Balancing the Supreme Court

[T. A. Gardner]

[Tacomaman]

Awwww... How cute. That's almost as relevant as Ginsburg's supposed dying wish counting...

As usual, you cant defend your position and try yet another diversion. Garland was entitled to a vote. Period.

Now, if we carry your ridiculous "Senate hearing discretion" arguement further, we can say the following:
Should tRump win re-election, with the Senate flipping and another SCOTUS vacancy occur, Schumer can then simply delay a confirmation hearing for four years. After all, you said the Senate has discretion. Now see how utterly ridiculous your argument is......)

[T. A. Gardner]

As usual, you cant defend your position and try yet another diversion. Garland was entitled to a vote. Period.

[Tacomaman]

Actually, I word my responses so you can understand them.

The bottom line is that you were fine with Garland being screwed because-like tRump-you are more concerned with winning than anything else. In other words, you appear to have little in the "character" department.

[Doc Dutch]

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.

Then, after the mid-terms or in 2024 the Republicans will make it 7-6. The "balance" will be maintained. Where does it end? When we have one for each state? Do you know how much it would slow down court cases?

[Concart]

Then, after the mid-terms or in 2024 the Republicans will make it 7-6. The "balance" will be maintained. Where does it end? When we have one for each state? Do you know how much it would slow down court cases?

My proposal is intended to demonstrate that such a decision would not be rooted in partisan politics but rather correcting an unconstitutional act. And under this proposal conservatives still hold a 6-5 edge.

[Concart]

Hello Concart,



Can't remove one.

Hence the need to expand

[Yakuda]

Hence the need to expand

Its not a need it's a childish desire. You fuckers LOST. You cockroaches would do the same thing in the same situation. Not a single one of you lying fucking pukes can deny it

[CFM]

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.

Adding a seat or seats in order to get someone of your ideology is the definition of court packing, idiot.

[CFM]

Its not a need it's a childish desire. You fuckers LOST. You cockroaches would do the same thing in the same situation. Not a single one of you lying fucking pukes can deny it

They'd do the same things and not give it a second thought.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Concart,

My proposal is intended to demonstrate that such a decision would not be rooted in partisan politics but rather correcting an unconstitutional act. And under this proposal conservatives still hold a 6-5 edge.

That would be far more likely to be accepted by the populace as fair than making it 7-6, which would be like entering a court expansion race.

[Yakuda]

They'd do the same things and not give it a second thought.

No shit but we have to listen to them moralize about how "evil" trump is. Cowardly bastards

[Doc Dutch]

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.

Correct. It's up to Congress. The fact Congress has no honor, no integrity and is politically partisan is sad, but it's legal.

[Doc Dutch]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

No, they did not. They refused to hold hearings for Garland. That was failing to do their Constitutionally described roll. He deserved an up or down vote.

True. So what? None of it was "unconstitutional" as Concart claimed. Like it or not, Congress' action was legal and constitutional. All Americans have a chance to rectify that by next Tuesday.

[Doc Dutch]

No shit but we have to listen to them moralize about how "evil" trump is. Cowardly bastards

You quote CFM and whine about "evil"? WTF?