April 9, 20214 yr 12 minutes ago, Freedom 76 said: JohnSnowsHair, All of you here don't know how lucky you are!!!!! Explain.
April 9, 20214 yr Author 9 minutes ago, Freedom 76 said: What other U.S. President would have met twice with Lil Kim about improving his people's standard of living. Schmoebama would never move the U.S.Embassy to Jerusalem, Israels capital. .Trump would not have made an apology tour and kiss the ring ( or a body part below the waist) of the Arabs.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 28 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Predictable court packing incoming It's just a commission at this point, but regardless of what it recommends, I honestly doubt they'd be able to get expansion through the Senate, at least not until 2023 at the earliest. Manchin will block it.
April 10, 20214 yr 11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: It's just a commission at this point, but regardless of what it recommends, I honestly doubt they'd be able to get expansion through the Senate, at least not until 2023 at the earliest. Manchin will block it. If he is smart but i suspect he will cave to party pressure
April 10, 20214 yr I don't like packing the court. Supreme Court is the one branch of government I have faith in still. Would set a bad precedent and politicize this country even more. It would be an every election cycle issue as opposed to a once every few. I say this knowing Trump and repubs jammed one through and didn't agree with that. It's the one check and balance that I like.
April 10, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, rambo said: I don't like packing the court. Supreme Court is the one branch of government I have faith in still. Would set a bad precedent and politicize this country even more. It would be an every election cycle issue as opposed to a once every few. I say this knowing Trump and repubs jammed one through and didn't agree with that. It's the one check and balance that I like. Biden will placate the extreme, but he is too much of a believer in the sanctity of institutions to pack the court. Look for Breyer to retire soon for sure.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 5 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Biden will placate the extreme, but he is too much of a believer in the sanctity of institutions to pack the court. Look for Breyer to retire soon for sure. Pretty much.
April 10, 20214 yr 6 hours ago, rambo said: Freedom 35 is where it's at. Right @Dawkins 20? Sebastian Bach needs an account on here!
April 10, 20214 yr 8 hours ago, rambo said: I don't like packing the court. Supreme Court is the one branch of government I have faith in still. Would set a bad precedent and politicize this country even more. It would be an every election cycle issue as opposed to a once every few. I say this knowing Trump and repubs jammed one through and didn't agree with that. It's the one check and balance that I like. it is a really bad look even if it is just optics. It is just too close to a playing with fire type scenario.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: it is a really bad look even if it is just optics. It is just too close to a playing with fire type scenario. What did Republicans expect to happen after they pulled their despicable moves with Garland and Barrett? The optics are totally appropriate, whether the move itself would be effective or worthwhile, well, that's another debate altogether.
April 10, 20214 yr 12 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: What did Republicans expect to happen after they pulled their despicable moves with Garland and Barrett? The optics are totally appropriate, whether the move itself would be effective or worthwhile, well, that's another debate altogether. I don’t care what the Repubs expected. I care about what is good for the country. Flirting with SCOTUS arms race expansion isn’t good for the country. I stand by my position. The optics are really bad, for the country.
April 10, 20214 yr Another commission coming soon. Biden’s going down his checklist. As far as SCOTUS commission, let it play out. Could find 9 is right number. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-that-could-lead-to-slavery-reparations-proposals-may-be-nearing-debate-on-house-floor/
April 10, 20214 yr Author 10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I stand by my position. The optics are really bad, for the country. The optics are that if you steal a SCOTUS seat, you can expect a remedy to be sought. There's a major difference in that what the Reps. did was a naked abuse of power if not an outright rejection of Constitutional obligations. They basically broke the law. In this case, no law is being broken. This is a coerective measure that has essentially been foisted upon the Democrats by a band of unscrupulous fascists who will do anything to expand the outsized power of their increasingly radical minority. The Court has been larger than 9 justices before, I don't exactly think the sky would be falling it were once again.
April 10, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The optics are that if you steal a SCOTUS seat, you can expect a remedy to be sought. There's a major difference in that what the Reps. did was a naked abuse of power if not an outright rejection of Constitutional obligations. They basically broke the law. In this case, no law is being broken. This is a coerective measure that has essentially been foisted upon the Democrats by a band of unscrupulous fascists who will do anything to expand the outsized power of their increasingly radical minority. The Court has been larger than 9 justices before, I don't exactly think the sky would be falling it were once again. They didn’t break a law. They abused power. Starting an arms race with expansion would be the exact same type of abuse of power measure. Two wrongs don’t make a right. My position holds. This is bad for the country just as the Repub rush was bad last fall.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: They didn’t break a law. They abused power. Starting an arms race with expansion would be the exact same type of abuse of power measure. Two wrongs don’t make a right. My position holds. This is bad for the country just as the Repub rush was bad last fall. Yes, they did break the law. Article II, Section 2: Quote he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for There is no "can appoint" or "may appoint'" It's shall appoint, and by extension Congress shall hold a hearing on such nominations in a timely manner. The word "shall" is operative; it is absolute. By REFUSING to allow the President at the time to make an appointment and blocking even so much as a hearing for nearly an entire calendar year, Mitch and his band of merry traitors broke the law. Comparatively, Congress is well within its rights to pass a Judiciary Act and alter the size of the Court at any time. It's hard to argue that this is an abuse of power (and it is certainly not the "exact same" kind of move anyway), especially in light of recent events. It is is merely a use of power which, even if unorthodox, is fully legal and being done in the interest of preserving a proper balance on the bench.
