Supreme Court shoots itself in the foot.

[rightwinger]

Who cares, McConnell did.

He gave us the McConnell Rule that says an opposition Senate will never approve a Supreme Court appointment

Republicans better be prepared to live with it

 

[whitehall]

Nobody ever said their lies were not calculated. But lying is what they do.

The Newsweek logic doesn't even make sense. How can the Court shoot itself in the foot by not taking a case? Isn't the Texas law about saving the lives of humans with a heartbeat?

 

[OKTexas]

I really couldn’t care less what the commies would or wouldn’t do. I like to just try and do the right thing whenever im in a position to make a decision. What choice somebody else would make doesn’t really play a factor. Sounds like it does for you…. Why is that?

I guess you don't believe the Constitution is the controlling document for the federal government. It says each house of congress sets its own rules. So tell the class what senate rule did McConnell violate and exactly what makes his decision wrong?

.

 

[Slade3200]

I guess you don't believe the Constitution is the controlling document for the federal government. It says each house of congress sets its own rules. So tell the class what senate rule did McConnell violate and exactly what makes his decision wrong?

I didn’t say what he did was illegal I said the Dems have a legitimate gripe. McConnel set a precedent that would only allow a SCOTUS nominee to pass if the POTUS and Senate are controlled by the same party. I do not believe that hyper partisan method is how the system was intended to work so changes to the system are very warranted.

 

[OKTexas]

That did happen in the case of Thomas' nomination to the SC. It could have been filibustered but Democrats agreed to a vote. Republicans changed the rules in 2015.

Quote the rule that was changed in 2015.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You are a fucking liar. The SC allowed Trump to make up immigration law without Congressional approval. That is the only thing they blocked.

Really, try being specific, then we might have something to talk about.

.

 

[g5000]

I guess you don't believe the Constitution is the controlling document for the federal government. It says each house of congress sets its own rules. So tell the class what senate rule did McConnell violate and exactly what makes his decision wrong?

.

McConnell was grossly hypocritical. His reasoning for denying a hearing for Garland was that a judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year.

And yet when RBG died in an election year, McConnell couldn't confirm a new judge fast enough. Record time.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn’t say what he did was illegal I said the Dems have a legitimate gripe. McConnel set a precedent that would only allow a SCOTUS nominee to pass if the POTUS and Senate are controlled by the same party. I do not believe that hyper partisan method is how the system was intended to work so changes to the system are very warranted.

Well you might want to talk to Harry Reid about that.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He gave us the McConnell Rule that says an opposition Senate will never approve a Supreme Court appointment

Republicans better be prepared to live with it

Dems had been so cooperative in the last 30 years.

 

[OKTexas]

McConnell was grossly hypocritical. His reasoning for denying a hearing for Garland was that a judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year.

And yet when RBG died in an election year, McConnell couldn't confirm a new judge fast enough. Record time.

OMG, a politician is being hypocritical, stop the freaking presses. LMAO

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The problem is we have three Supreme Court justices appointed to the Court by a president who became president contrary to the will of the majority of the people – and those appointments were made contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

Conservatives will of course respond that it was the intent of the Framers that the states elect the president, not the people, and that Supreme Court appointments mustn’t reflect the will of the people.

But there’s nothing in the Constitution or its case law that prohibits the people from taking action to remedy a Supreme Court hostile to the will of the people through the legislative process.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His reasoning for denying a hearing for Garland was that a judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year.

That's not what he said.

 

[Slade3200]

Well you might want to talk to Harry Reid about that.

Why would I want to talk to Reid? I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right. I didn’t like Reid one bit and I certainly don’t think that his actions condone anybody else to follow suit. My question to you is why do you excuse such behavior?

 

[Crepitus]

What you really mean is you're against Biden getting the court back to an equaliberum after trump stacked it with republicans.
You said nothing when that was happening yet you bellow about being fair.

Wrong. I screamed bloody murder when it happened. Minimum two of tRump's picks are illegitimate. Bart O'kavenaugh lied under oath and either Goresuch or Coney-Barret are illegitimate by the republican's own reasoning.

But Republicans lie, cheat, and steal. President Joe would appoint 3 judges and even out the court. The next republican president will appoint 597 bought and paid for conservitards because they have no scruples or honesty in them.

 

[Slade3200]

That's not what he said.

What did he say?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Garbage. The SCOTUS is not supposed to reflect the “Will of the people”. Translation: they’re supposed to do what DEMS want or else. The job of SCOTUS is to determine constitutionality of laws. Not bend to the will of a few crybabies.

The process by which Supreme Court justices are appointed is fundamentally non-democratic – both the president and Senate reflect the will of the states, not the majority of the people.

At times the president and Senate might reflect the will of the majority of the people, but not as a consequence of the democratic process.

In theory this shouldn’t be an issue as justices should rule consistent with settled, accepted Constitutional case law – such as the right to privacy.

When the justices both deviate from that settled, accepted case law – as have five conservative justices in the Texas case – and act contrary to the will of the majority of the people, it becomes a legitimate issue.

 

[Lastamender]

He gave us the McConnell Rule that says an opposition Senate will never approve a Supreme Court appointment

Republicans better be prepared to live with it

If the rules on voting don't change the vote is useless. The government will be appointed not elected.

 

[Crepitus]

The plaintiffs haven't got standing to go to the SCOTUS. They have to go through the local Texas courts, then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, THEN they can appeal to SCOTUS.

Doesn't work that way when you're asking for and emergency injunction.

 

[Dana7360]

I haven’t read the law yet so forgive my ignorance. What about it is unconstitutional ?

It violates the first amendment right of free speech and association.

It violates the fourth amendment right to privacy with our body.

It violates the 14th amendment right to equal justice under the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did he say?

"Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary."