Supreme Court shoots itself in the foot.

[2aguy]

The supreme court has just handed out a ton of free ammunition, both for expansion of the court and limiting of it's "shadow docket".

Personally I was firmly against expanding the court. I see that leading to a never ending battle and a court with dozens of possibly even hundreds of justices that can't decide on anything. However this latest shenanigan has pushed me in the other direction. I'm still against it, but I see no alternative to it unless we want to let the current appointees, some of them blatantly illegal BTW, ignore and or circumvent the constitution and pervert our great nation into something it was never meant to be.

Supreme Court Shoot Themselves in Foot as Democrats Prepare for Battle to Expand Court

Which ones were illegal? Please, explain.

You morons lose an election, which means you don't get to replace Justices, so you bitch and moan and want to change the court cause you lost....you are assholes....there is a process, it didn't work for you because you lost an election...we had to sit there when your idiot, obama, appointed the anti-American, anti-constitution justices he appointed and we never called for packing the court.....

You shitheads are vile.......

 

[2aguy]

His refusal to give a vote to a nominee did; the Senate is under no obligation to approve a nominee; but one would hope that they would recognize their obligation to at least consider the nominees. If not...there is nothing preventing the Senate from never appointing approving another judge...

Moron, they considered the nominee and decided not to hold a vote......nothing in the Constitution states they have to vote.....they are their to give their advice and consent.....they did not give their consent.......

Get the fuck over it....

 

[2aguy]

Would you have "griped" if the democrats did what McConnell did if the rolls were reversed?
Because they would have done the exact same thing, make no mistake about that.

Yep...typical leftists......do what we want or we will do what we want....

 

[Markle]

McConnell’s wrongheaded, reprehensible decision to not confirm President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court defied the will of the people and the states.

Had failed former President Obama nominated someone even somewhat close to the center, he might have gotten his nomination approved. Instead, he chose a radical. Obama tried a hail mary and it failed.

Keep in mind that there are very few publications further to the left than the Daily Kos. The Nation is one.

A Daily Kos post by Kerry Eleveld (3/17/16) promises “some good news for progressives” concerned about Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Under the headline, “How Far Left Could Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Push the Supreme Court? Pretty Far,” Eleveld writes:

Here’s some good news for progressives: Scoring from four political scientists suggests that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, DC Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland, would land to the left of six sitting justices, including Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, who are both considered to be part of the court’s liberal cohort. Only the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor score to the left of Garland according to their history of rulings…. So despite disappointment among many progressives with Obama’s pick, if confirmed, Garland could potentially move the court further left than it’s been in half a century or more, reports the New York Times.

No, Merrick Garland Is Not to the Left of Elena Kagan

Would Garland vote like other Obama appointees, or would he be an ideological surprise? The scoring that the New York Times offers is of no help in answering that question.

fair.org

 

[candycorn]

Moron, they considered the nominee and decided not to hold a vote......nothing in the Constitution states they have to vote.....they are their to give their advice and consent.....they did not give their consent.......

Get the fuck over it....

So they don't really have to fill another vacant seat...ever...do they?

 

[2aguy]

So they don't really have to fill another vacant seat...ever...do they?

No...actually, they don't. The Constitution gives them the power to vote on the nominee...or not vote on the nominee......that is what elections are for.....you win, you get to vote or not vote......

You shitheads lost the 2014 Senate elections, so you lost the ability to vote on judges and justices...

Now you want to change the rules

 

[2aguy]

So they don't really have to fill another vacant seat...ever...do they?

It is called a check and a balance on the power of the executive and the judiciary....please....try to learn something about our government.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but one would hope that they would recognize their obligation to at least consider the nominees.

They considered him.

 

[2aguy]

They considered him.

And then chose to not give their consent........that is all the Constitution states needs to happen, there is no requirement for any vote of any kind at any time...

 

[Lesh]

I agreed that we need ed to expand the court by 2 to provide balance. One for the justice that Obama should have been allowed to fill and the one to replace Ginsburg since Republicans lied. However two decisions tell me that we need to remove power from the far right wing fascists that inhabit the court now. One was the decisio0n on voting rights and the other on the Texas abortion law. Both were extreme positions. In addition their decisions on immigration law show a clear bias. They allowed Trump to do whatever he wanted on immigration but they are not treating Biden the same way. Clearly they treat Presidents with a R in front of their name differently than one with a D in front of them..

Expand the court

End the filibuster

 

[OKTexas]

No, they didn't.

Nomination, confirmation, swearing in. What step was skipped?

.

 

[g5000]

I didn't put any link in my post.

Just text.

You have me mistaken for someone else. Perhaps the OP.

As for packing the court.

I can agree to disagree with you. I just looked it up in Webster's dictionary.

Packing a court is to put people on a court to swing it in one direction, either left or right. It an be done by adding more seats or just replacing former retiring judges with only one political ideology. Whether democratic or republican.

So yes, if Biden adds to the court, he will fit the definition of packing the court.

But trump also packed our courts too.

It's not just one sided. If trump had not packed the courts then something wouldn't need to be done about such a lopsided court that doesn't reflect the will of the people.

Here is another call to pack the Supreme Court by adding four more judges:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-decision-shows-why-democrats-must-push-add-four-justices-court/

 

[Michael1985]

Would you have "griped" if the democrats did what McConnell did if the rolls were reversed?
Because they would have done the exact same thing, make no mistake about that.

I'm right of center, and I was appalled by how McConnell and the GOP treated Garland and his nomination. And no, it would be just as disgusting if Democrats ever did the same thing.

 

[Slade3200]

The demleftists destroyed the integrity of our voting system in 2000 with their made up hanging,pregnant and dimpled chads all because they sold climate change to the hysterical lemmings such as yourself. If Algore didn’t win the planet was going to Frye by the year 2010. You morons were a joke then and your a joke now with your racism, masks and income inequality.

I disagree

 

[Slade3200]

No, you’re completely wrong. All a President has to do to get a nominee past a Senate controlled by the opposition is to nominate someone acceptable to both parties. Before liberals started trying to load the court, that was a common occurrence.

I don’t think it matters who they nominate. The opposition parties on both sides seem to only care about blocking the other side from getting wins

 

[candycorn]

They considered him.

There was no vote given to Merrick Garland.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was no vote given to Merrick Garland.

I said they considered him, not that they voted on him.

 

[candycorn]

I said they considered him, not that they voted on him.

Yeah, that is how a legislative body considers things...they vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, that is how a legislative body considers things...they vote.

Not always. Sometimes they decide not to vote.

 

[candycorn]

Not always. Sometimes they decide not to vote.

Who are "they"?