A left-wing protester at an antifa Denver rally shot and killed a conservative

Woko Haram said:
It's not activist or authoritarian to desire conservatives on the court to balance out the liberals.
Click to expand...

If you were honest with yourself, and not like trump, Graham, McConnell, etc., you could see that is not what is happening. The goal is to use the Court to win battles (like the elimination of the ACA) that "Conservatives" (and they are not conservatives in any sense of the word) cannot win legislatively. However, the real question has become can one trust the Republicans to keep their word, and the answer is no.

As to "packing the court" (and I was not speaking of adding seats as I have previously said) it is not a question of semantics. Most every word has more then one meaning, or use. You want to use the word in the way that benefits the right, and I wish to use it in a way that benefits the people, and the country.

pack noun
\ ˈpak
\
Definition of pack

(Entry 1 of 4)
1a : a bundle arranged for convenience in carrying especially on the back
b : a group or pile of related objects
c(1) : a number of individual components packaged as a unit a pack of gum
(2) : container
(3) : a compact unitized assembly to perform a specific function
(4) : a stack of magnetic disks in a container for use as a storage device
2a : the contents of a bundle
b : a large amount or number : heap a pack of lies
c : a full set of playing cards
3a : an act or instance of packing
b : a method of packing
4a : a set of persons with a common interest : clique
b : an organized unit (as of Cub Scouts)
5a(1) : a group of domesticated animals trained to hunt or run together
(2) : a group of often predatory animals of the same kind a wolf pack
(3) : a large group of individuals massed together (as in a race)
b : wolf pack
6 : a concentrated or compacted mass (as of snow or ice)
7 : absorbent material (such as gauze pads) used to apply medicine or moisture or to press upon a body part or plug an opening (as to stop bleeding) — see ice pack sense 2
8a : a cosmetic paste for the face
b : an application or treatment of oils or creams for conditioning the scalp and hair
9 : material used in packing

pack verb (1)
packed; packing; packs

Definition of pack (Entry 2 of 4)

transitive verb
1a : to make into a compact bundle
b : to fill completely fans packed the stadium
c : to fill with packing pack a joint in a pipe
d : to load with a pack pack a mule
e : to put in a protective container goods packed for shipment
2a : to crowd together
b : to increase the density of : compress
3a : to cause or command to go without ceremony packed him off to school
b : to bring to an end : give up —used with up or inmight pack up the assignment —used especially in the phrase pack it in
4 : to gather into tight formation : make a pack of (animals, such as hounds)
5 : to cover or surround with a pack
6a : to transport on foot or on the back of an animal pack a canoe overland
b : to wear or carry as equipment pack a gun
c : to be supplied or equipped with : possess a storm packing hurricane winds
d : to make or be capable of making (an impact) a book that packs a man-sized punch— C. J. Rolo

intransitive verb
1a : to go away without ceremony : depart simply packed up and left
b : quit, stop —used with up or inwhy don't you pack in, before you kill yourself— Millard Lampell
2a : to stow goods and equipment for transportation
b : to be suitable for packing a knit dress packs well
3a : to assemble in a group : congregate
b : to crowd together
4 : to become built up or compacted in a layer or mass the ore packed into a stony mass
5a : to carry goods or equipment
b : to travel with one's baggage (as by horse)

pack verb (2)
packed; packing; packs

Definition of pack (Entry 3 of 4)

transitive verb
1 : to influence the composition of so as to bring about a desired result pack a jury
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
If you were honest with yourself, and not like trump, Graham, McConnell, etc., you could see that is not what is happening. The goal is to use the Court to win battles (like the elimination of the ACA) that "Conservatives" (and they are not conservatives in any sense of the word) cannot win legislatively. However, the real question has become can one trust the Republicans to keep their word, and the answer is no.
Click to expand...

The left has used the Court to win plenty of battles in its own right. Roe v. Wade has one of the flimsiest constitutional arguments ever put forward, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. I think abortion should remain legal, but it really has little to no relevance to the Constitution.

Old Trapper said:
As to "packing the court" (and I was not speaking of adding seats as I have previously said) it is not a question of semantics. Most every word has more then one meaning, or use. You want to use the word in the way that benefits the right, and I wish to use it in a way that benefits the people, and the country.
Click to expand...

Adding more Justices to the court doesn't benefit the people, unless the ultimate goal is to render the Court useless over time. I mentioned this in a previous post, but if the Democrats win this election and then add Justices while in power, there's no reason to think the Republicans won't do the same the next time they enter power. So, if the Court continually expands, that means many rulings will go back and forth in a short period of time. The only benefit to that is that it would lower the power of the Court, which I suppose could be seen as beneficial in some respects.
 
