Who here favors expanding the Supreme Court?

[rightwinger]

So what stopped maobama from withdrawing Garland's nomination and nominating someone more agreeable to the senate? Can you say, NOTHING?

Maybe it had something to do with the Senate not even interviewing Garland and refusing to even consider him. The same Senate who had already confirmed Garland in a lower court.

Maybe it had something to do with McConnell pronouncing he would not consider any candidate in an election year

Perhaps if Garland hadn't produced such bad decisions he would have warranted consideration. And don't think I didn't notice your refusal to address the rest of the post.

.

Name some
Garland was rated as Moderate Left.

Voting to revisit Heller was enough to get him rated hard left and proved him to be an activist. We don't need people like him on the highest court in the land, he has no respect for the Constitution.

.

If that is the case, why didn’t Republicans ask him about the decision like they do most nominees

 

[OKTexas]

it takes a legislative package passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, just like any other law.

If Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, Dems can change the rules and pack the court.
Republicans would not be allowed to filibuster.

You're making an assumption that the commies will hold the house, which would be needed to do a damn thing about changing the court.

.

Yup, I am making that assumption.
I think Dems will even pick up seats in the House

Yeah, your folks keep looting, rioting and burning cities, sounds like a great political plan. ROFLMAO Independents and even normal dems aren't going to support that shit. The only thing you commies are doing, is creating a scenario to get your clock cleaned.

.

Donot see much rioting and looting going on in most cities

I do see people out of work and catching COVID

Yeah, the commie networks probably aren't covering it, the people on the ground are seeing it up close and personal. I wouldn't count on their votes if I were you.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So what stopped maobama from withdrawing Garland's nomination and nominating someone more agreeable to the senate? Can you say, NOTHING?

Maybe it had something to do with the Senate not even interviewing Garland and refusing to even consider him. The same Senate who had already confirmed Garland in a lower court.

Maybe it had something to do with McConnell pronouncing he would not consider any candidate in an election year

Perhaps if Garland hadn't produced such bad decisions he would have warranted consideration. And don't think I didn't notice your refusal to address the rest of the post.

.

Name some
Garland was rated as Moderate Left.

Voting to revisit Heller was enough to get him rated hard left and proved him to be an activist. We don't need people like him on the highest court in the land, he has no respect for the Constitution.

.

If that is the case, why didn’t Republicans ask him about the decision like they do most nominees

What is there to ask? His actions spoke volumes. He didn't deserve any consideration.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, the commie networks probably aren't covering it, the people on the ground are seeing it up close and personal. I wouldn't count on their votes if I were you.

Where? Show me the major cities experiencing riots.

I can show cities paralyzed by COVID and millions of people out of the workforce. That is where 2020 voters will come frank

 

[rightwinger]

What is there to ask? His actions spoke volumes. He didn't deserve any consideration.

Show where Republicans ever said that about Garland.
You are making shit up

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, the commie networks probably aren't covering it, the people on the ground are seeing it up close and personal. I wouldn't count on their votes if I were you.

Where? Show me the major cities experiencing riots.

I can show cities paralyzed by COVID and millions of people out of the workforce. That is where 2020 voters will come frank

Chicago, Seattle, Portland, murders and violence are way up in virtually every major commiecrat city, folks don't take to kindly to having to bury their children. Also Covid cases are down more than 30% from recent highs. If that trend continues all you commies will have is a bunch of dead children and more violence all over the country. Try running on that.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, the commie networks probably aren't covering it, the people on the ground are seeing it up close and personal. I wouldn't count on their votes if I were you.

Where? Show me the major cities experiencing riots.

I can show cities paralyzed by COVID and millions of people out of the workforce. That is where 2020 voters will come frank

Chicago, Seattle, Portland, murders and violence is way up in virtually every major commiecrat city, folks don't take to kindly to having to bury their children. Also Covid cases are down more than 30% from recent highs. If that trend continues all you commies will have is a bunch of dead children and more violence all over the country. Try running on that.

.

Only Seattle and Portland are seeing BLM related protests. They will not go Red

After six months, we still see no relief in sight even when other countries who took tough actions are coming out of it.

