Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Moderator T

Senate Republicans offer constitutional amendment to block Supreme Court packing

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Moderator T

Senate Republicans offer constitutional amendment to block Supreme Court packing

ALEXANDER BOLTON 

The Hill

10/19/20

EXCERPT:

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and five other Senate Republicans have introduced a constitutional amendment to prevent Democrats from packing the Supreme Court if Joe Biden wins the White House and Democrats capture the Senate.

The proposed amendment simply states: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.”

It would need to pass with a two-thirds super majority in both the Senate and the House and need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 of the 50 states, within seven years after its submission for ratification.

“Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system,” Cruz said in a statement.

“We must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance,” he added.

The other Republican sponsors of the plan are Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.), Martha McSally (Ariz.), Roger WickerROGER FREDERICK WICKERGovernment efforts to 'fix' social media bias overlooks the destruction of our discourseThe Section 230 fight Congress should be havingAmericans want to serve — it's up to us to give them the chanceMORE (Miss.), Kelly Loeffler (Ga.) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.). Tillis, McSally and Loeffler are face competitive reelection races this fall.

(Full Story)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

Unfortunately this is tilting at windmills.

They'll never get the necessary votes in either the House 0or the Senate to pass it. It's a transparent way to get the Democrats on the record, but that's about it. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Currahee!
1 hour ago, mjperry51 said:

Unfortunately this is tilting at windmills.

They'll never get the necessary votes in either the House 0or the Senate to pass it. It's a transparent way to get the Democrats on the record, but that's about it. . 

.......A mighty oak starts with a small acorn . . . MAKE the Democrats take that stand....make that vote....force them ON THE RECORD and in two years conservatives will gain more seats in the Senate....I’m not convinced that Republicans are going to loose the Senate in 2020 anyway.

More Hunter laptop......DripDripDrip......can you hear the footsteps, Hunter?  

And a good question was raised on Twitter......earlier this morning........ALL of the Trump kids are on the stump for their dad.......where’s Hunter?  Then again  . . . where is Quid Pro Joe?

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

Stupid idea now that we are the ones doing the packing to rid the nutty proggy traitors of the constitution.

Republicans are always trying to find ways of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • Sad 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
4 hours ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Stupid idea now that we are the ones doing the packing to rid the nutty proggy traitors of the constitution.

Republicans are always trying to find ways of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Say what? Do you have any idea what the phrase court packing means?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon Wayne

Republican Presidents don't pack, they replace.  I'm sure ol' Georgie Bush must be so proud to see his boy John Roberts blocking Trump at every turn.   Barrett's appointment should remedy that unless Biden wins.  Then the Supreme Court will end up becoming the new DNC headquarters.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

They can offer whatever they want, House will not pass.

Republicans abused the process by denying even a hearing to a duly nominated Merrick Garland under what we now know for certain were false pretenses. 

No way in hell Democrats will now give away any of their options to rectify that.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
2 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

They can offer whatever they want, House will not pass.

Republicans abused the the process by denying even a hearing to a dully nominated Merrick Garland under what we now know for certain were false pretenses. 

No way in hell Democrats will now give away any of their options to rectify that.

 

LOL! "dully nominated"...LOL...perfectly put, although I realize you meant "duly nominated".

:2up: 

:lol:

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
3 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Republicans abused the the process by denying even a hearing to a duly nominated Merrick Garland

Did they violate any existing rules or laws?

Did they change any existing rules or laws so they could do it?

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
8 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

 

LOL! "dully nominated"...LOL...perfectly put, although I realize you meant "duly nominated".

:2up: 

:lol:

 

He's our own personal gaffe machine!

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
5 minutes ago, Natural Selection said:

He's our own personal gaffe machine!

 

And he's almost as good at it as Biden himself!

:yes: 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
2 hours ago, Severian said:

Say what? Do you have any idea what the phrase court packing means?

Yes. It means increasing the total number of appointed SCOTUS justices to add more progtards to counter/dilute any majority of conservative justices because now we are replacing so many proggy justices with real constitutionalists. The republicans should not be opening that can of worms by adding a constitional amendment right now which would trigger a constitutional convention. With so many whacked out democraps committing fraudulent crazy procedural manuevers right now that would be foolish. Just fill the vacancies that are opening up right now. Then when times get safer to do so, (if they ever do, lol) then maybe take a look at passing such legislation because now is not a good time to mess with the constitution with so many democraps pulling their dirty crap.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
2 hours ago, AntonToo said:

They can offer whatever they want, House will not pass.

Republicans abused the process by denying even a hearing to a duly nominated Merrick Garland under what we now know for certain were false pretenses. 

No way in hell Democrats will now give away any of their options to rectify that.

History won’t remember the why as much as the what, and that will be democrats in favor of court packing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
7 hours ago, AntonToo said:

They can offer whatever they want, House will not pass.

Republicans abused the process by denying even a hearing to a duly nominated Merrick Garland under what we now know for certain were false pretenses. 

No way in hell Democrats will now give away any of their options to rectify that.