Denver ‘Patriot Rally’ shooter railed against Trump on social media

The unlicensed "security guard "accused of fatally shooting a Navy veteran at a Denver “Patriot Rally” railed against President Trump and shared left-wing political content on social media.

Matthew Dolloff‘s ex-girlfriend told reporters she dated Dolloff from 2010 to 2013, and during that time period, the former couple were both heavily involved in Occupy Denver — the local branch of Occupy Wall Street.

Dolloff, 35, a registered DEMOCRAT, includes dozens of political posts on his Facebook profile dating back to 2011 in which he railed against Republicans including President Trump in June 2016, when he shared a screenshot of Trump in a CNN interview, captioning it “F–k this guy.”

A few weeks later, he shared the following encounter, “Ran into a Trump supporter with a Trump Button on their shirt. Told them i like their ‘im a racist’ button. They had nothing to say. ].”

In another photo, he is seen raising his fist above a crowd while holding a folded American flag and wearing a pin that reads “We are the 99%.”

In 2016, Dolloff shared several photos of a Sanders campaign rally, calling for his friends to vote for the progressive candidate.

Dolloff is facing first-degree murder charges in the shooting death of Lee Keltner, 49, who was shot once in the head by Dolloff following a confrontation after a “Patriot Rally” demonstration in the Mile High City.



https://nypost.com/2020/10/13/denver-patriot-rally-shooter-railed-against-trump-on-social-media/
 
Woko Haram said:
The left has used the Court to win plenty of battles in its own right. Roe v. Wade has one of the flimsiest constitutional arguments ever put forward, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. I think abortion should remain legal, but it really has little to no relevance to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I am not pro-choice, and believe the choice was made when the two laid down together to have sex. Abortions have always been legal in this country, and Roe did not change that. There are exceptional cases which are not applied in todays society.

Adding more Justices to the court doesn't benefit the people, unless the ultimate goal is to render the Court useless over time. I mentioned this in a previous post, but if the Democrats win this election and then add Justices while in power, there's no reason to think the Republicans won't do the same the next time they enter power. So, if the Court continually expands, that means many rulings will go back and forth in a short period of time. The only benefit to that is that it would lower the power of the Court, which I suppose could be seen as beneficial in some respects.
Click to expand...

Once again, I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT ADDING JUSTICES
 
Old Trapper said:
I am not pro-choice, and believe the choice was made when the two laid down together to have sex. Abortions have always been legal in this country, and Roe did not change that. There are exceptional cases which are not applied in todays society.
Click to expand...

What Roe changed is that it turned abortion into a federal issue. Before Roe, it was a state issue in which some states either made it illegal outright or heavily restricted it.

Old Trapper said:
Once again, I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT ADDING JUSTICES
Click to expand...

And what is your stance regarding Court confirmations?
 
Woko Haram said:
And what is your stance regarding Court confirmations?
Click to expand...

I would prefer more moderates that actually follow the Constitution unlike what has occurred in Roe, of Heller. The idea that the Republicans are packing the lower Courts with unqualified nominees, and SCOTUS with ideologues, simply based on the idea that they are an attorney, and ideologues, goes against the grain of 200 years of tradition.
 
Woko Haram said:
The phrase "packing the court" goes back to FDR. He tried adding more Justices to the Court, and thankfully, he failed. Given that context, there is no other way to interpret the phrase unless you're specifically trying to muddy the issue.

Granted, the left loves to redefine things. Racism used to mean judging people by the color of their skin, and now, it apparently doesn't apply if you're judging white people by the color of their skin.
Click to expand...
Dutch Uncle said:
Woko Haram said:
You keep using that phrase, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

When you said "pack the court", that literally means adding Justices. That's why I brought it up. Now, I understand if maybe you thought that had to do with replacing Justices, but it doesn't. So, I'm not moving the goalposts -- I'm directly responding to what you just wrote.
Click to expand...
It also means making all 9 justices Catholic anti-abortion, anti-gay RWers. Dude, you're guilty of projecting.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. "Packing the court", as used by Congress, is exactly as you said: adding Justices. I disagree with the practice because it doesn't serve a long term purpose. If the Democrats add two or four more Justices during a possible Democrat dominated government under Biden, Schumer and Pelosi, what is to stop a Republican dominated government at a later date? Nothing. Theoretically, we could end up with 21 or 51 Justices by the end of the century. Congress was right to turn down the idea.

