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

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Please show us how it has been activist on the conservative side.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Please show us how it has been activist on the conservative side.

Still waiting.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 balance of what? Didn't they make gay marriage legal, upheld the dreamers? Tell us where the supreme court with kav and gorsuch ruled wrong?

 

[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 balance of what? Didn't they make gay marriage legal, upheld the dreamers? Tell us where the supreme court with kav and gorsuch ruled wrong?

He can't.

They take exlax and then make claims.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You'll notice that most of the left won't touch this one.

Having your VP nominee say she is going to make judges swear allegiances to certain decisions is clear proof that you have no idea of how the constitution works.

 

[alang1216]

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.

The hypocrisy of the GOP, stopping Obama's nominee to "give the country the opportunity to decide" and then rushing through their nominee so the country doesn't get a chance to decide, infuriates Dems. And rightly so and many of us look forward to a quid pro quo.

The destruction of the court has been going on for some time carried to extremes by the GOP:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.[51] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[52][53] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[52]​

​

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[54] On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[55]​

If the Dems become the party in power and can change the rules as they see fit, sorry but the GOP can not claim any moral high ground.

 

[kaz]

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.

How are the conservatives on the court "activist?" You don't even know what that means, do you?

 

[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.

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.

Yep law professors are not a core GOP group.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Democrats are lying domestic terrorists scum who will say anything to get power over America.

If a Democrat tells you they won't pack the court and you believe it, you're the one who looks stupid.

 

[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.

The hypocrisy of the GOP, stopping Obama's nominee to "give the country the opportunity to decide" and then rushing through their nominee so the country doesn't get a chance to decide, infuriates Dems. And rightly so and many of us look forward to a quid pro quo.

The destruction of the court has been going on for some time carried to extremes by the GOP:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.[51] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[52][53] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[52]​

​

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[54] On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[55]​

If the Dems become the party in power and can change the rules as they see fit, sorry but the GOP can not claim any moral high ground.

You are right.

He who owns the senate and WH make the rules.

End of discussion.

 

[alang1216]

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.

The hypocrisy of the GOP, stopping Obama's nominee to "give the country the opportunity to decide" and then rushing through their nominee so the country doesn't get a chance to decide, infuriates Dems. And rightly so and many of us look forward to a quid pro quo.

The destruction of the court has been going on for some time carried to extremes by the GOP:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.[51] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[52][53] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[52]​

​

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[54] On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[55]​

If the Dems become the party in power and can change the rules as they see fit, sorry but the GOP can not claim any moral high ground.

You are right.

He who owns the senate and WH make the rules.

End of discussion.

You're right. I always thought football would be a much better game if the team with the ball got to make the rules.

 

[alang1216]

Democrats are lying domestic terrorists scum who will say anything to get power over America.

If a Democrat tells you they won't pack the court and you believe it, you're the one who looks stupid.

Exactly right. The GOP would never say one thing in 2016 and something else in 2020. Only a lying domestic terrorist scum would do that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Democrats are lying domestic terrorists scum who will say anything to get power over America.

If a Democrat tells you they won't pack the court and you believe it, you're the one who looks stupid.

Exactly right. The GOP would never say one thing in 2016 and something else in 2020. Only a lying domestic terrorist scum would do that.

Not all democrats are lying domestinc terrorist scum.

And Mitch should never had said a word other than: "We'll give him a hearing before we give him the boot."

 

[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.

The hypocrisy of the GOP, stopping Obama's nominee to "give the country the opportunity to decide" and then rushing through their nominee so the country doesn't get a chance to decide, infuriates Dems. And rightly so and many of us look forward to a quid pro quo.

The destruction of the court has been going on for some time carried to extremes by the GOP:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.[51] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[52][53] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[52]​

​

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[54] On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[55]​

If the Dems become the party in power and can change the rules as they see fit, sorry but the GOP can not claim any moral high ground.

You are right.

He who owns the senate and WH make the rules.

End of discussion.

You're right. I always thought football would be a much better game if the team with the ball got to make the rules.

In this case, it's whoever has the ball....has the ball.

Suck on it.

 

[Zorro!]

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.

Fake News. Most the Conservatives are textualists not consequentialists.

Dems want a Supreme Court with litmus test confirmations where Senate votes are conditioned on pledges.

Dems vote against those who do not swear a blood oath to uphold Roe and the ACA.

Most of the nominees practice the Ginsburg rule, that it is unethical to comment on cases or issues that might come before them. In her confirmation hearing in 1993, she refused to give the answers that Dems now demand from her potential successor. In calling to protect the legacy of Ginsburg, these politicians have to first tear down the Ginsburg rule. They demand that Barrett and other nominees commit to supporting specified cases while pushing them to reverse other cases, such as Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission on campaign finance.

Dems are practicing a direct litmus test. Not only will they vote against a nominee who opposes a particular case, but they will do so for a nominee who does not expressly support a case. Even if a nominee like Barrett has a foundation in the law, it is how she will vote on certain controversial cases instead of her views that will matter.

Such conditional votes were rejected before the Ginsburg rule. Presidents since Ronald Reagan have pledged not to apply litmus tests. Past sessions of the Senate under the control of both Democrats and Republicans have maintained it is wrong to demand assurances on certain cases and claims. Indeed, many current members of the Senate supported Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in refusing to discuss their views on abortion.

Dems use litmus tests for cases such as Obergefell or cases in favor of environmental or other rights. Dems demand preserving of some precedents while demanding commitments to reverse Citizens United. If forced to give such assurances in confirmation hearings, then justices could face later claims of perjury if they changed their minds or voted differently on the Supreme Court. Nominations would become a series of pledges of positions to secure votes in the Senate.