April 10, 20214 yr 11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yes, they did break the law. Article II, Section 2: There is no "can appoint" or "may appoint'" It's shall appoint, and by extension Congress shall hold a hearing on such nominations in a timely manner. The word "shall" is operative; it is absolute. By REFUSING to allow the President at the time to make an appointment and blocking even so much as a hearing for nearly an entire calendar year, Mitch and his band of merry traitors broke the law. Comparatively, Congress is well within its rights to pass a Judiciary Act and alter the size of the Court at any time. It's hard to argue that this is an abuse of power (and it is certainly not the "exact same" kind of move anyway), especially in light of recent events. It is is merely a use of power which, even if unorthodox, is fully legal and being done in the interest of preserving a proper balance on the bench. Debatable behavior from a legal standpoint back in ‘16 but none the less starting an arms race now is not a healthy solution. It makes things far worse. It is just plain bad. It is absolutely an abuse of power. I have no doubt you’d see it that way if the tables were turned.
April 10, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yes, they did break the law. Article II, Section 2: There is no "can appoint" or "may appoint'" It's shall appoint, and by extension Congress shall hold a hearing on such nominations in a timely manner. The word "shall" is operative; it is absolute. By REFUSING to allow the President at the time to make an appointment and blocking even so much as a hearing for nearly an entire calendar year, Mitch and his band of merry traitors broke the law. Comparatively, Congress is well within its rights to pass a Judiciary Act and alter the size of the Court at any time. It's hard to argue that this is an abuse of power (and it is certainly not the "exact same" kind of move anyway), especially in light of recent events. It is is merely a use of power which, even if unorthodox, is fully legal and being done in the interest of preserving a proper balance on the bench. You know that's not what it would be used for. It would turn into another arm of congress getting their judges in to support whatever they would put forth. The SCOTUS becomes 100% partisan. Once you set the precedent than dems when in control expand to get their judges on board, repubs take back control and will then expand further to get their judges on to balance it out. Right now it's an issue that comes up once and a while. It will be an issue every 2-4 years.
April 10, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, rambo said: You know that's not what it would be used for. It would turn into another arm of congress getting their judges in to support whatever they would put forth. The SCOTUS becomes 100% partisan. Once you set the precedent than dems when in control expand to get their judges on board, repubs take back control and will then expand further to get their judges on to balance it out. Right now it's an issue that comes up once and a while. It will be an issue every 2-4 years. Exactly. This move would be very damaging to the country. Even throwing it out there as a serious idea is hurtful. There really isn’t any debate.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Debatable behavior back in ‘16 but none the less starting an arms race now is not a healthy solution. It makes things far worse. It is just plain bad. My issue here is that it never ends. Like, I can respect your position in theory, but it never works out in reality that people think, "Well, we did some shady stuff, but the Dems really tried their best to not turn it around on us, so maybe we should behave better now." Good deeds are not returned; it just doesn't work that way. Every time the Dems refuse to take more aggressive actions like this, they just cede more leverage and lose more power the next time around. It never works out in their favor to take the high road. I wish it were otherwise. There are real questions right now of just how much longer we can take a passive approach in the interest of "lowering the temperature" before we're totally prostrate and at the mercy of an authoritarian minority that has a stranglehold on all the levers of power.
April 10, 20214 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: My issue here is that it never ends. Like, I can respect your position in theory, but it never works out in reality that people think "Well, we did some shady stuff, but the Dems really tried their best to not turn it around on us, so maybe we should behave better now." It just doesn't work that way. Everytime the Dems refuse to take more aggressive actions like this, they just ceded more leverage and lose more power the next time around. It never works out in their favor to take the high road. I wish it were otherwise. There are real questions right now of just how much longer we can take a passive approach in the interest of "lowering the temperature" before we're totally prostrate and at the mercy of an authoritarian minority that has a stranglehold on all the levers of power. So your solution is to escalate the battle doing real damage to the country in the meantime. Not good.
April 10, 20214 yr Let's be honest, even the SCOTUS members Trump appointed have performed their jobs the way you would expect a judge to perform it. HE probably expected they would cater to his whims, but they didn't. I mean a bunch of members (both dems and repugs) of this very board thought if the election ended up being contested, they would just give it to him. Look how that turned out. I think the SCOTUS is fine the way it is configured now. Hopfully this commission comes to the same conclusion.
Create an account or sign in to comment