican Party a gigantic size hypodermic needle of adrenaline for the Republican Party to inject into their base and people open to voting for them it will make a measurable difference in this election. Don't Democrat leaders monitor right wing radio, these hosts en masse are cautioning their listeners that the stakes of this election are that the Democrats if they gain power are going to pack the Supreme Court with extreme liberal Justices who will do things like take away your Second Amendment right to possess a gun, your right to private health insurance, they will dramatically diminish state and individual rights culminating in Democrat liberal elitist running your life. What has unfolded is right wing radio is scaring the hell out of people about the effect of the Democrats packing the Court, Democrat leadership is incredibly foolish for giving the Republican Party this aid for this upcoming November election!

I get why the Democrat leadership has come out with such a big threat, Republicans putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court is unfair and will turn that Court into a right-wing activist Supreme Court. Nevertheless, wisdom calls for restraint so you don't make the situation worse. Democrats need to remember that Donald Trump with his ignoring the long standing in America customs and legal standards of restraint on Presidential power changed the rules, after Trump a President can now largely do whatever he wants through Executive Order. So let's say on this ACA case currently in the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett is confirmed as a Justice and she gives the Court the additional vote to say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and even goes as far as saying therefore the ACA's whole entire scheme of the individual insurance market with communal pricing based on large enrollee pools is unconstitutional so that as a consequence people with pre-existing conditions would again be subject to insurance underwriting based on their health status in trying to get health insurance which would put the cost of that insurance out of reach for most such Americans. Well what does a President Biden do in this post-Trump world he issues an Executive Order that Medicare has to open up enrollment to Americans with pre-existing conditions unless they are high income American and he also says publicly to American seniors you are not going to pay one dollar out of your Medicare fund for this coverage expansion because I promise I will not sign one budget bill until Congress covers Medicare's monetary loss from this expansion. The bottom line is that Democrats have other options to fight this injustice and its effects other than stacking the Court!

One thing Democrats might want to consider is slightly changing the terms of the Supreme Court by this I mean the following. When one really thinks about it America has a somewhat depraved system for our Supreme Court. The current terms are that a Justice once confirmed to that bench receives a life-time appointment which necessitates the question what has that wrought America. Well in Ruth Bader Ginsburg case it wrought a hundred and seventy-five million Americans continually hoping she would not die during the Trump presidency so he would have the opportunity to choose her replacement. This RBG scenario is not the first of its kind it is often the case where the American people have to pin their hopes on a responsible Supreme Court on a responsible body which is the final arbiter of America's laws on a specific Justice not dying during a specific President's term of office, cannot we do better as a people, cannot we create a better design for the highest Court of our country! How about making the mandatory retirement age of a Supreme Court Justice seventy-two years of age that would be five years past the Social Security full retirement age, ten years past the mandatory retirement age for people in the U.S. army! If there was a mandatory retirement age than the American people would have a bigger say on who gets put on the court because they would know when a President will have a seat to fill and they could factor that in with regard to how they vote in the respective Presidential election - therefore America would be a stronger Democrat country; not to mention Justice Thomas is currently seventy-two years of age and so would have to give up his seat!

Listeners to right wing radio are already stirred up, and easily controlled. If the Limbaugh's and Alex Joneses or the Hannitys didn't have the courts to rant about, they could easily switch to another subject, or make up something completely new to rant about, and never miss a beat. The listeners would remain just as outraged as they always are, Best to just assume that bunch will always oppose everything, as strongly as they can, and not bother trying to play to their always frantic wishes.

I always like this moronic canard that Republicans who disagree on everything are controlled while Democrats who all agree on every issue for the same reason justified with the same talking point are free thinkers

 

[BluesLegend]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

To paraphrase, Republicans won the Senate and White House they didn't appoint activist liberal justices we are going to throw a tantrum because we didn't get our way and stack the court.

 

[Meister]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

But, who really started the pissing contest of getting rid of the filibuster?
If not for Harry Reid.........

 

[Richard-H]

Requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is too high. They should set it at 55.

 

[BluesLegend]

Here's the bottom line, Democrats no longer respect the will of the people and election results when they lose.

 

[mamooth]

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

Ruh-roh. Someone's finding out that his masters lied to him again, and he's not taking it well.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider

www.politifact.com

Here are Biden's exact words.
---
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
---

Now you know you were lied to about the supposed Biden standard. You rejected that standard in 2016. In order to not be a raging partisan hypocrite, you'll have to reject that standard in 2020. Do you reject it, or are you fully embracing the hypocrisy?

 

[BluesLegend]

Requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is too high. They should set it at 55.

Why is 60 too high?

 

[Meister]

Requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is too high. They should set it at 55.

I believe the fillibuster in its entirety, days are numbered.
That's how far I think our government has caved.
The Great American Experiment is in its wane

 

[BULLDOG]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat
You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

I believe Trump and his enablers have set another bad precedent, and the country will be worse off because of it.

 

[BlindBoo]

My position in 1992 Biden Rule:

The Biden rule said that Obama should have been able to have his nomiation voted on after the 2016 election.

You didn't support that. So, you clearly did not support the Biden rule in 2016, making the charges of hypocrisy against you and all Republicans valid and correct.

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," Biden said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."