Turley - Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

Turley is no friend of conservatives, but he is someone we can all trust. He does not fashion responses to satisfy political ends.

To that end, his conclusion on this matter is worth noting:


For the court-packing scheme proposed by vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others to work, there must be some form of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add six new justices to guarantee a court that will vote to uphold or overturn cases as expected. Absent such guarantees, court-packing is a futile exercise; the whole point is to force outcomes like voting to uphold Roe. This court-packing rationalization has reached truly Orwellian levels, with former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by manufacturing a new ideological court majority, Democrats would “depoliticize” it.

Litmus-testing and court-packing would “honor" Ginsburg by destroying the court she loved. It would obliterate an institution that has preserved this country’s stability and continuity. The court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans — a legitimacy that will evaporate if Democrats impose litmus tests or pack the court.

And that is the case, because you can bet that if the court is packed by the democrats, the GOP will one day pack the court for the EXPRESS purposes of overturning those court cases.

Bye bye....justice.

 

[Mac1958]

Turley is my favorite "pundit", not usually a title I hold in high regard.

This is what happens when the ends of the spectrum decide they're "at war". Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Never mind all the collateral damage, just get back at the other guy.

 

[rightwinger]

I think packing the court will have unintended consequences.

I do expect Dems to end filibuster once and for all and push for DC and Puerto Rico Statehood

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Turley is my favorite "pundit", not usually a title I hold in high regard.

This is what happens when the ends of the spectrum decide they're "at war". Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Never mind all the collateral damage, just get back at the other guy.

Did you read the article ?

In it he points out that when Barrett was questioned in her earlier appointment:

1. The morons on the left asked if she would uphold Roe.
2. At the same time, they asked if she would be willing (and was told she should) to overturn Citizens United.

Senators saying "We only vote for you if you do what WE WANT". This was Ted "The motherfucker" Kennedy at his best when Alito was appointed. If I had been there I would have stood up and told that asshole to STFU.

Senators don't care about the independence of the court.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think packing the court will have unintended consequences.

I do expect Dems to end filibuster once and for all and push for DC and Puerto Rico Statehood

The end of the nation.

Why not.

 

[Mac1958]

Turley is my favorite "pundit", not usually a title I hold in high regard.

This is what happens when the ends of the spectrum decide they're "at war". Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Never mind all the collateral damage, just get back at the other guy.

Did you read the article ?

In it he points out that when Barrett was questioned in her earlier appointment:

1. The morons on the left asked if she would uphold Roe.
2. At the same time, they asked if she would be willing (and was told she should) to overturn Citizens United.

Senators saying "We only vote for you if you do what WE WANT". This was Ted "The motherfucker" Kennedy at his best when Alito was appointed. If I had been there I would have stood up and told that asshole to STFU.

Senators don't care about the independence of the court.

Of course. It's all partisan politics, play to the base.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Turley is my favorite "pundit", not usually a title I hold in high regard.

This is what happens when the ends of the spectrum decide they're "at war". Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Never mind all the collateral damage, just get back at the other guy.

Did you read the article ?

In it he points out that when Barrett was questioned in her earlier appointment:

1. The morons on the left asked if she would uphold Roe.
2. At the same time, they asked if she would be willing (and was told she should) to overturn Citizens United.

Senators saying "We only vote for you if you do what WE WANT". This was Ted "The motherfucker" Kennedy at his best when Alito was appointed. If I had been there I would have stood up and told that asshole to STFU.

Senators don't care about the independence of the court.

Of course. It's all partisan politics, play to the base.

The left keeps crowing over some of Gorsuch's recent rulings (or participation).

That's just what I want. An independent thinker who operates away from the legislators.

Not like the dyke patrol that can be counted to fall in lock step with the left.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

These people have no clue or concern about how the Constitution set up our Federal Government. They only care about what THEY WANT. They are losers and traitors. Why Hillary isn't on the gallows I don't know.


