The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[Into the Night]

I agree. All your talk is meaningless.

Bulverism fallacy.

[PostmodernProphet]

Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacy.

100% correct.....I do deny that you are logical.....

[Flash]

If you want to deny your own statements again, that's your business.

I can't deny something I never said. In other words you have no evidence I ever made the statement? You need to read my posts more carefully and not make unwarranted assumptions.

[Flash]

The number of judges on the supreme court is not specified in the Constitution.

Never said it did. That is why I said "The states cannot set the number of justices on the Supreme Court because that is the function of Congress."

Nope. Adjusting the number of judges on a court is not packing when it's done according to that constitution.

Changing ("Adjusting") the number of judges has to be done according to the Constitution. It is called "packing" when those on the other side don't like it.

If Democrats add 3 justices to the Supreme Court they will call that "adjusting" and Republicans will call it "packing."

[Flash]

The Constitution has no such limit. The States can change the Constitution WITHOUT any federal involvement at all.

Nope. Not according to the Constitution.

[Geeko Sportivo]

The United States never was a democracy. There are currently no democracies anywhere on Earth. The United States is a federated republic.

Hey Shit-For-Brains!

Voting is a Democratic Process! IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNTIL NOW THAT DONALD TRUMPO HAS TRIED TO TURN IT INTO A SCAM!

The Supreme Court is a Democratic Process! WELL IT WAS INTENDED TO BE UNTIL DONALD TRUMP CORRUPTED THE COURT!

And when the Democrats take back the Senate- WE WILL LEGISLATE TO INSURE IT REMAINS A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS!

YOU GOT IT?

[Granule]

The OP referred to recent conservative appointments to the court causing the (overblown) problems.

Republicans have had 47 years to do something about Roe and they have not even tried even they they controlled the White House and Congress. About the only thing they could do is propose and push for a constitutional amendment which they have not done. They get more mileage by being anti-abortion than actually stopping abortion.

Abortion was legal under different circumstances in 20 states before Roe.

What can I say? it's an evil world out there filled with evil people.

Neither political side is perfect, it's just that the Left is a whole lot less perfect than the Right.

Legalized murder may never be overturned, but that doesn't mean we stop fighting.

[votebiden]

What can I say? it's an evil world out there filled with evil people.

Neither political side is perfect, it's just that the Left is a whole lot less perfect than the Right.

Legalized murder may never be overturned, but that doesn't mean we stop fighting.

I may regret this....but did God tell you abortion is immoral? What is your moral system?

[Granule]

I may regret this....but did God tell you abortion is immoral? What is your moral system?

Don't be a pussy. You don't have to regret anything. Just try to be brave and take some answers.

My moral system holds that murder is immoral. Abortion is terminating a human life - it's immoral. Do you understand?

[votebiden]

Don't be a pussy. You don't have to regret anything. Just try to be brave and take some answers.

My moral system holds that murder is immoral. Abortion is terminating a human life - it's immoral. Do you understand?

I understand you believe that. However, US law does not agree. It is just your opinion.

[Into the Night]

100% correct.....I do deny that you are logical.....

Inversion fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Never said it did.

Yes you did. I guess you wish to deny yourself on saying this, too. You sure like to argue against yourself.

That is why I said "The states cannot set the number of justices on the Supreme Court because that is the function of Congress."
Changing ("Adjusting") the number of judges has to be done according to the Constitution. It is called "packing" when those on the other side don't like it.

Nope. It's not called 'packing'. Semantics fallacy.

If Democrats add 3 justices to the Supreme Court they will call that "adjusting" and Republicans will call it "packing."

Democrats cannot add justices to the supreme court. They do not control a sufficient number of seats in Congress or the White House.
Republicans cannot add justices to the supreme court. They do not control a sufficient number of seats in Congress.

[Into the Night]

Nope. Not according to the Constitution.

Yes, according to the Constitution, which you have never read.

[Granule]

I understand you believe that. However, US law does not agree. It is just your opinion.

US law also prohibits illegal immigration. Where the fuck have you been with all that?

See, perverts like you ignore everything that doesn't fit into your politics. You're the worst kind of person there is.

Roll that up and smoke it for a while.

[Flash]

Yes, according to the Constitution, which you have never read.

Maybe you read the Constitution like you read my posts--you add, omit, or misinterpret things.

In 200+ years the states have never sought to change the Constitution by themselves?

Obviously they must not have any issue with the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution, Roe v. Wade, or any of the other court decisions since they have not chosen to use their unilateral power to change it.