Balancing the Supreme Court

Concart said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you propose is court packing, even if it is just one seat...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What you propose is court packing, even if it is just one seat...
Click to expand...

Then remove Gorsuch and replace him with Garland. I'm fine with that. The point is that the Senates failure to fulfill their constitutional duty needs to be corrected. That is not a partisan statement.
 
Concart said:
Then remove Gorsuch and replace him with Garland. I'm fine with that. The point is that the Senates failure to fulfill their constitutional duty needs to be corrected. That is not a partisan statement.
Click to expand...

The Senate can act on a nomination or not. If the Democrats controlled the Senate then he'd have been put on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate now ACB wouldn't get a hearing. That's the non-partisan reality and truth of this.
 
Concart said:
Then remove Gorsuch and replace him with Garland. I'm fine with that. The point is that the Senates failure to fulfill their constitutional duty needs to be corrected. That is not a partisan statement.
Click to expand...

Why? Prove they didn't fulfill their "constitutional duty".
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Senate can act on a nomination or not. If the Democrats controlled the Senate then he'd have been put on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate now ACB wouldn't get a hearing. That's the non-partisan reality and truth of this.
Click to expand...

Exactly what these fucking morons won't admit. They would do EXACTLY the same thing and not a single one of the cockroaches can deny it.
 
Concart said:
Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court,
Click to expand...
Correct.

Concart said:
but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination.
Click to expand...
Wrong. They legitimately decided against confirming him (and to not even bother with hearings).

Concart said:
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).
Click to expand...
Not how it works... Biden will not be President... It is already a 5-4 split as far as I am concerned (Roberts sides with the liberals far too often)...

Concart said:
Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Chuck Schumer is not going to be Senate majority leader... You libtards are quite delusional...

If you take a look at Biden's campaign movements atm, Dems already know that they have lost the Presidency and the Senate; they are just fighting to retain control of the House at this point, and who knows if they'll even be able to manage THAT...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Senate can act on a nomination or not. If the Democrats controlled the Senate then he'd have been put on the court. If the Democrats controlled the Senate now ACB wouldn't get a hearing. That's the non-partisan reality and truth of this.
Click to expand...

No, the Constitution says they must act on a nomination. And they failed to do that. The only partisan here is you. It doesn't matter who controls what. The President nominates, the Senate considers. The Senate failed. Simple as that.

Democrats would be wrong in not giving Barrett a hearing. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no issue with the process used to seat Barrett.
 
Concart said:
No, the Constitution says they must act on a nomination. And they failed to do that. The only partisan here is you. It doesn't matter who controls what. The President nominates, the Senate considers. The Senate failed. Simple as that.

Democrats would be wrong in not giving Barrett a hearing. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no issue with the process used to seat Barrett.
Click to expand...

Cite from the constitution.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What you propose is court packing, even if it is just one seat...
Click to expand...

You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past
 
archives said:
You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition, making this irrelevant. Show where any of those changes were done solely to benefit one party in getting legislation and laws passed...
 
archives said:
You repeat court packing as if it is a revolutionary idea, no where in the Constitution is the number of Justices listed, it even started out with six, and has gone as high as ten Justices, it has been done in the past
Click to expand...

This. These Trumptards are all about the Constitution, until it doesn't work for them. I would prefer that we had a court with no Gorsuch and Garland instead. Why? Because that's how it's supposed to work. I didn't see in the Constitution that the Senate will consider a President's pick unless they aren't the same party. I missed that part. They have an obligation to consider a nomination, and they did not do so. Period. The remedy is now to add two seats to the court. Which is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Appeal to tradition, making this irrelevant. Show where any of those changes were done solely to benefit one party in getting legislation and laws passed...
Click to expand...

LOL. Your hypocrisy is beyond the pale. The failure to consider Garland was a blatant ploy to pack the court with conservatives. And courts do NOTHING to get legislation passed.
 
Cypress said:
Weird that a political party that has only won one single national election since the 1980s, has nonetheless been able to dominate and shape the nature of the nation's highest Court
Click to expand...

RWs who are gloating that SCOTUS will have a conservative slant for two generations (or something like that), haven't taken into account that Breyer is 82. He could retire or die in the next few years. If Biden becomes president he would nominate a more moderate person to replace Breyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top