Barrett faced such demands from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and others during her confirmation as an appellate judge, and many Democrats voted against her because she wouldn’t promise to uphold Roe. In their presidential campaigns, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pledged to appoint only justices who would uphold Roe.

Hillary Clinton lashed out at Barrett and other nominees of President Trump for failing to support particular cases. She expressed disgust that “a number of them would not even say they agreed with Brown versus Board of Education or with other precedents. And it is not just a question of choice. It’s a question of whether we’re going to continue the move toward progress.”

 

[Rambunctious]

Its the dems intention to ruin everything...even the court....

 

[JLW]

The Dems will not pack the Court unless the Court starts striking down all liberal initiatives.

The fact is Pubs have gotten what they always wanted: An activist Conservative Court.

 

[Mike473]

I don't think they will pack the court or add states to the union. I believe a move to add states or add Justices would trigger a Convention of the States soon after. There has been a movement toward that end over the years, but clearly a move to pack the Senate and the Court as a power move would push it over the line.

 

[Meister]

The Dems will not pack the Court unless the Court starts striking down all liberal initiatives.

The fact is Pubs have gotten what they always wanted: An activist Conservative Court.

Elections have consequences.
You don't think that if Hillary had gotten in that it would have been a left leaning court?

 

[JLW]

The Dems will not pack the Court unless the Court starts striking down all liberal initiatives.

The fact is Pubs have gotten what they always wanted: An activist Conservative Court.

Elections have consequences.
You don't think that if Hillary had gotten in that it would have been a left leaning court?

I don’t disagree with you. If elections have consequences would not packing the court be considered a “consequence”.

Be that as it may, I am personally opposed to any court packing scheme. The number of justices could continue upward ad Infinitum depending on who is in office if we open that Pandora’s box.

 

[busybee01]

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

Turley is no friend of conservatives, but he is someone we can all trust. He does not fashion responses to satisfy political ends.

To that end, his conclusion on this matter is worth noting:


For the court-packing scheme proposed by vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others to work, there must be some form of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add six new justices to guarantee a court that will vote to uphold or overturn cases as expected. Absent such guarantees, court-packing is a futile exercise; the whole point is to force outcomes like voting to uphold Roe. This court-packing rationalization has reached truly Orwellian levels, with former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by manufacturing a new ideological court majority, Democrats would “depoliticize” it.

Litmus-testing and court-packing would “honor" Ginsburg by destroying the court she loved. It would obliterate an institution that has preserved this country’s stability and continuity. The court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans — a legitimacy that will evaporate if Democrats impose litmus tests or pack the court.

And that is the case, because you can bet that if the court is packed by the democrats, the GOP will one day pack the court for the EXPRESS purposes of overturning those court cases.

Bye bye....justice.

Turley is a very good friend of Republicans. He is their go to guy when they need a legal opinion that matches with their own. The Republicans are destroying the Supreme Court and they are packing it with judges who will legislate from the bench. They did that by
refusing to take up the Garland nomination which was around 8 months before the election. The Republicans are using litmus tests but that is okay huh? I think 6 justices are too much but 2 would restore the balance.

 

[Borillar]

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

Turley is no friend of conservatives, but he is someone we can all trust. He does not fashion responses to satisfy political ends.

To that end, his conclusion on this matter is worth noting:


For the court-packing scheme proposed by vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others to work, there must be some form of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add six new justices to guarantee a court that will vote to uphold or overturn cases as expected. Absent such guarantees, court-packing is a futile exercise; the whole point is to force outcomes like voting to uphold Roe. This court-packing rationalization has reached truly Orwellian levels, with former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by manufacturing a new ideological court majority, Democrats would “depoliticize” it.

Litmus-testing and court-packing would “honor" Ginsburg by destroying the court she loved. It would obliterate an institution that has preserved this country’s stability and continuity. The court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans — a legitimacy that will evaporate if Democrats impose litmus tests or pack the court.

