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

AntonToo
23 minutes ago, JerryL said:

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.

...because having 4 left leaning judges on the court of 9 is liberal domination?

You can't make this comedy up.

Oh well, I guess 5 out of 11 it will be.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


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

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

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

But by same token you are 100% 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.

 

Besides, there is absoluitely nothing in the intent of the Constitution about the size of the court, if there was, it would simply state so.

I know that you are mentally challenged, but these concepts really aren't that hard to grasp.  They should actually be within even your limited grasp.

1. I am making nothing up.  You aren't honest enough to admit it, but you know the Dems would block Barrett if they didn't have the votes to outright not confirm her.  Denying it reflects nothing on me.

2.  You do realize that this whole thread is about Republicans introducing a Constitutional Amendment to set SCOTUS at 9?  You do realize that if they were successfull that that would apply to all equally, not just Democrats? 

3. Wrong.  They used the precept when their is split between parties in the Senate and the Executive during an election year that was supported by DEMOCRATS.  Didn't they even call it the "Biden rule?"

4.  True.  Do you believe that the intent was to leave the number unspecified so that political parties could expand and contract the court for political reasons when they don't get their way?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

...because having 4 left leaning judges on the court of 9 is liberal domination?

You can't make this comedy up.

Oh well, I guess 5 out of 11 it will be.

You are under the mistaken impression that Roberts even leans conservative.  First, he was appointed by a big government globalist, GWB.  Second, his voting record speaks for itself.  Just look at twists in logic he had to make to save Obamacare.  He had to base his opinion on calling something a tax that the drafters and the lawyers defending the legislations all argued was NOT a tax.  Real conservative there.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

I know that you are mentally challenged, but these concepts really aren't that hard to grasp.  They should actually be within even your limited grasp.

1. I am making nothing up.  You aren't honest enough to admit it, but you know the Dems would block Barrett if they didn't have the votes to outright not confirm her.  Denying it reflects nothing on me.

2.  You do realize that this whole thread is about Republicans introducing a Constitutional Amendment to set SCOTUS at 9?  You do realize that if they were successfull that that would apply to all equally, not just Democrats? 

3. Wrong.  They used the precept when their is split between parties in the Senate and the Executive during an election year that was supported by DEMOCRATS.  Didn't they even call it the "Biden rule?"

4.  True.  Do you believe that the intent was to leave the number unspecified so that political parties could expand and contract the court for political reasons when they don't get their way?

1. pathetic fantasies

2. It's dead on arrival. Pure fluff. Moot. Sure, now that Republicans can snatch 6-3 conservative majority they want to lock it in, you claiming something about equal application is silly.

3. Horsecrap, and everyone knows it's horsecrap just by how quickly you switched from talking about Constitutional intent that Republicans CLEARLY violated, to something about what Democrats said.

4. Whooop we are right back to the intent when its convinient again.

 

You are so incurably biased in your thought pattern you can't even keep your thesis straight.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


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

You are under the mistaken impression that Roberts even leans conservative.  First, he was appointed by a big government globalist, GWB.  Second, his voting record speaks for itself.  Just look at twists in logic he had to make to save Obamacare.  

We looked at the logic and even had a local conservative lawyer named WeaselJD call it reasonable.


Feds have the fundamental power to tax and it's twisted logic to say they can't tax you for not getting insured.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
10 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.

So because they "abused the process," AKA they used the lawful power granted to them by the Constitution and rules of the Senate that were established by both parties it's ok?  In your eyes not giving Obama the judge he wants means it is okay to keep adding judges until you're guaranteed to get the results you want?  With that logic why bother having a Supreme Court at all?  Why not just let Democrats dictate all things the way they want them?

After Harris is done being president in 4-8 years (assuming Biden wins) and a Republican gets elected, will you be on here loudly saying how you believe it is okay for that Republican president to add even more judges until he gets the results he wants in cases?  Or will court packing suddenly be a bad thing in your eyes again?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
10 minutes ago, Moderator T said:

So because they "abused the process," AKA they used the lawful power granted to them by the Constitution and rules of the Senate that were established by both parties it's ok?  In your eyes not giving Obama the judge he wants means it is okay to keep adding judges until you're guaranteed to get the results you want?  With that logic why bother having a Supreme Court at all?  Why not just let Democrats dictate all things the way they want them?

