Balancing the Supreme Court

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not sure if he is, but that was an embarrassment. When it comes to voting rights, Roberts is right there on the wrong side with the rest of them. Voter suppression is now fully supported by the Supreme Court.

Do you understand the difference between those who pass the laws and those who deem whether laws are Constitutional?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Bottom line, disregarding ethics, traditions, or precedent, Mitch pretty much established "cause we can" as the guiding "principle" in the Senate

they can as the majority in the senate.

you don't understand things. you're basically dumb.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Do you understand the difference between those who pass the laws and those who deem whether laws are Constitutional?

you got in bed with these halfwits.

 

[countryboy]

Yes, I had the first name of the nominee wrong. WOW!!!!! You got me. I have no idea what else you said. That was so stupid I didn't bother to read the rest.

Oh, you read it, you just ran away because you're too stupid to refute it.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

Oh that sounds so fair and reasonable, but.............

If the roles were 100% reversed, would the democrat party have acted any differently?

For example: Republican President and and democrat party run Senate. Would Schumer have held a hearing and confirmed right before an election?

And

democrat party President and Senate two months before election? Would they fill the seat or wait for the election?

Answer those questions and then we can discuss

 

[archives]

they can as the majority in the senate.

you don't understand things. you're basically dumb.

You just proved my point, “cause they can” is the right’s guiding principle.

Supreme Court Justices weren’t approved traditionally because one party felt “cause they can,” but rather due to the candidate’s qualifications, that’s why more than a simple majority vote was needed to get one approved. Beer Ball and Amy would have never made it thru a prior Senate, but Mitch did away with all that, and it will be his legacy, anything flies “cause they can,” but with comes the reality that what goes around comes around

 

[Concart]

Do you understand the difference between those who pass the laws and those who deem whether laws are Constitutional?

Yes I do. I find it incredibly ironic that so many 'states rights' advocates can't wait to step in and tell a state that they can't set the rules for their election process. It's amazing how they find religion when it comes to voter suppression. There is no evidence that widespread voter fraud occurs. But it appears those on the Supreme Court would rather deny thousands of their right to vote to prevent 1 person from potentially casting an illegal vote. I find that abhorrent. And Kavanaughs opinion that spoke of 'flipping' an election with late votes is as partisan as it comes.

 

[Concart]

cuz you consider I.d. voter suppression. you're dumb.

Correct. Because it is. It is intended to make voting more difficult, particularly for those who may not be able to secure a government issued ID. And not because they aren't entitled to one.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You just proved my point, “cause they can” is the right’s guiding principle.

Supreme Court Justices weren’t approved traditionally because one party felt “cause they can,” but rather due to the candidate’s qualifications, that’s why more than a simple majority vote was needed to get one approved. Beer Ball and Amy would have never made it thru a prior Senate, but Mitch did away with all that, and it will be his legacy, anything flies “cause they can,” but with comes the reality that what goes around comes around

they can because they won the seats in the senate required to do so. this is our system. grow the fuck up, tard.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Correct. Because it is. It is intended to make voting more difficult, particularly for those who may not be able to secure a government issued ID. And not because they aren't entitled to one.

it's called security, ya dumb fucktard.

 

[Concart]

it's called security, ya dumb fucktard.

Nonsense. It is a solution looking for a problem. The risk/reward of illegal voting is more than sufficient to prevent fraud. Evidence of that is the fact that there isn't any. Can you get through a single post without namecalling? Or is that what you use in place of intelligence?

 

[Concart]

Do you understand the difference between those who pass the laws and those who deem whether laws are Constitutional?

And as a followup, what part of counting a vote that was received after election day is unconstitutional. Can you point me to the section of the constitution that you believe is being violated with that law?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Nonsense. It is a solution looking for a problem. The risk/reward of illegal voting is more than sufficient to prevent fraud. Evidence of that is the fact that there isn't any. Can you get through a single post without namecalling? Or is that what you use in place of intelligence?

what's the risk reward of illegal voting, nonce?

 

[Concart]

what's the risk reward of illegal voting, nonce?

Commit a felony to cast an extra vote. Who is stupid enough to do that? I mean, besides you.

 

[Ralph]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

Who are you attempting to convince that its OK to garner power under any circumstance through any means necessary? YOURSELF? Admit it.........you are watching the Marxist Mocking Bird Left die in front of your own eyes. You are supporting an old rich white senile white man with a demonstrable record of corruption with direct ties to a perverted Son dealing in drugs and child trafficking and you don't bat an eye.

You mean attempt to change the rules again because you can't win under the precedented rules? The false premise? You are not sure if you will ever win another national election after the corruptness exposed in 2020. Just look around........everything about your party is corrupt, hell you are having difficulties even with the media, the FBI, the NSA, Wall Street, BIG TECH, the CIA, CHINA and the world banks carrying your water bucket.

Your post is simply a sign of DESPERATION.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

No reason for a court to have balance. 100% strict constructionists would be perfect.

 

[Yakuda]

No reason for a court to have balance. 100% strict constructionists would be perfect.

A "balanced" court is another one of these leftist fabrications like "social" justice, "unconscious" racism, "micro" aggressions, "safe spaces". Just more tired old made up shit by leftist cockroaches.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Commit a felony to cast an extra vote. Who is stupid enough to do that? I mean, besides you.

so there is no voter fraud because it's illegal? there's no homosexuals in iran either, ahmedinijad said so.

 

[christiefan915]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your statement but if RW’s are gloating the court will move to the right, and you say Biden would appoint someone more moderate to replace Breyer, what are RW’s not taking into account?

You are absolutely right and I was wrong. I was looking at the ages of the justices and jumped the gun, should have said Thomas, not Breyer.

You know what they say about screwing up, cawacko... go big or go home.

(Actually "they" didn't say that, I just made it up.)

 

[christiefan915]

Hello christiefan915,

What am I missing here?

Breyer is one of the remaining 3 liberals on the Court. If he's considering retirement, he would be wise to do it when Democrats have the WH AND the Senate, seeing as how the SCOTUS has now become a political football, thanks to the Republicans.

You didn't miss anything, I did. I screwed up. My head was saying "Thomas" but my hand was typing "Breyer."

<sigh> It's been a long four years.