And that is the case, because you can bet that if the court is packed by the democrats, the GOP will one day pack the court for the EXPRESS purposes of overturning those court cases.

Bye bye....justice.

What do you mean by “one day”? The GOP has been stacking the courts for a long time. They put holds on or filibuster Dem picks Or refuse to even give them a hearing. They would even hold sham senate openings so recess appointments couldn’t be made. Small wonder why some Dems would give consideration to such a tactic after being on the wrong side of Repug dirty pool for so long.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

Turley is no friend of conservatives, but he is someone we can all trust. He does not fashion responses to satisfy political ends.

To that end, his conclusion on this matter is worth noting:


For the court-packing scheme proposed by vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others to work, there must be some form of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add six new justices to guarantee a court that will vote to uphold or overturn cases as expected. Absent such guarantees, court-packing is a futile exercise; the whole point is to force outcomes like voting to uphold Roe. This court-packing rationalization has reached truly Orwellian levels, with former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by manufacturing a new ideological court majority, Democrats would “depoliticize” it.

Litmus-testing and court-packing would “honor" Ginsburg by destroying the court she loved. It would obliterate an institution that has preserved this country’s stability and continuity. The court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans — a legitimacy that will evaporate if Democrats impose litmus tests or pack the court.

And that is the case, because you can bet that if the court is packed by the democrats, the GOP will one day pack the court for the EXPRESS purposes of overturning those court cases.

Bye bye....justice.

What do you mean by “one day”? The GOP has been stacking the courts for a long time. They put holds on or filibuster Dem picks Or refuse to even give them a hearing. They would even hold sham senate openings so recess appointments couldn’t be made. Small wonder why some Dems would give consideration to such a tactic after being on the wrong side of Repug dirty pool for so long.

No chump.

Packing the SCOTUS.

Big difference.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

Turley is no friend of conservatives, but he is someone we can all trust. He does not fashion responses to satisfy political ends.

To that end, his conclusion on this matter is worth noting:


For the court-packing scheme proposed by vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others to work, there must be some form of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add six new justices to guarantee a court that will vote to uphold or overturn cases as expected. Absent such guarantees, court-packing is a futile exercise; the whole point is to force outcomes like voting to uphold Roe. This court-packing rationalization has reached truly Orwellian levels, with former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by manufacturing a new ideological court majority, Democrats would “depoliticize” it.

Litmus-testing and court-packing would “honor" Ginsburg by destroying the court she loved. It would obliterate an institution that has preserved this country’s stability and continuity. The court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans — a legitimacy that will evaporate if Democrats impose litmus tests or pack the court.

And that is the case, because you can bet that if the court is packed by the democrats, the GOP will one day pack the court for the EXPRESS purposes of overturning those court cases.

Bye bye....justice.

Turley is a very good friend of Republicans. He is their go to guy when they need a legal opinion that matches with their own. The Republicans are destroying the Supreme Court and they are packing it with judges who will legislate from the bench. They did that by
refusing to take up the Garland nomination which was around 8 months before the election. The Republicans are using litmus tests but that is okay huh? I think 6 justices are too much but 2 would restore the balance.

The only reason Turly agrees with the GOP is because he feels we are right. He's never been a friend of Trump and he does not like to see the democrats totally destroying our institutions. It isn't packing when you replace judges. You pricks really think you'd be doing anything different ? Not by a long shot.

The constitution was set up to represent a majority of states in this regard. That is why senators make the choices.

Your answer: Make D.C. a state even though the constitution does not allow for it.

You make Puerto Rico a state and we will split Utah in half. Then we'll make Guam a state.

 

[ClaireH]

Turley is my favorite "pundit", not usually a title I hold in high regard.

This is what happens when the ends of the spectrum decide they're "at war". Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Never mind all the collateral damage, just get back at the other guy.

