President Biden creates commission to study adding Supreme Court justices

blackascoal said:
I’ll be frank. I don’t really engage in political argument with republicans that actually matters. You’re free to believe whatever you choose to believe. I believe Democrats should chart their own course irrespective of whatever republicans believe, which is exactly what your side believes.

Bi-partisanship is a myth, a joke, and a distraction from getting things done in today’s body politic.
Click to expand...
deflection on "packing".

I'm not a Republican. i voted for Obama remember? before Libya?
do remember before you sold out and backed Hillary? and now Biden (VP for Obama)

You got a lot of chutzpah playing the partisan game with me, when you sold out years ago
 
dukkha said:
that is not "packing" - McConnell "dreamed it up" (changing Senate Rules) somewhat like Harry Reid changed Senate rules for judicial nominees only requiring a majority, and not the previous 60 vote threshold

no. you are changing the definition to suit your political purpose.

Regardless; Biden's subterfuge here is a smoke screen to PACK THE COURT (number of seats)
which has nothing to do with nominating in the last year of a POTUS!

You can't just change definitions to make what you want to conflate to McConnell /Trump
(appointing to an existing vacancy) to normalize the desire to dilute conservative members by "packing"
Click to expand...

The definition has been backed. It is yours that is alone. However arguing definitions is what Reds do. Biden is exploring it, not doing it. Trump and Mitch stole 2 seats. The Dems historically do not retaliate but try to go back where we were. Biden is thinking about his options.
 
Nordberg said:
The definition has been backed. It is yours that is alone. However arguing definitions is what Reds do. Biden is exploring it, not doing it. Trump and Mitch stole 2 seats. The Dems historically do not retaliate but try to go back where we were. Biden is thinking about his options.
Click to expand...
making shit up is a typical Prog move to the point language is only what you want it to be
such "elasticity" destroys all common parlance.

I gave you the definition -look up "packed"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/packed
filled with a large amount of something. : full of people : filled with as many people as possible.
 
Drummie123 said:
So why the need for additional Justices?

What advantage does that give Democrat-Socialists except to make certain that SCOTUS decisions go their way?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt they will add new Justices on the SC.

Of course the Democrats want SC decisions to go their way. That was the same reason Republicans wanted Trump to have as many appointments as possible--so SC decisions would go their way.

Both sides claimed the president should not make any appointments in a presidential election year but both quickly reversed that position when they had the chance to appoint somebody.
 
blackascoal said:
It doesn’t guarantee anything. Justices typically remain beholden to the ideology of the president who appointed them.
Click to expand...


Presidents have often been disappointed in their SC appointments. Conservatives have been disappointed in Roberts and Trump was disappointed in all his appointments because they did not overturn the election results.

I said if you have term limits it will guarantee more appointments--that has nothing to do with the ideology of those justices.
 
Flash said:
I seriously doubt they will add new Justices on the SC.

Of course the Democrats want SC decisions to go their way. That was the same reason Republicans wanted Trump to have as many appointments as possible--so SC decisions would go their way.

Both sides claimed the president should not make any appointments in a presidential election year but both quickly reversed that position when they had the chance to appoint somebody.
Click to expand...

Oh but Supremes are supposed to be decide on real merits, not politics.
 
dukkha said:
making shit up is a typical Prog move to the point language is only what you want it to be
such "elasticity" destroys all common parlance.

I gave you the definition -look up "packed"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/packed
filled with a large amount of something. : full of people : filled with as many people as possible.
Click to expand...

Making shit up??? Are you serious?

You mean like “democrats stole the election” .. an election you were even close in .. it was a blowout ... lost by more than 7 million votes. This is why I don’t waste time arguing with republicans They make shit up.
 
Flash said:
Presidents have often been disappointed in their SC appointments. Conservatives have been disappointed in Roberts and Trump was disappointed in all his appointments because they did not overturn the election results.

I said if you have term limits it will guarantee more appointments--that has nothing to do with the ideology of those justices.
Click to expand...


Understood. Thanks.
 
Nordberg said:
Oh but Supremes are supposed to be decide on real merits, not politics.
Click to expand...

Real merits often involve political decisions and there are usually real merits on both sides of an issue. And, it also explains why about 50% of cases are decided by a unanimous or near unanimous vote--justices often agree on the merits.
 
Flash said:
I seriously doubt they will add new Justices on the SC.

Of course the Democrats want SC decisions to go their way. That was the same reason Republicans wanted Trump to have as many appointments as possible--so SC decisions would go their way.

Both sides claimed the president should not make any appointments in a presidential election year but both quickly reversed that position when they had the chance to appoint somebody.
Click to expand...

The difference between what Trump did (and which patriots were gladdened by) vs what the Dems are hoping to do, is that the Democrats cheat to win. And they don't care that it is a cheapened and desperate and unfair and dastardly win.

To them it is a win. And that is all that counts.

Malcolm X said, "By ANY means necessary."

By contrast, Trump played within the law and the rules.

If the Dems play within the law instead of trying to revise the law to benefit their awful asperations, I would agree with your first sentence.

If they insist on cheating, I would guess they will succeed.

And when the backlash occurs you will see them try to blame it on the Right.

But THIS changing the # of justices would have been the trigger.

Their cheating and lying and stealing and corruption and etc. will be the reasons for the worst days ahead.

And they do these awful things because they would lose if things were settled by the merits of the ideas.

They got tired of being bested by the better ideas that come from the Right.

So, they figured out how to win by ANY means necessary.

And that's where we are today.
 
Nordberg said:
The definition has been backed. It is yours that is alone. However arguing definitions is what Reds do. Biden is exploring it, not doing it. Trump and Mitch stole 2 seats. The Dems historically do not retaliate but try to go back where we were. Biden is thinking about his options.
Click to expand...

you haven't always been this fucking delusional. are you love drunk on the democrats this go around????
 
Drummie123 said:
The difference between what Trump did (and which patriots were gladdened by) vs what the Dems are hoping to do, is that the Democrats cheat to win. And they don't care that it is a cheapened and desperate and unfair and dastardly win.

To them it is a win. And that is all that counts.

Malcolm X said, "By ANY means necessary."

By contrast, Trump played within the law and the rules.

If the Dems play within the law instead of trying to revise the law to benefit their awful asperations, I would agree with your first sentence.

If they insist on cheating, I would guess they will succeed.

And when the backlash occurs you will see them try to blame it on the Right.

But THIS changing the # of justices would have been the trigger.

Their cheating and lying and stealing and corruption and etc. will be the reasons for the worst days ahead.

And they do these awful things because they would lose if things were settled by the merits of the ideas.

They got tired of being bested by the better ideas that come from the Right.

So, they figured out how to win by ANY means necessary.

And that's where we are today.
Click to expand...


Congress has the power to set the number of justices on the SC and it has varied over the years. While I do not favor such an action, it is certainly not "cheating", illegal, or unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top