6 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, we don't care. It is called politics and they don't have to play fair.  Everyone has switched sides from what they said 4 years ago, but the GOP has the power to jam her through and they should. Too bad. 

Yep, and the Dems can just come in next year and expand the Supreme Court.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

Yep, and the Dems can just come in next year and expand the Supreme Court.

I'm sure that'll be the only time it's done, just that once by the Dems.

"In a landmark decision today and by the slim margin of 151 to 150, the Supreme Court...

1 minute ago, PoconoDon said:

I'm sure that'll be the only time it's done, just that once by the Dems.

"In a landmark decision today and by the slim margin of 151 to 150, the Supreme Court...

I didn't say it was a good idea. It's a terrible idea.

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I didn't say it was a good idea. It's a terrible idea.

I didn't think you were advocating for the idea. You also may not be wrong either. Terrible ideas seem to catch on in D.C.

11 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

And Sotomayor and Kagan are intellectual lightweights

Says the guy who can't discern the difference between passing legislation and shirking Constitutional mandates.

Susan Collins is doomed in Maine even if she advocates waiting until after the election.  She’s trailing by double-digits in the polls.

Just putting it out there that the Court has had more than 9 justices before, albeit briefly.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Just putting it out there that the Court has had more than 9 justices before, albeit briefly.

FDR tried to expand the Court after winning reelection in 1936.  It did end up costing him politically because Republicans were able to win seats back in Congress afterwards.

24 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

FDR tried to expand the Court after winning reelection in 1936.  It did end up costing him politically because Republicans were able to win seats back in Congress afterwards.

Yes, but it actually had 10 justices for a short time in the 1860s.

3 hours ago, wyote said:

Dr. Philly doesn't even ask. He just grabs that sandwich by the bread. And they let him get away with it. 

When you're a Swede, they let you do it.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Yes, but it actually had 10 justices for a short time in the 1860s.

They also did other crazy stuff in the 1860s like starting to print paper money and setting up an income tax.  Oh, and that Civil War thing...

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

Yep, and the Dems can just come in next year and expand the Supreme Court.

It is interesting that the Dems have consistently escalated the tactics in controlling the judiciary, from FDR to Bork to the nuclear option. I have little doubt they’ll do it again.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

When you're a Swede, they let you do it.

Especially if you're a Blue Swede and you're "Hooked on a feeling."

 

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

It is interesting that the Dems have consistently escalated the tactics in controlling the judiciary, from FDR to Bork to the nuclear option. I have little doubt they’ll do it again.

Abe Fortas says hello.

I don't think Biden has the cojones or the intestinal fortitude to try to expand the court. Fox News will spend half a day objecting and he'll wuss out. He's basically a Reagan-era Republican anyway -- Reagan was more liberal than Biden is, unless you can imagine Biden giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, signing arms control deals with Russia, and ballooning the deficit in order to play Santa Claus -- so why would he even want to put up a fight? He's somewhere to the right of Obama, who was somewhere to the right of Clinton, who was somewhere to the right of Carter, who was somewhere to the right of Johnson, who was the last Democrat actually willing to fight for anything. On most real issues aside -- i.e. not BS cultural stuff -- Eisenhower was probably to the left of all the Democratic POTUSes since Johnson except maybe Carter. So the court probably suits Biden just fine, or if it doesn't, it won't upset him enough not to be content to wait for spots to open naturally. 

It is easier for me to imagine a Bernie-style progressive winning in 2024 (I'll euphemistically guess that Biden won't be running for re-election -- though I could imagine Trump trying to run for a third term) and trying to expand the court, and/or trying to impeach one of the sitting justices. (Given the way the country is going, I'm guessing that one of them will have had a sexual scandal by then, if not an actual bribery scandal.) 

 

2 hours ago, Paul852 said:

Yep, and the Dems can just come in next year and expand the Supreme Court.

They can try, but that will be contested in the courts too. Will be interesting. 

43 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Susan Collins is doomed in Maine even if she advocates waiting until after the election.  She’s trailing by double-digits in the polls.

She is doomed if she doesn't cause conservatives won't back her. 

37 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

When you're a Swede, they let you do it.

When you're a Swede they grab you by the sandwich.  Get it right dude.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

She is doomed if she doesn't cause conservatives won't back her. 

She’s done regardless is my point.  She’s damaged herself beyond repair.

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

She’s done regardless is my point.  She’s damaged herself beyond repair.

Oh well 

45 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

When you're a Swede, they let you do it.

Me whenever Dr Philly makes a post

 

53 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Abe Fortas says hello.

 

So we are in favor of private interests paying SCOTUS members now?

22 minutes ago, TEW said:

 

So we are in favor of private interests paying SCOTUS members now?

You brought up Robert Bork, right?  I mean...

42 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Me whenever Dr Philly makes a post

 

Aren't you getting tired of that tripe by now?

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Aren't you getting tired of that tripe by now?

You’re like de Tocqueville.  Now just tell us how to fix it.