It is exactly because of this never-ending "one-upping" that the US will fare much better when the two major parties start playing a fair ballgame. How, you might ask, would that ever happen? When a 3rd party candidate comes in and takes the presidential win! It will happen, even with our current voting system that keeps 3rd parties from ever being represented by their voters. I'm not suggesting that the US will accept plurality voting overnight, we Americans are quite stubborn with major changes from all political affiliations. Had Trump run as an independent, we'd be further along in the game with improving the likelihood of a 3rd party candidate gaining validity. It's likely going to happen soon, otherwise, the outlook is quite dismal with continued mud-slinging, "They did that so we'll do this", comprising mega bills that have so much in it nobody reads it all, horse-trading for voting for bills....I could go on but I will spare the reader here We all (well, most Americans) want a safe, healthy, and fair country. Deciding how to get there needs a checks and balances type of system in play, not what we've been seeing now for the past 30 years. It is worse now, as mainstream media gives free coverage for their favorite candidates. I've always complained how it's ludicrous that in order to run for presidential office it requires one to be a millionaire (soon to be a billion if we don't stop the train). That is not how the founding fathers envisioned, far from fair, and certainly not representative of our country. I know have to include that free press can also be unfair, as mainstream media should not decide the fate of our country. That's up for the voters, but most are abusing the power of the press in attempts to call elections. That's bogus!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

Turley is no friend of conservatives, but he is someone we can all trust. He does not fashion responses to satisfy political ends.

To that end, his conclusion on this matter is worth noting:


For the court-packing scheme proposed by vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others to work, there must be some form of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add six new justices to guarantee a court that will vote to uphold or overturn cases as expected. Absent such guarantees, court-packing is a futile exercise; the whole point is to force outcomes like voting to uphold Roe. This court-packing rationalization has reached truly Orwellian levels, with former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by manufacturing a new ideological court majority, Democrats would “depoliticize” it.

Litmus-testing and court-packing would “honor" Ginsburg by destroying the court she loved. It would obliterate an institution that has preserved this country’s stability and continuity. The court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans — a legitimacy that will evaporate if Democrats impose litmus tests or pack the court.

And that is the case, because you can bet that if the court is packed by the democrats, the GOP will one day pack the court for the EXPRESS purposes of overturning those court cases.

Bye bye....justice.

What do you mean by “one day”? The GOP has been stacking the courts for a long time. They put holds on or filibuster Dem picks Or refuse to even give them a hearing. They would even hold sham senate openings so recess appointments couldn’t be made. Small wonder why some Dems would give consideration to such a tactic after being on the wrong side of Repug dirty pool for so long.

Because republicans pick people that suprise you with their rullings, you know how the dems are going to vote. but packing means you lose and want to add extra seats.

 

[ClaireH]

Turley is my favorite "pundit", not usually a title I hold in high regard.

This is what happens when the ends of the spectrum decide they're "at war". Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Never mind all the collateral damage, just get back at the other guy.

Did you read the article ?

In it he points out that when Barrett was questioned in her earlier appointment:

1. The morons on the left asked if she would uphold Roe.
2. At the same time, they asked if she would be willing (and was told she should) to overturn Citizens United.

Senators saying "We only vote for you if you do what WE WANT". This was Ted "The motherfucker" Kennedy at his best when Alito was appointed. If I had been there I would have stood up and told that asshole to STFU.

Senators don't care about the independence of the court.

The type of aggressive (as opposed to assertive) questioning is most telling when you watch these proceedings. The way they "grill" those on opposing sides leads to more of the same. At this stage, it appears Barrett is standing up to their intense scrutiny. Career politicians from both sides should not be given the reigns to make a profit from their position. Ted Kennedy, and similar arrogant senators (Dems and Reps both), have shown their true colors for many years now, but yet these unsavory types are still re-elected. Why, is the question in my mind. Are there possibly a few pay-offs and a multitude of favors in the mix? That's my best guess, as ole Ted's history was tainted decades ago as most know. Term limits? Absolutely, and anyone making a profit beyond salary should be thoroughly investigated.