Balancing the Supreme Court

T. A. Gardner said:
Awwww... How cute. That's almost as relevant as Ginsburg's supposed dying wish counting...
Click to expand...

As usual, you cant defend your position and try yet another diversion. Garland was entitled to a vote. Period.

Now, if we carry your ridiculous "Senate hearing discretion" arguement further, we can say the following:
Should tRump win re-election, with the Senate flipping and another SCOTUS vacancy occur, Schumer can then simply delay a confirmation hearing for four years. After all, you said the Senate has discretion. Now see how utterly ridiculous your argument is......)
 
Tacomaman said:
As usual, you cant defend your position and try yet another diversion. Garland was entitled to a vote. Period.
Click to expand...

56f9f1ac8f20224cd6276fd06e609580.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
56f9f1ac8f20224cd6276fd06e609580.jpg
Click to expand...

Actually, I word my responses so you can understand them.

The bottom line is that you were fine with Garland being screwed because-like tRump-you are more concerned with winning than anything else. In other words, you appear to have little in the "character" department.
 
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...

Then, after the mid-terms or in 2024 the Republicans will make it 7-6. The "balance" will be maintained. Where does it end? When we have one for each state? Do you know how much it would slow down court cases?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Then, after the mid-terms or in 2024 the Republicans will make it 7-6. The "balance" will be maintained. Where does it end? When we have one for each state? Do you know how much it would slow down court cases?
Click to expand...

My proposal is intended to demonstrate that such a decision would not be rooted in partisan politics but rather correcting an unconstitutional act. And under this proposal conservatives still hold a 6-5 edge.
 
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...

Adding a seat or seats in order to get someone of your ideology is the definition of court packing, idiot.
 
Yakuda said:
Its not a need it's a childish desire. You fuckers LOST. You cockroaches would do the same thing in the same situation. Not a single one of you lying fucking pukes can deny it
Click to expand...

They'd do the same things and not give it a second thought.
 
Hello Concart,

Concart said:
My proposal is intended to demonstrate that such a decision would not be rooted in partisan politics but rather correcting an unconstitutional act. And under this proposal conservatives still hold a 6-5 edge.
Click to expand...

That would be far more likely to be accepted by the populace as fair than making it 7-6, which would be like entering a court expansion race.
 
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...

Correct. It's up to Congress. The fact Congress has no honor, no integrity and is politically partisan is sad, but it's legal.
 
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...

True. So what? None of it was "unconstitutional" as Concart claimed. Like it or not, Congress' action was legal and constitutional. All Americans have a chance to rectify that by next Tuesday.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
True. So what? None of it was "unconstitutional" as Concart claimed. Like it or not, Congress' action was legal and constitutional. All Americans have a chance to rectify that by next Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

".. and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,..."

The Senate cannot abdicate it's Advice and Consent role until they get a President they like.
 
Concart said:
My proposal is intended to demonstrate that such a decision would not be rooted in partisan politics but rather correcting an unconstitutional act. And under this proposal conservatives still hold a 6-5 edge.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are wrong. It's a partisan act but constitutional. Democrats are unhappy about a 6-3 conservative court. If it was a 6-3 court, the Democrats would be happy and it would be the Republicans whining about "unconstitutional" and increasing the size of the court. Pure partisan politics.
 
Concart said:
Yes, it is.

".. and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,..."

The Senate cannot abdicate it's Advice and Consent role until they get a President they like.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. If you don't like your Senators and Representatives, vote them out, recall them or otherwise pressure them to act as you want.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
True. So what? None of it was "unconstitutional" as Concart claimed. Like it or not, Congress' action was legal and constitutional. All Americans have a chance to rectify that by next Tuesday.
Click to expand...

If this doesn't motivate liberals to vote Trump out nothing will. Conservatives now have what they want. No reason for them to vote to make anything happen. It already happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top