After Harris is done being president in 4-8 years (assuming Biden wins) and a Republican gets elected, will you be on here loudly saying how you believe it is okay for that Republican president to add even more judges until he gets the results he wants in cases?  Or will court packing suddenly be a bad thing in your eyes again?

Changing the court to 11 judges by a majority is the  the lawful power granted by the Constitution. Thats where this is headed.

Maybe Republicans should have though about "years from now" when they shamelessly blocked Garland form even a hearing for 10 months. Don't you moan about using the power now, that ship has sailed.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


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

1. pathetic fantasies

2. It's dead on arrival. Pure fluff. Moot. Sure, now that Republicans can snatch 6-3 conservative majority they want to lock it in, you claiming something about equal application is silly.

3. Horsecrap, and everyone knows it's horsecrap just by how quickly you switched from talking about Constitutional intent that Republicans CLEARLY violated, to something about what Democrats said.

4. Whooop we are right back to the intent when its convinient again.

 

You are so incurably biased in your thought pattern you can't even keep your thesis straight.

1.  More of your legendary dishonesty.

2.  It is only fluff because the Dems will never let it go to the States and the people to decide.  The SCOTUS is a political tool that they are not willing to give up.

3.  The intent is for the Senate to confirm, or not, Presidential appointees.  Please show me where there was a timeline imposed when the President and the Senate are controlled by a different Party?  I'll wait.  Bottom line, they did what was within their Constitutional power to do.  Rubbing the Dems nose in it because they were on record as saying that this was how it should be was just a bonus.  Didn't someone post that 1888 or something was  the last time something different happened?

4.  Didn't answer the question.  Not surprised.  You know that if you say "yes" you will look even more the fool than usual.  You know if you say "no" then you can't support what your Party will try to do...at least not without humongous hypocrisy, oh, wait, that is not a problem for you.  

The last bit is just more projection from the most hyper partisan poster on this board.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

Changing the court to 11 judges by a majority is the  the lawful power granted by the Constitution. Thats where this is headed.

Maybe Republicans should have though about "years from now" when they shamelessly blocked Garland form even a hearing for 10 months. Don't you moan about using the power now, that ship has sailed.

Are you trying to have your Mitch moment telling Harry Reid that he’ll regret going nuclear? If so, it’s not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
28 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Changing the court to 11 judges by a majority is the  the lawful power granted by the Constitution. Thats where this is headed.

 

So then changing it from 11 to 13 when the Republicans take power again is something you support?  And then 13 to 15 when the Dems take power again some day after that?

There is no legitimate reason offered to packing the court by the Democrats.  They aren't saying the court is overwhelmed with cases.  They aren't saying there aren't enough justices to rule effectively.  They're literally just wanting to do this to end the legitimacy of the court as a whole by filling it with enough judges who will rule the way that they want.  Its FDR all over again.

What is most hilarious about this is that liberals keep quoting RBG any way they can when attacking ACB or Trump yet immediately turn to spitting on her grave and legacy the moment they want to add more judges than she believed were needed.  I guess she's only right about stuff when its convenient for liberal politic, right?

Quote

Maybe Republicans should have though about "years from now" when they shamelessly blocked Garland form even a hearing for 10 months. Don't you moan about using the power now, that ship has sailed.

So you see no difference between denying a nominee to a position (something the Dems have been doing through all of Trump's presidency with various positions) through legislative means and adding enough judges to the court so that you can never lose a case?  Again, why bother having a court at all or why bother pretending it is remotely legitimate?

Something tells me if Trump had decided to add a couple judges when Republicans had enough control to do so that you'd be throwing a fit on here about it.

Share this post


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

So then changing it from 11 to 13 when the Republicans take power again is something you support?  And then 13 to 15 when the Dems take power again some day after that?

Sure. It's all about the bird in your hand now, who knows when opposing party will get a shot at full majority.

When you've got the power, you use it, thats the name of the game here on out.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


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

Again, why bother having a court at all or why bother pretending it is remotely legitimate?