For the scheme to pack the Supreme Court proposed by Kamala Harris and others to work, there must be litmus tests. Dems have pledged to add new justices to ensure a bench that would vote on cases as desired. Absent such promises, the scheme is a futile exercise. The whole point is to force outcomes such as voting to uphold Roe.

Litmus tests and packing the bench would not honor Ginsburg. They would instead destroy the Supreme Court she loved. These moves obliterate an institution that has preserved the stability and continuity of our country. The Supreme Court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans that will evaporate if Dems continue litmus tests or pack the bench.

Biden has refused to say if he supports packing the Supreme Court. Many Americans would not vote for a candidate who supports packing the bench with more justices. Biden refuses to give his position on an important issue backed by his own running mate and other leading Democrats this year.

Ginsburg articulated her rule because she saw litmus tests as unethical pledges. At the time, Democrats like Howell Heflin praised her position. Today, Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court and seek assurances from nominees on cases like Roe, which are two ideas staunchly opposed by Ginsburg. What is left behind is not principle but raw power, and both the Supreme Court and the country will be the worse for it.

Democrats would destroy Supreme Court with scheme to pack justices

Joe Biden has not buried this move if he wins.

thehill.com

 

[alang1216]

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.

The hypocrisy of the GOP, stopping Obama's nominee to "give the country the opportunity to decide" and then rushing through their nominee so the country doesn't get a chance to decide, infuriates Dems. And rightly so and many of us look forward to a quid pro quo.

The destruction of the court has been going on for some time carried to extremes by the GOP:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.[51] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[52][53] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[52]​

​

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[54] On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[55]​

If the Dems become the party in power and can change the rules as they see fit, sorry but the GOP can not claim any moral high ground.

You are right.

He who owns the senate and WH make the rules.

End of discussion.

You're right. I always thought football would be a much better game if the team with the ball got to make the rules.

In this case, it's whoever has the ball....has the ball.

Suck on it.

Good long-term thinking that could only be written by someone who thinks they will always have the ball. And that has never been the case. Just remember this when the Supreme Court has 15 members, DC and Puerto Rico become states, California becomes 5 separate states, and the Electoral College is eliminated.

 

[Care4all]

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.”

Nice rant, but as long as you view this as only the Democrats, nothing will ever get better....

McConnell not allowing Obama to choose his judges, hundreds of them stopped by him, then McConnell a year out from Obama's last day, not even giving a hearing to Obama's pick for SC justice, Garland..... because we the people should choose through our vote, who we want to pick a new justice,

while trying to shove through a new justice, a couple of weeks from an election, that Trump has stated that he needs on the supreme court so the court would choose in favor of him in any election battles....

And McConnell jamming through hundreds of judges that were slots of empty judge seats for Obama to replace, to choose, but stopped by McConnell so he could PACK THE COURT with conservatives....


And on and on and on with court packing of conservative judges....

I can't see how any of this bull crud will ever end, with either side..... sad indeed.

 

[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.”

Nice rant, but as long as you view this as only the Democrats, nothing will ever get better....

McConnell not allowing Obama to choose his judges, hundreds of them stopped by him, then McConnell a year out from Obama's last day, not even giving a hearing to Obama's pick for SC justice, Garland..... because we the people should choose through our vote, who we want to pick a new justice,

while trying to shove through a new justice, a couple of weeks from an election, that Trump has stated that he needs on the supreme court so the court would choose in favor of him in any election battles....

And McConnell jamming through hundreds of judges that were slots of empty judge seats for Obama to replace, to choose, but stopped by McConnell so he could PACK THE COURT with conservatives....


And on and on and on with court packing of conservative judges....

I can't see how any of this bull crud will ever end, with either side..... sad indeed.

We chose a republican senate. Who essentially told Obama he wasn't getting what he wanted. That is what we voted for. The American people rewarded the GOP by giving them 2 additional senators in 2018. The system worked. When you don't have a WH and senate from the same party, it's tough way to go. I did not agree with not giving him a hearing. They should have given him a hearing and voted him down. That way Mitch could say he got his hearing. Quoting the so-called "Bien Rule" was stupid on his part and has come back to bite him.

He will FILL the court with conservatives which is fine by me.

COURT PACKING means adding more justices. If it goes that way, the separation between the court and the legislative branch will be destroyed.

Pure and simple.

 

[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.

The hypocrisy of the GOP, stopping Obama's nominee to "give the country the opportunity to decide" and then rushing through their nominee so the country doesn't get a chance to decide, infuriates Dems. And rightly so and many of us look forward to a quid pro quo.

The destruction of the court has been going on for some time carried to extremes by the GOP:

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court.[51] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[52][53] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[52]​

​

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[54] On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[55]​

If the Dems become the party in power and can change the rules as they see fit, sorry but the GOP can not claim any moral high ground.

You are right.

He who owns the senate and WH make the rules.

End of discussion.

You're right. I always thought football would be a much better game if the team with the ball got to make the rules.

In this case, it's whoever has the ball....has the ball.

Suck on it.

Good long-term thinking that could only be written by someone who thinks they will always have the ball. And that has never been the case. Just remember this when the Supreme Court has 15 members, DC and Puerto Rico become states, California becomes 5 separate states, and the Electoral College is eliminated.

Obama had the ball for a long time.

Ginsburg should have retired while he still had the senate. But she didn't.

All of which you describe are potentials.

But a move to permanently consolidate power will likely be the end of the Republic as we know it.

 

[LiberalsLIE]

Democrats are the enemy of America.