Trump promised zero cases in days back in February. We now have five million
Trump promised it would be over in three months back in March. We are six months in and infections are increasing.

Trump failed in his leadership and will pay for his mishandling of the crisis in November

 

[satrebil]

I've thought a lot about the Supreme Court. I understand the Founder's intent behind it, but I believe the court's jurisdiction as a whole is in error. The Supreme Court's only duties, IMO, should be to:

1) Decide disputes between states.
2) Address Constitutionality of laws as the Constitution is WRITTEN.

What I mean by number 2 is that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's a state matter. Say abortion for instance. There are a great number of states that would outlaw abortion, but a central authority in DC has dictated they can't do that on "Constitutional" grounds - but there is ZERO mention or inference of abortion in the Constitution. The Roe v Wade SCOTUS just made it up. That was not the Founder's intent.

This, I think, is far more important than the number of justices.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, the commie networks probably aren't covering it, the people on the ground are seeing it up close and personal. I wouldn't count on their votes if I were you.

Where? Show me the major cities experiencing riots.

I can show cities paralyzed by COVID and millions of people out of the workforce. That is where 2020 voters will come frank

Chicago, Seattle, Portland, murders and violence is way up in virtually every major commiecrat city, folks don't take to kindly to having to bury their children. Also Covid cases are down more than 30% from recent highs. If that trend continues all you commies will have is a bunch of dead children and more violence all over the country. Try running on that.

.

Only Seattle and Portland are seeing BLM related protests. They will not go Red

After six months, we still see no relief in sight even when other countries who took tough actions are coming out of it.

Trump promised zero cases in days back in February. We now have five million
Trump promised it would be over in three months back in March. We are six months in and infections are increasing.

Trump failed in his leadership and will pay for his mishandling of the crisis in November

You seem to over estimating the loyalty of people when their cities are burning, being looted and their children are dying in the streets. I guess your master haven't told you about the riots and looting the last two nights in Chicago where murders are up 139% from last year. If I were you I'd keep try to change the subject too. LMAO

.

 

[rightwinger]

What I mean by number 2 is that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's a state matter

Read the Constitution
It contains very few regulations on any subject.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter on cases brought up at the state and lower court level

 

[OKTexas]

What I mean by number 2 is that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's a state matter

Read the Constitution
It contains very few regulations on any subject.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter on cases brought up at the state and lower court level

Only because they've assumed that authority. Over time they've allowed the federal government to be expanded far beyond their constitutional functions and that would include their own.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Right now, I would oppose packing the court

I believe Dems should keep it as a Nuclear Option if Ginsburg were to pass away after Republicans had lost the Presidency and Senate. If Republicans tried to rush a confirmation as lame ducks in a few weeks.......Pack away and add four seats

 

[satrebil]

What I mean by number 2 is that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's a state matter

Read the Constitution
It contains very few regulations on any subject.

No shit, Sherlock. That was the whole point of the union to begin with - LIMITED federal government. We are the UNITED States of America, not the FEDERAL States of America. Have you read the 10th Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[rightwinger]

What I mean by number 2 is that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's a state matter

Read the Constitution
It contains very few regulations on any subject.

No shit, Sherlock. That was the whole point of the union to begin with - LIMITED federal government. We are the UNITED States of America, not the FEDERAL States of America. Have you read the 10th Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Prior to the Civil War, we were a bunch of States that were united.

After the war, we became THE UNITED STATES with a strong Federal Government

There is no going back

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I don't consider a republican senate majority implementing the same level of gridlock against a judicial appointment as a democrat senate minority exercised against multiple judicial appointments prior, to be the underhanded equivalence of shitting on the separation of powers in order to gain a political advantage, no.

You don’t consider denying a President the right to fill a vacancy to be a problem?

The president doesn't have the right to "fill vacancies". He has the right and the duty to nominate people for those vacancies, and the senate has the right and duty to confirm or deny those nominations.

Thus, I don't view it as a problem when that president is denied by a senate majority, elected by the American people, who is opposed to his appointments. That's the system working as intended.

In this case, the Republican Senate forced the Supreme Court to function with eight justices for one year. They did not seem that concerned with the magical number 9 then.