Given how closely the government is "packed" with both Democrats and Republicans, it doesn't seem possible either side can pack the court with more Justices.
 
Old Trapper said:
I would prefer more moderates that actually follow the Constitution unlike what has occurred in Roe, of Heller. The idea that the Republicans are packing the lower Courts with unqualified nominees, and SCOTUS with ideologues, simply based on the idea that they are an attorney, and ideologues, goes against the grain of 200 years of tradition.
Click to expand...

And you didn't notice the "tradition" of the Democrats doing the same?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I stand corrected. "Packing the court", as used by Congress, is exactly as you said: adding Justices. I disagree with the practice because it doesn't serve a long term purpose. If the Democrats add two or four more Justices during a possible Democrat dominated government under Biden, Schumer and Pelosi, what is to stop a Republican dominated government at a later date? Nothing. Theoretically, we could end up with 21 or 51 Justices by the end of the century. Congress was right to turn down the idea.

Given how closely the government is "packed" with both Democrats and Republicans, it doesn't seem possible either side can pack the court with more Justices.
Click to expand...

It really depends on how this election goes. Under current rules put forth by Harry Reid and his friends, you can't filibuster confirmation hearings, and only a simple majority in the Senate is needed to confirm a Justice.

So, if Biden wins, and the Democrats get a simple majority in the Senate, then yes, they could easily pack the court. Normally, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they wouldn't try to do this with a majority due to what you mentioned, but today's Democrats have the foresight of a 4 year old. They will likely open Pandora's box if they win the presidency and the Senate.
 
Old Trapper said:
Name a Democrat nominee that was not qualified.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...nfirming-unqualified-judicial-nominees-law360
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association#Rating_of_judicial_nominees

The ABA has a left slant, so I'm not surprised they would label some on the right as "not qualified."

I should have clarified my original post, however. I was focused on the part of your post that mentioned ideological bias. Both parties have played politics with the courts for a while now.
 
Woko Haram said:
Name a Republican one that wasn't.
Click to expand...

I knew you were just blowing smoke out of your ass the moment you posted. It is all you low IQ types can do. Your gawd trump becamme the second President to end the ABA ratings for Federal judgeships the first being Bush:

"During his eight years office, President Obama didn’t nominate a single individual who received a “not qualified” ABA rating. In contrast, in just four years President Trump has nominated nine individuals rated “not qualified” to serve as federal judges.

Of those nine nominees, seven were confirmed for lifetime appointments to the bench, including three that Senate Republicans jammed through last year: Justin Walker, Sarah Pitlyk and Lawrence VanDyke. Judiciary Committee Democrats opposed all three nominees, and the ABA ratings factored in those decisions.

Regarding Walker and Pitlyk, nominated to trial courts in the Western District of Kentucky and Eastern District of Missouri respectively, the ABA noted a complete lack of trial experience for each. Walker was then elevated to a seat on the DC Circuit Court just seven months later, despite the fact he hadn’t presided over a single bench or jury trial since his confirmation to the district court.

For VanDyke, nominated to a Nevada seat on the 9th Circuit, the ABA raised significant concerns regarding his temperament, work ethic and ability to be impartial."
 
Old Trapper said:
I knew you were just blowing smoke out of your ass the moment you posted. It is all you low IQ types can do. Your gawd trump becamme the second President to end the ABA ratings for Federal judgeships the first being Bush:

"During his eight years office, President Obama didn’t nominate a single individual who received a “not qualified” ABA rating. In contrast, in just four years President Trump has nominated nine individuals rated “not qualified” to serve as federal judges.

Of those nine nominees, seven were confirmed for lifetime appointments to the bench, including three that Senate Republicans jammed through last year: Justin Walker, Sarah Pitlyk and Lawrence VanDyke. Judiciary Committee Democrats opposed all three nominees, and the ABA ratings factored in those decisions.

Regarding Walker and Pitlyk, nominated to trial courts in the Western District of Kentucky and Eastern District of Missouri respectively, the ABA noted a complete lack of trial experience for each. Walker was then elevated to a seat on the DC Circuit Court just seven months later, despite the fact he hadn’t presided over a single bench or jury trial since his confirmation to the district court.

For VanDyke, nominated to a Nevada seat on the 9th Circuit, the ABA raised significant concerns regarding his temperament, work ethic and ability to be impartial."
Click to expand...

And again, given the bias of the ABA, their ratings aren't particularly meaningful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top