Balancing the Supreme Court

[Concart]

Umpires don't determine the outcome of games. Congress can rewrite a law if judged a foul by the court.

Yes, that's being an umpire. You are correct, Congress or States can at times correct issues that render a law unconstitutional, but there has to be a body that makes that determination. That's ALWAYS true. The Constitution can also be amended. The courts do not legislate, they decide specific controversies that are brought before them.

[Yakuda]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

I grew up with a kid like you. Everybody hated him because he was a whiny pussy but we tolerated him because we needed him to have even teams when we played baseball. The problem was every time his team lost he wanted to keep playing. What a fucking a cunt he was. He sounds just like you pig fucking leftist queers

[/MSG/]

Optimate.

Yes, I absolutely am.

[archives]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

That ain't going to happen, well, unless the Democrats win both the Presidency and the Senate, and even if they did, I think Biden's move is correct, wait and watch, if the Court becomes overtly politically partisan, appoint new Justices, there is nothing in the Constitution nor precedent that prevents it

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

9 + 1 = 10
6 + 5 = 11

Discuss

[Concart]

9 + 1 = 10
6 + 5 = 11

Discuss

One seat for Garland. One seat to offset the Gorsuch pick. That makes 11.

[Yakuda]

One seat for Garland. One seat to offset the Gorsuch pick. That makes 11.

Look at this fucking cunt....life's not fair skippy.

[T. A. Gardner]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

What you propose is court packing, even if it is just one seat...

[Concart]

What you propose is court packing, even if it is just one seat...

Then remove Gorsuch and replace him with Garland. I'm fine with that. The point is that the Senates failure to fulfill their constitutional duty needs to be corrected. That is not a partisan statement.

[Yakuda]

What you propose is court packing, even if it is just one seat...

Oh course it's not court packing ...he said it wasn't. Isn't that good enough for you?

[T. A. Gardner]

Then remove Gorsuch and replace him with Garland. I'm fine with that. The point is that the Senates failure to fulfill their constitutional duty needs to be corrected. That is not a partisan statement.

The Senate can act on a nomination or not. If the Democrats controlled the Senate then he'd have been put on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate now ACB wouldn't get a hearing. That's the non-partisan reality and truth of this.

[Yakuda]

Then remove Gorsuch and replace him with Garland. I'm fine with that. The point is that the Senates failure to fulfill their constitutional duty needs to be corrected. That is not a partisan statement.

Why? Prove they didn't fulfill their "constitutional duty".

[Yakuda]

The Senate can act on a nomination or not. If the Democrats controlled the Senate then he'd have been put on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate now ACB wouldn't get a hearing. That's the non-partisan reality and truth of this.

Exactly what these fucking morons won't admit. They would do EXACTLY the same thing and not a single one of the cockroaches can deny it.

[gfm7175]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court,

Correct.

but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination.

Wrong. They legitimately decided against confirming him (and to not even bother with hearings).

In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Not how it works... Biden will not be President... It is already a 5-4 split as far as I am concerned (Roberts sides with the liberals far too often)...

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

Chuck Schumer is not going to be Senate majority leader... You libtards are quite delusional...

If you take a look at Biden's campaign movements atm, Dems already know that they have lost the Presidency and the Senate; they are just fighting to retain control of the House at this point, and who knows if they'll even be able to manage THAT...

[Concart]

The Senate can act on a nomination or not. If the Democrats controlled the Senate then he'd have been put on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate now ACB wouldn't get a hearing. That's the non-partisan reality and truth of this.

No, the Constitution says they must act on a nomination. And they failed to do that. The only partisan here is you. It doesn't matter who controls what. The President nominates, the Senate considers. The Senate failed. Simple as that.

Democrats would be wrong in not giving Barrett a hearing. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no issue with the process used to seat Barrett.