Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They were never moral people..............so they lose nothing......Liars think they win .....when they win by cheating...........nothing new here.......your side has always been a bunch of scum bags who piss on the Constitution for entertainment.Exactly. Hopefully democrats are finally getting the message that we need them to fight for democracy with the same zeal republicans that are trying to destroy it.If RBG dies and McConnell rushes an appointment before the election in contradiction of the excuse he used in 2016 the first order of business should be to add two more justices.
Waiting to see what would happen if she dies after Trump has lost the election and Republicans lose the Senate.
I can see Republicans rushing a confirmation in 60 days in a lame duck Congress.
If it happens.......anything goes
If Dems can pack the courts, why shouldn’t they do it?
What do they have to lose?
Nevertheless, the idea that taking a sledge to the coequality of the branches of government is a proportionate response to the fact that you didn't control the senate when it would have allowed a democrat president to fill a previously conservative supreme court seat?
And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers.Nevertheless, the idea that taking a sledge to the coequality of the branches of government is a proportionate response to the fact that you didn't control the senate when it would have allowed a democrat president to fill a previously conservative supreme court seat?
Courts used to be outside of politics. That is no longer the case.
You are correct. Republicans held the Senate when Obama tried to nominate Garland. Too bad for Dems
Now, If Dems hold the Senate and want to add a few judges......Too bad for Republicans
LOL.........hell they were political when we were kids.......if you are as old as I think you are.......you crusty old dem LSD bastard..........LOLNevertheless, the idea that taking a sledge to the coequality of the branches of government is a proportionate response to the fact that you didn't control the senate when it would have allowed a democrat president to fill a previously conservative supreme court seat?
Courts used to be outside of politics. That is no longer the case.
You are correct. Republicans held the Senate when Obama tried to nominate Garland. Too bad for Dems
Now, If Dems hold the Senate and want to add a few judges......Too bad for Republicans
They were never moral people..............so they lose nothing......Liars think they win .....when they win by cheating...........nothing new here.......your side has always been a bunch of scum bags who piss on the Constitution for entertainment.Exactly. Hopefully democrats are finally getting the message that we need them to fight for democracy with the same zeal republicans that are trying to destroy it.If RBG dies and McConnell rushes an appointment before the election in contradiction of the excuse he used in 2016 the first order of business should be to add two more justices.
Waiting to see what would happen if she dies after Trump has lost the election and Republicans lose the Senate.
I can see Republicans rushing a confirmation in 60 days in a lame duck Congress.
If it happens.......anything goes
If Dems can pack the courts, why shouldn’t they do it?
What do they have to lose?
Yes it is.............brought to you by Socialist LSD Free love idiots who have grown up.........and infected this country with your disease..........will not end well.They were never moral people..............so they lose nothing......Liars think they win .....when they win by cheating...........nothing new here.......your side has always been a bunch of scum bags who piss on the Constitution for entertainment.Exactly. Hopefully democrats are finally getting the message that we need them to fight for democracy with the same zeal republicans that are trying to destroy it.If RBG dies and McConnell rushes an appointment before the election in contradiction of the excuse he used in 2016 the first order of business should be to add two more justices.
Waiting to see what would happen if she dies after Trump has lost the election and Republicans lose the Senate.
I can see Republicans rushing a confirmation in 60 days in a lame duck Congress.
If it happens.......anything goes
If Dems can pack the courts, why shouldn’t they do it?
What do they have to lose?
No cheating....Politics
The old days of respecting the courts are gone.
It is a new world
And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
Remember that.............and look at your party......And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
21 st century AmericaRemember that.............and look at your party......And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
The brain washed kids from the LSD parents are almost programmed..........hmmm21 st century AmericaRemember that.............and look at your party......And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
Bush’s appointment received a hearing and was voted down. Bush was allowed to appoint a replacement.Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.
And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
You all cheered when Obama reminded conservatives that "elections have consequences". Yet as soon as YOU don't like the consequences, you turn the game board over and scatter the checkers all over the floor.
/----/ There would be no end to it. The USSC could end up with a hundred justices.
2020 progressives open to adding justices to the Supreme Court, diminishing conservative majority
Some of the progressives vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have said they’ll consider diminishing the conservative majority on the Supreme Court either by adding more justices or by imposing term limits.www.washingtontimes.com
Long ago during the reign of FDR the nation experienced the Progressive attack on Constitutional law known as the Court Packing Scheme. Many of you probably have never even heard of it in school because schools only cast a favorable light on Progressives such as FDR, but it happened nonetheless. Essentially, SCOTUS had just struck down FDR's New Deal in many regards and he was pissed out of his mind, so he came up with a scheme to add Supreme Court Justices who would pass his legislation. Luckily, no one else wanted to go along with this blatant attempt to subvert the checks and balances set up by the Founders that stood in FDR's way. And Americans were overwhelmingly against the idea as well. This sort of corruption is what later prompted Congress to act to limit the terms of the President, with FDR who had just achieved his third term.
However, FDR is a Progressive god to Progressives today, and they are wanting to follow in his footsteps by trying to do what he tried to do long ago. The difference today is that you have about half the populace ready to follow the DNC no matter what it does or says, as opposed to Americans back in the 1040's who were aghast at the corruption of FDR and his Court Packing Scheme. Mark my words, once back in power they will attempt this because their agenda is so radical, they will need to rewrite the Constitution with the help of their Supreme Court Justice stooges.
So who here agrees with it?
The reasoning in the article was this:
“We can’t go on like this where every time there’s a vacancy, there’s this apocalyptic ideological battle,” he added.
But how would the ideological battle change with more Supreme Court justices? It makes not sense. Essentially, the battles would rage even more as more and more would need to be appointed.
This sort of thing is what we have to look forward to with a Biden win
Yes, but it was still an unprecedented method, and a case of a senate minority preventing a nomination that actually had the votes, if not for the filibuster.Bush’s appointment received a hearing and was voted down. Bush was allowed to appoint a replacement.Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?And too bad for the judicial branch. And too bad for the separation of powers
You reap what you sow
Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.
Obama was not
You reap what you sow. Pack the court
/----/ "Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. "You all cheered when Obama reminded conservatives that "elections have consequences". Yet as soon as YOU don't like the consequences, you turn the game board over and scatter the checkers all over the floor.
The difference is, Trump didn't get the most votes in the election. The people said no. Loudly. Clearly.
So, yeah, maybe it's time to scatter the checkers all over the floor when you realize the other side has been cheating all along.
Wow. You honestly believe that appointment games started with Garland not getting hearings?
Rewind a couple administrations, George W. Bush was the first president to have one of his judicial nominations blocked by filibuster. I'm pretty well certain that wasn't where the arms race started, either. I'm equally certain that you couldn't tell me where it did, and yet here you are telling me with all confidence that republicans started it. Lol.