Wait wait wait, are you saying that fully qualified judges will not be making legitimate descisions no matter who appoints them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
1 minute ago, AntonToo said:

Sure. It's all about the bird in your hand now, who knows when opposing party will get a shot at full majority.

Or, you know, we could just leave it the way it is and not destroy the legitimacy of a whole branch of the government.  Its not like Justice Thomas is likely to make it through another Presidential term.  Democrats, if they win, could replace him with whoever they want and the court would be back to where they want it.  You know, the same way the court has operated throughout history.

Seems better than the catastrophic mess of revenge based one upping until the government collapses you seem to be supporting here.  

Share this post


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

Or, you know, we could just leave it the way it is

Thats a very convinient position when you've just muscled and lied yourself into 6-3 conservative majority.

Lets just leave it like that man! 🤣

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
Just now, AntonToo said:

Wait wait wait, are you saying that fully qualified judges will not be making legitimate descisions no matter who appoints them?

You can be both qualified and biased.  The Democrats have made it clear why they'd be adding judges.  not because they are needed, but because they want to ensure cases are decided the way they want.  They aren't doing this to fill vacancies. They're not doing it because it is needed.  They're literally wanting to do it to disproportionally unbalance the court in order to get the results they want.  I'd say the same if Trump or any Republican would have tried going beyond 9.

Share this post


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

Thats a very convinient position when you've just muscled yourself into 6-3 conservative majority.

By muscled in you mean filled vacancies that were open?  You really see no difference between filling vacancies and adding judges until you are guaranteed to always get the results you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
1 minute ago, Moderator T said:

You can be both qualified and biased.

AND legitimate.

Share this post


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

By muscled in you mean filled vacancies that were open?

Garland proabbaly doesn't think thats quite true. Vancancy was not filled or even entertained a hearing when it was his turn.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


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

Garland proabbaly doesn't think thats quite true. Vancancy was not filled or even entertained a hearing when it was his turn.

It wasn't filled because Obama did not put forward a candidate that could successfully make it through the process.  That's what happens when you don't control all branches of government.  If he had the ability to compromise inside himself he could have found a candidate the Republicans in the Senate would vote in.  Instead, knowing how the Senate rules work, he chose one that couldn't.

Delving into the Garland thing a bit more:  I think it was highly hypocritical of the Republicans to claim any special reasoning like "its X days before we have a new President."  It was dumb.  The reality is they used the powers available to them, including powers that the Democrats created, to prevent a nominee from being seated.  It happens all the time, and I think if you're being honest you'd agree that the Democrats would do the same thing if they were in the same position.  How many acting positions has Trump had over his term because Democrats have found ways to stop them from being confirmed?  Its a crappy thing to do, but is is how Congress operates regardless of who's in control.  Don't like it?  Demand the rules be changed.  I'd even be open to that.  

The addition of more judges is a different thing however.  There is a reason that justices like RBG oppose(d) expanding the court's size.  It is harmful to the legitimacy of the court and it sets a precedent where every future President from an opposing party will have to add more and more judges.  At that point there literally is no reason to have a Supreme Court.  I can't believe you don't see the danger here or that you just don't care.

At least Democrats are being honest about their reasoning here.  None are even claiming a real need for this plan.  They're not opining on some benefit to the country like say Republicans offer when discussing breaking up the 9th circuit into multiple circuit courts.  They're just doing it to ensure the outcome of future cases always go  their way.  Unfortunately because they're so clear about why they want to do this, the thought that Republicans will do the same in the future and this will then be followed by a tit for tat destruction of the Supreme Court by both parties is likely to come about.

So again I put it to you:  Why is this preferable to doing what has always been done.  Why not accept that the Republicans won one round (Garland).  Use whatever parliamentary powers the Democrats have to stop ACB if they can.  Then, if they win the election, replace the next judge with whoever they can and Republicans can do whatever they can to stop it.  Back and forth like it has always been.  Why destroy a third of our government out of revenge and hatred of those who disagree with your politics?

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


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

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

You have no idea what you're talking about. Didn't you have to take a Constitution test or something when you came here?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

Garland proabbaly doesn't think thats quite true. Vancancy was not filled or even entertained a hearing when it was his turn.

"His turn"?

Interesting choice of words.

  • Agree (+1) 1

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...