Abused the process?  Really.

Had the Dems owned the Senate in 2016, do you think that they would have moved forward with a confirmation vote in an election year?  Yes or no?

If the Dems had control of the Senate now, would they have denied a hearing to Judge Barrett?  Yes or no?

Playing by the rules you and your corrupt ilk laid out.  Faking outrage for something that you would applaud if the politics were reversed is every bet as transparently dishonest as YOU.

Edited by JerryL
  • Best Post (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
8 hours ago, Natural Selection said:

Did they violate any existing rules or laws?

Did they change any existing rules or laws so they could do it?

Yes they did. The law is that a President nominates and the Senate confirms. Republican Senate refused to do that 10 months (longest hold up in history) under fake pretense that it had something to do with the election. They now went right ahead with confirmation a month before election.

If you think Democrats will simply roll over and let this go you are mistaken, this will not stand if Democrats will have the majorities to right what is plainly wrong.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottZ
5 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Yes they did. The law is that a President nominates and the Senate confirms. 

Interesting wording you have there. The Senate's role is to advise and consent. They don't have to confirm nor do they have to hold hearings.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
3 minutes ago, ScottZ said:

Interesting wording you have there. The Senate's role is to advise and consent. They don't have to confirm nor do they have to hold hearings.

You remember these words next time a Republican president tries to nominate a judge with a Democrat Senate.

- nope, don't have to do anything!

Edited by AntonToo
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottZ

You act like this is the first time when its a historical fact nominees don't get confirmed when the parties are split. Get a clue.

 

1888 was the last time an election year nominee was confirmed when the Senate and the President were from different parties.

Edited by ScottZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
37 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Yes they did. The law is that a President nominates and the Senate confirms. Republican Senate refused to do that 10 months (longest hold up in history) under fake pretense that it had something to do with the election. They now went right ahead with confirmation a month before election.

If you think Democrats will simply roll over and let this go you are mistaken, this will not stand if Democrats will have the majorities to right what is plainly wrong.

 

LOL. You're the perfect reverse-barometer, and you've just proved it again.

Reverse barometer? What I mean is that anything you call "wrong" is obviously not wrong. If you say "up" it's obviously down. If you say "good" it's obviously bad. And so forth.

Anything you call "plainly wrong" therefore has to be plainly not wrong.

B) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
8 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

You remember these words next time a Republican president tries to nominate a judge with a Democrat Senate.

- nope, don't have to do anything!

Which is exactly what the Dems would have done this time if they had the majority.  You know it, I know it, they know it.  EVERYONE knows it.  

Your faux outrage again rings hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
3 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Which is exactly what the Dems would have done this time if they had the majority.  You know it, I know it, they know it.  EVERYONE knows it.  

Your faux outrage again rings hollow.

Thats a speculation, not fact.

But just to entertain that to its logical conclusion would be to end up with the righties calling for court packing to make it right, so how can you complain of liberals going there?

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
6 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Thats a speculation, not fact.

But just to entertain that to its logical conclusion would be to end up with Conservatives calling for court packing to make it right.

No.  It is a fact and you know that it is a fact.

No.  Conservatives tend to soldier on and work within the intent of the Constitution.  The judiciary was never intended to be an expanding and contracting political tool.  President's nominate, Senate confirms (or not), and the bench is supposed to rule based on law.  You guys are just so butthurt that you are going to lose your majority that you count on to act as your political tool, and will...as Dems do...go to any legal, illegal, or extralegal means to get what they want.  Don't project that onto others.  

ETA:  You guys just can't stand that a court not dominated by leftist tools might actually call something that is clearly unConstitutional just that.  Too bad.  Blame RBG.

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
5 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Thats a speculation, not fact.

But just to entertain that to its logical conclusion would be to end up with the righties calling for court packing to make it right, so how can you complain of liberals going there?

No; that’s where it ends. Republicans would not have the support in their party for that. They are patriotic and value traditions and precedents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
19 minutes ago, JerryL said:

No.  It is a fact and you know that it is a fact.

No.  Conservatives tend to soldier on and work within the intent of the Constitution. 

Unbelivable. The blatant double standard of your thoughts is just spectacular.

You say Liberals would definitely do it, you are so sure of that you are even willing to run your mouth about me knowing it (no I don't know that, you just make sht up)

But at the same time you are sure conservatives would not, EVEN AS THEY JUST FN DID by denying Garland a hearing for 10 months, clearly violating Constitutional intent of Senate's role in this process.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution about court size and the change would certainly be Constitutional.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
4 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Unbelivable. The blatant double standard of your thoughts is just spectacular.

You say Liberals would definitely do it, you are so sure of that you are even willing to run your mouth about me knowing it (no I don't know that, you just make sht up)

But at the same time you are sure conservatives would not, EVEN AS THEY JUST FN DID by denying Garland a hearing for 10 months, clearly violating Constitutional intent of their role in this process.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution about court size and the change would certainly be Constitutional.

Hello? It’s not outrageous to point out the difference between conservatives and leftists. It’s truthful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...