Balancing the Supreme Court

christiefan915 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT UNILATERALLY ADD SEATS TO THE SCOTUS.

REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE SENATE WHEN GARLAND WAS NOMINATED.

THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES.

READ THE CONSTITUTION, AND STOP THE BULLSHIT PRETENSE THAT THE SELAZOCRATS WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THE SAME THING.
 
Hello Concart,

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...

Like.

Except it is Merrick, not Merritt.
 
Concart said:
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.
Click to expand...

PLEASE CITE A VIOLATION IN CONSTITUTIIONAL GUIDLEINES IN GORSUCH'S SEATING.
 
Hello Concart,

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...

Can't remove one.
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

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...

If Dems packed the court it would be because Republicans deserve it after what they did.
 
Hello christiefan915,

christiefan915 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,

No, they did not. They refused to hold hearings for Garland. That was failing to do their Constitutionally described roll. He deserved an up or down vote.
Click to expand...

The Senate can hold hearings, but it's at their digression. How many other Trump nominees are waiting right now for a hearing?
 
It wasn't like Garland is some kind of LW liberal, either. Instead he is very centrist. Obama specifically chose a centrist so that Republicans would not really have a standing to object. McConnell simply abused his power, that's all. Failed to do his job, failed the American people.
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
The Senate can hold hearings, but it's at their digression. How many other Trump nominees are waiting right now for a hearing?
Click to expand...

I think you meant discretion. (McConnell has digressed from doing his job...)

And that's another thing. Obama made all kinds of judicial nominations that McConnell simply refused to hold hearings on. He has made a sham of the office. The Constitution never considered that someone would be so sneaky and nitpicky as McConnell. By failing to fulfill his role, he is destroying the USA, destroying confidence in our government. Such actions are risky to the basis of the Republic. Our government only works with the consent of the governed. Keep it up, conservatives. Keep on getting people to hate our own government and see where that leads. I hope you don't think it's a good thing. It's going to destroy the country if you don't watch out.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Like it or don't they followed the standing conventions and laws. "Elections have consequences" Barack Obama....
Click to expand...

That is hogwash. Garland was entitled to a vote. McConnell knew that Garland was too qualified not to be confirmed. As such, he pulled a "stunt" that paid off. That certainly needs corrected.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,



I think you meant discretion. (McConnell has digressed from doing his job...)

And that's another thing. Obama made all kinds of judicial nominations that McConnell simply refused to hold hearings on. He has made a sham of the office. The Constitution never considered that someone would be so sneaky and nitpicky as McConnell. By failing to fulfill his role, he is destroying the USA, destroying confidence in our government. Such actions are risky to the basis of the Republic. Our government only works with the consent of the governed. Keep it up, conservatives. Keep on getting people to hate our own government and see where that leads. I hope you don't think it's a good thing. It's going to destroy the country if you don't watch out.
Click to expand...

Digression... You know how often they get sidetracked...?
 
Tacomaman said:
That is hogwash. Garland was entitled to a vote. McConnell knew that Garland was too qualified not to be confirmed. As such, he pulled a "stunt" that paid off. That certainly needs corrected.
Click to expand...

Awwww... How cute. That's almost as relevant as Ginsburg's supposed dying wish counting...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Senate can hold hearings, but it's at their digression. How many other Trump nominees are waiting right now for a hearing?
Click to expand...

What McConnell did was partisan bullshit. If you want to sacrifice your credability by trying to defend it, that's your business. At the end of the day, Republicans STOLE a SCOTUS seat. That needs to be corrected.
 
PoliTalker said:
It wasn't like Garland is some kind of LW liberal, either. Instead he is very centrist. Obama specifically chose a centrist so that Republicans would not really have a standing to object. McConnell simply abused his power, that's all. Failed to do his job, failed the American people.
Click to expand...

McConnell does EXACTLY what the "special interests" pay him to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top