Balancing the Supreme Court

[Yakuda]

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.

Cite from the constitution.

[archives]

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

You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past

[T. A. Gardner]

You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past

Appeal to tradition, making this irrelevant. Show where any of those changes were done solely to benefit one party in getting legislation and laws passed...

[Concart]

You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past

This. These Trumptards are all about the Constitution, until it doesn't work for them. I would prefer that we had a court with no Gorsuch and Garland instead. Why? Because that's how it's supposed to work. I didn't see in the Constitution that the Senate will consider a President's pick unless they aren't the same party. I missed that part. They have an obligation to consider a nomination, and they did not do so. Period. The remedy is now to add two seats to the court. Which is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.

[Concart]

Appeal to tradition, making this irrelevant. Show where any of those changes were done solely to benefit one party in getting legislation and laws passed...

LOL. Your hypocrisy is beyond the pale. The failure to consider Garland was a blatant ploy to pack the court with conservatives. And courts do NOTHING to get legislation passed.

[PostmodernProphet]

9 + 1 = 10
6 + 5 = 11

Discuss

9 + 5475.......anything less is not enough to stop us......

[PostmodernProphet]

You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past

when was the last?......

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm fine with that. .

well that makes all the difference in the world.......357M Americans have been holding their breath, waiting to see what you would be "fine with"........

[PostmodernProphet]

No, the Constitution says they must act on a nomination.

they could approve or not approve......they did not approve......

[christiefan915]

Weird that a political party that has only won one single national election since the 1980s, has nonetheless been able to dominate and shape the nature of the nation's highest Court

RWs who are gloating that SCOTUS will have a conservative slant for two generations (or something like that), haven't taken into account that Breyer is 82. He could retire or die in the next few years. If Biden becomes president he would nominate a more moderate person to replace Breyer.

[cawacko]

RWs who are gloating that SCOTUS will have a conservative slant for two generations (or something like that), haven't taken into account that Breyer is 82. He could retire or die in the next few years. If Biden becomes president he would nominate a more moderate person to replace Breyer.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your statement but if RW’s are gloating the court will move to the right, and you say Biden would appoint someone more moderate to replace Breyer, what are RW’s not taking into account?

[PostmodernProphet]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your statement but if RW’s are gloating the court will move to the right, and you say Biden would appoint someone more moderate to replace Breyer, what are RW’s not taking into account?

the celebrations......

[Grokmaster]

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.

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT UNILATERALLY ADD SEATS TO THE SCOTUS.

REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE SENATE WHEN GARLAND WAS NOMINATED.

THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES.

READ THE CONSTITUTION, AND STOP THE BULLSHIT PRETENSE THAT THE SELAZOCRATS WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THE SAME THING.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Concart,

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.

Like.

Except it is Merrick, not Merritt.

[Grokmaster]

This. These Trumptards are all about the Constitution, until it doesn't work for them. I would prefer that we had a court with no Gorsuch and Garland instead. Why? Because that's how it's supposed to work. I didn't see in the Constitution that the Senate will consider a President's pick unless they aren't the same party. I missed that part. They have an obligation to consider a nomination, and they did not do so. Period. The remedy is now to add two seats to the court. Which is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.

PLEASE CITE A VIOLATION IN CONSTITUTIIONAL GUIDLEINES IN GORSUCH'S SEATING.