Balancing the Supreme Court

Dutch Uncle said:
The Senate advised and consented not to consider the nomination in an election year. Legal. With Barrett they advised and consented to consider the nomination. Legal. Moral? Not much.

Here's your logic:
1 - Republicans are wrong.
2 - My proof: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
3 - Democrats are allowed to be wrong too.

All you are doing is pushing tit-for-tat partisan politics like the Republicans are doing. There's a reason why 70% of Americans aren't Democrats and why 70% of Americans aren't Republicans. Both parties suck ass and serve themselves first, not the American public.
Click to expand...

No, that is not advice and consent. That's like a jury saying 'we refuse to vote'.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Psycho. How many times have the police paid you a visit for domestic abuse?
Click to expand...

So you can't deny that you retarded leftist dog fuckers would do exactly the same thing in the same situation but the repubs are hypocrites?

As many times as they have been to your house for fucking a dog
 
Concart said:
Wrong question. Did the Senate provide advice and consent to the pick of the President of the United States? No they did not. They could have denied consent, but they can't just pass on the role. Because the role is required by the Constitution. It isn't a reach at all. Let's break it down.

The President was Barack Obama.
The nominee was Merrick Garland
The Senate refused to consider (advice and consent) the nominee, as called for by the Constitution. Tell me how you would describe the action. This is not LACK of action. It is a decision to NOT provide advice or consent.

So the fact that the seat was filled is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Good luck, Don Quixote.

This will go no further than locking up Hillary. In fact, most of it will disappear after the election.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Good luck, Don Quixote.

This will go no further than locking up Hillary. In fact, most of it will disappear after the election.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. This is an intellectual exercise. I can't wave a magic wand and make partisan politics disappear. It does not change the fact that the Senate refused to perform their constitutionally mandated duty.
 
Concart said:
No, that is not advice and consent. That's like a jury saying 'we refuse to vote'.
Click to expand...

Not by the definition of consent.

The SCOTUS uses the rule of four in deciding whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari. If only three of nine are in favor of granting it, does that mean they didn't make a decision?
 
Concart said:
It doesn't matter. This is an intellectual exercise. I can't wave a magic wand and make partisan politics disappear. It does not change the fact that the Senate refused to perform their constitutionally mandated duty.
Click to expand...

Consent doesn't mean you get the answer you want to hear.
 
Concart said:
It doesn't matter. This is an intellectual exercise. I can't wave a magic wand and make partisan politics disappear. It does not change the fact that the Senate refused to perform their constitutionally mandated duty.
Click to expand...

And not a single shred of constitutional evidence to support your claim. Even the lying idiot uncle dutch called you out on the utter stupidity of your argument.
 
Yakuda said:
Piece of shit. Copy and paste my words scrotum face. This is why I think you leftists are pieces of shit.
Click to expand...
Yakuda said:
And not a single shred of constitutional evidence to support your claim. Even the lying idiot uncle dutch called you out on the utter stupidity of your argument.
Click to expand...
Any arrests? Anyone convictions? Anger like yours indicates mental issues and beyond your ability to control it.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Any arrests? Anyone convictions? Anger like yours indicates mental issues and beyond your ability to control it.
Click to expand...

Copy and paste my words dick mouth. Just admit you're a duplicitous piece of shit. How many dogs have you fucked? Too many to count I bet huh?
 
Concart said:
It doesn't matter. This is an intellectual exercise. I can't wave a magic wand and make partisan politics disappear. It does not change the fact that the Senate refused to perform their constitutionally mandated duty.
Click to expand...
Ahh, you're dreaming. That's fine.

Given the fairly even split in the Federal government, there will be no changes to the size of SCOTUS much less the Constitution anytime soon. Probably not in my lifetime barring a calamity so large they are compelled to act. Something on the order of WWIII or an impact event.
 
Yakuda said:
Copy and paste my words dick mouth. Just admit you're a duplicitous piece of shit. How many dogs have you fucked? Too many to count I bet huh?
Click to expand...

QED. Have you ever been arrested? Sent to court ordered Anger Management classes? While /MSG/ is considering the dilemma of Albert Camus' famous question, you are more likely to murder a bunch of African-American protesters.....maybe even when they are sitting in church.
 
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...

tenor.gif
 
Dutch Uncle said:
QED. Have you ever been arrested? Sent to court ordered Anger Management classes? While /MSG/ is considering the dilemma of Albert Camus' famous question, you are more likely to murder a bunch of African-American protesters.....maybe even when they are sitting in church.
Click to expand...

Copy and paste the words you claim I uttered or just admit youre a duplicitous piece of shit. Its very simple.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Ahh, you're dreaming. That's fine.

Given the fairly even split in the Federal government, there will be no changes to the size of SCOTUS much less the Constitution anytime soon. Probably not in my lifetime barring a calamity so large they are compelled to act. Something on the order of WWIII or an impact event.
Click to expand...

Yep, the purpose of the thread to was lay out a potential justification for expanding the court based on the premise that the Senate had failed in their Constitutional duty (we can agree to disagree on that, but I didn't pull the argument out of thin air). If this DOES happen it will be purely partisan. Biden was trying to give himself cover the other night in the 60 minutes interview, but what he was saying was bullshit. He will either push for this or he won't. Getting some academics to lay out an argument like mine is just an excuse for a partisan action. I won't pretend otherwise.
 
Concart said:
Yep, the purpose of the thread to was lay out a potential justification for expanding the court based on the premise that the Senate had failed in their Constitutional duty (we can agree to disagree on that, but I didn't pull the argument out of thin air). If this DOES happen it will be purely partisan. Biden was trying to give himself cover the other night in the 60 minutes interview, but what he was saying was bullshit. He will either push for this or he won't. Getting some academics to lay out an argument like mine is just an excuse for a partisan action. I won't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

You haven't pro used a shred of constitutional evidence. You being a whiny 2 year isn't a compelling argument.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,



What is the definition of 'Constitutional?'

Something that does not violate the Constitution or something that adheres to the spirit or intent?

Should the framers have anticipated every instance when an elected official simply refuses to do what is described in the Constitution and provide some penalty or recourse for that?

That goes down a bad road where operatives look for loopholes and exploit them for partisan reasons.
Click to expand...

"We're a nation of laws". If people want something to be within the "spirit" of an idea, they need to pass a law. That's the entire job of the Legislative Branch. The "spirit" part is left up to individuals to decide.

Example; I think "balancing the Supreme Court" violates the spirit of the Constitution. Prove me wrong.** YMMV :D


**Nor can I prove you wrong since it's a matter of interpretation. Belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top