Left wants to pack the Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t act like the right would never consider it in the same position. :roll_eyes:
 
Beryllos said:
Agreed. However, it’s the right that’s overreacting, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I suspect that even with a democratic president and a slim democratic majority in the senate, calmer heads would prevail and not pack the court, which would only lead to an ever-expanding court. Enough calmer heads from his own party prevailed when FDR tried.

Maye they learned something from the nuclear option and filibusters . . .

But then, a lot of them now want to abolish the filibuster, so . . .

With a large majority, I expect the packing would happen. I also think that today’s house would do it . . .

(and personally, I’d like to see the silly “declared” filibuster tossed out on its ear and go back to requiring actual filibusters . . .)
Beryllos said:
A future President might nominate additional justices, and a future Senate might confirm them.
Click to expand...
The size of the court would first have to be changed by law (which is clearly within Congress’ power).
 
If you think Trump received the same treatment that most people would then I don’t know what to say to you. We know from death rates for the elderly that it really isn’t as much of a non-issue as lots of people want to pretend.

You’re a small business owner, right?
 
Oh yeah? Cuz early projections were estimating that as many as 2 million could die from Covid. However, Trump did take the necessary actions and prevented this, but your idiot nominee suggested Trump banning flights from China was “xenophobic” and “racist.” Oh, and then, that idiot governor of New York decided to put sick people in nursing homes and that really piled up the death toll. The Covid deaths are all the Democrats faults, and you’re attempting to shift the blame to Trump so you don’t have to take accountability for that. Nobody likes your party, your party is evil and corrupt, and has proven once again how much it hates America. However, WE THE PEOPLE of the United States stand behind OUR president.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, this is also true in Britain and other countries where there are no Democratic states.

After all, as @dochawk has mentioned, this is the World News section, not US Politics.
 
Last edited:
Canadian Prime Ministers also like to appoint Supreme Court justices. Big difference though, they must retire at 75, and moreover can be removed earlier for incapacitation by the Governor General, on order from Parliament, or by their own choice to retire earlier. So “packing”, should it happen, is not forever, and likely not as long as in the US.

And BTW isn’t what Trump did also trying to “pack” the Supreme Court? Seems to me it isn’t only the “left” that use these tricks…
 
OraLabora said:
And BTW isn’t what Trump did also trying to “pack” the Supreme Court? Seems to me it isn’t only the “left” that use these tricks…
Click to expand...
No, nor was Obama’s attempt four years earlier.

Vacancies open, presidents nominate, and the senate consents or declines.

No senate has confirmed the appointment of a president of the other party in 140 years, while five democratic appointments were confirmed by democratic senates in the 20th century.

“Court packing” means changing the size of the court to change the political balance. It comes from FDR (who in fact made two of the election year appointments) attempting to change the law to add enough “junior justices” to let him appoint six (!!) and win 9-6 instead of losing 6-3.

(now, other than a political compromise between the parties, a bill to increase the size for the remainder of the current same-party president’s term, and then reduce to current size would be a particularly evil court packing scheme . . .[when Congress reduces the size, the current members all remain, as happened when it dropped from 10 to 9, and the next retirement(s) don’t cause appointments])
 
Regular_Atheist said:
If you think Trump received the same treatment that most people would then I don’t know what to say to you.
Click to expand...
Obviously he received better care. But the three people over 65 I knew who got COVID felt rough for a few days and then were fine. So either way my experiences tell me that it’s not as bad as it’s being made out to be.
Regular_Atheist said:
You’re a small business owner, right?
Click to expand...
Sure am
 
RhodesianSon said:
Obviously he received better care. But the three people over 65 I knew who got COVID felt rough for a few days and then were fine. So either way my experiences tell me that it’s not as bad as it’s being made out to be.
Click to expand...
Completely anecdotal.
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
RhodesianSon:
So either way my experiences tell me that it’s not as bad as it’s being made out to be.
Click to expand...
Just the same I prefer to limit my exposure, thanks.
Click to expand...
I agree with both of you.
 
OraLabora said:
40.png
RhodesianSon:
Obviously he received better care. But the three people over 65 I knew who got COVID felt rough for a few days and then were fine. So either way my experiences tell me that it’s not as bad as it’s being made out to be.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Same here, I have family members who had it, and currently one relative still has it. Rough few days and then ok, all above the age of 50. Only one was admitted to the hospital, it was early this year, when everyone got hospitalized. And what I hear from friends is the same. A case of a bad flu, they explain.

It is still a dangerous virus, I think the hype created by the media which I often criticize, actually helped keep the virus in check.
 
Court-Packing.

The leftists now re-defining the term.

Make counter-accusations.

Project their own bad traits upon others.

Attack those “others”.

.
Published 3 hours ago

Coons says that confirming Barrett ‘constitutes court-packing,’ Sasse responds that’s ‘obviously’ incorrect​

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Barrett are set to start Monday​

Tyler Olson FoxNews

Democratic senator provides insight into how they will try to keep Judge Amy Coney Barrett off the Supreme Court.

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chris Coons said on Sunday that the Senate moving to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “constitutes court-packing,” . . . .

. . . Court-packing’s traditional definition is expanding the Supreme Court by law and then confirming justices to those seats, not what Republicans are doing, which is filling a naturally occurring vacancy. Sasse shot back that Coons’ definition of court-packing was “obviously” incorrect and accused the Democrat of using “Orwellian” language.

“Claiming that court-packing is filling open vacancies that obviously isn’t what court-packing means,” Sasse said. He also called it “grotesque” that Joe Biden is refusing to answer the “really basic question” of whether or not he will support court-packing as president. Biden has been asked many times his stance on the issue and has refused to answer one way or another. Biden Friday was asked whether or not voters “deserve to know” if he would pack the court, to which he responded, “[n]o they don’t.”

“What they’re really talking about is the suicide bombing two branches of government,” Sasse added, noting that if Senate Democrats – should they get a majority and Joe Biden be elected president – were to attempt to pack the Supreme Court they would likely have to do away with the legislative filibuster as well. . . . .
Click to expand...

.

No doubt Coons could find some definition or something somewhere on the internet to “support” his REDEFINITION of Court-Packing. That won’t make his redefinition any more true.

Court-Packing is evidently what the national leftists want to do if they cannot have their way.

See also . . .

 
Last edited:
Wait!

You mean those “spiritually” lead populist voted for a man twice divorced with five kids from three wives, who paid off a Porn Star & Playboy Playmate; for intentions other than an attempt to “Pack the Court”?

Those on the Democratic side of the opinion spectrum have paid the price for their apathy towards elections. They had a candidate significantly ahead in the polls (2016). Yet lost surprisingly due to low voter turn-out.

The truth is that Trump caught “lightening in a bottle” with the 2016 election; even Trump did not expect to have any chance at winning. Less than thirty percent of eligible voters participated in the primaries. Trump not being a “Real” Republican meant that he did not have the support of the party.

There is a good chance that we will see a change next month.

For the future, the smart person would move towards compromise and “working” with both sides of the aisle. There is a “Shellacking” coming and the current tribalism being expressed is only going to make the pain feel worse.

Regarding “Packing” -

I personally believe that we would have more suitable outcomes if we had a balance court - I know; wishful thinking. But, remember in the original 1973 court ruling, Bill (William) Brennan - was the only Catholic and he ruled in favor of Roe Vs Wade.

Careful what you wish for….
 
For the record, until Scalia passed, there were six Catholics sitting on the SC. Justice Gorsuch, his replacement, grew up Catholic but later turned Protestant. Kavanaugh is also Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top