So, If Dems decide to up the ante and raise the number to 11, it should be no big deal.

Holding off an appointment doesn't create the potential for an agreeable presidency and senate to grab absolute power. Court packing does.

8 slows things down, 11 spirals us toward dictatorship. These things are not equivalent.

 

[rightwinger]

Holding off an appointment doesn't create the potential for an agreeable presidency and senate to grab absolute power. Court packing does.

It had the same effect
It prevented a Conservative Court from flipping to a Liberal majority.

Trump ended up with a Republican House, Senate and Conservative Court

Absolute power over Three Branches of Government

 

[eagle1462010]

Holding off an appointment doesn't create the potential for an agreeable presidency and senate to grab absolute power. Court packing does.

It had the same effect
It prevented a Conservative Court from flipping to a Liberal majority.

Trump ended up with a Republican House, Senate and Conservative Court

Absolute power over Three Branches of Government

And............did he ram through everything he wanted .........NOPE........he didn't have a super majority like Obama ALMOST had ..............he only narrowly passed Obamacare........after bribing the living hell out of RINO'S.......RINO's only vote for the dough..............

Not so easy ..........without a super majority now is it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Holding off an appointment doesn't create the potential for an agreeable presidency and senate to grab absolute power. Court packing does.

It had the same effect
It prevented a Conservative Court from flipping to a Liberal majority.

Trump ended up with a Republican House, Senate and Conservative Court

Absolute power over Three Branches of Government

One party controlling the three branches isn't anything CLOSE to absolute power.

Setting the precedent that a party with control of the senate and presidency can create a majority of literally whoever they want on the supreme court gives them the opportunity to immediately have a 10-9 decision in favor of whatever they feel like doing.

If you honestly can't see why court stacking enables levels of insanely unrestricted power, I'd have to say that you're either cartoonishly naive or you haven't thought this through thoroughly at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Holding off an appointment doesn't create the potential for an agreeable presidency and senate to grab absolute power. Court packing does.

It had the same effect
It prevented a Conservative Court from flipping to a Liberal majority.

Trump ended up with a Republican House, Senate and Conservative Court

Absolute power over Three Branches of Government

One party controlling the three branches isn't anything CLOSE to absolute power.

Setting the precedent that a party with control of the senate and presidency can create a majority of literally whoever they want on the supreme court gives them the opportunity to immediately have a 10-9 decision in favor of whatever they feel like doing.

If you honestly can't see why court stacking enables levels of insanely unrestricted power, I'd have to say that you're either cartoonishly naive or you haven't thought this through thoroughly at all.

That is exactly what Republicans did.
They controlled the Senate and blocked a Democratic President from filling a seat for a year.
When they won the Presidency, they were able to force through a nomination using the nuclear option.
Trump ended up with the absolute power over three branches of Government you complain about.

If Republicans don’t like it, let them win one of the branches

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Holding off an appointment doesn't create the potential for an agreeable presidency and senate to grab absolute power. Court packing does.

It had the same effect
It prevented a Conservative Court from flipping to a Liberal majority.

Trump ended up with a Republican House, Senate and Conservative Court

Absolute power over Three Branches of Government

One party controlling the three branches isn't anything CLOSE to absolute power.

Setting the precedent that a party with control of the senate and presidency can create a majority of literally whoever they want on the supreme court gives them the opportunity to immediately have a 10-9 decision in favor of whatever they feel like doing.

If you honestly can't see why court stacking enables levels of insanely unrestricted power, I'd have to say that you're either cartoonishly naive or you haven't thought this through thoroughly at all.

That is exactly what Republicans did.
They controlled the Senate and blocked a Democratic President from filling a seat for a year.
When they won the Presidency, they were able to force through a nomination using the nuclear option.
Trump ended up with the absolute power over three branches of Government you complain about.

If Republicans don’t like it, let them win one of the branches

Are you being intentionally dense about this?

Do you honestly not understand the difference between political carte blanche within the bounds of a constitutional system, and absolute power?

Like, I'm honestly BAFFLED that you would try to equate what you're describing with boundless authority. These concepts aren't even in the same universe.