Westside Steve Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 https://www.newsweek.com/jerry-nadler-refuses-say-democrats-plan-pack-supreme-court-1583741?amp=1 Anybody support this? Not that I would be surprised but… WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 3 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: https://www.newsweek.com/jerry-nadler-refuses-say-democrats-plan-pack-supreme-court-1583741?amp=1 Anybody support this? Not that I would be surprised but… WSS Nope I don't support expanding the SC. Sets a bad precedent and makes SCOTUS nothing more than a pure political party thing. How it worked to turn down even trumpy's crazy claim of a "win" seemed just fine to me for a "stacked" court. Reasonable heads prevailed and that is what I want in SCOTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 22 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: https://www.newsweek.com/jerry-nadler-refuses-say-democrats-plan-pack-supreme-court-1583741?amp=1 Anybody support this? Not that I would be surprised but… WSS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 Here's the thing: NO. but ..... think about this .... if they pack the court...how do they not think a flip of government won't put it to even more numbers or go back to what it is now and should be? They don't plan on that - because they will have taken permanent control of America - at every turn, every opportunity. or, they won't bother to pack the court in the first place. dangerous times, folks. but "orange man bad" hahaha? sick joke on America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 BREAKING THE COURT Democrats unveiling progressive Supreme Court overhaul, opening way for left-wing 'packing' READ THE BILL: Democrats announce Supreme Court expansion legislation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 No surprise the dwarf Nadler is behind this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 7 hours ago, Westside Steve said: https://www.newsweek.com/jerry-nadler-refuses-say-democrats-plan-pack-supreme-court-1583741?amp=1 Anybody support this? Not that I would be surprised but… WSS It won’t pass but I have no issue with it. I’d prefer term limits for the justices but believe that if the party in power is able to pass legislation, they have every right to. It is then incumbent on the people to vote accordingly. It’s so much easier to allow the party in power to push their agenda, then it is to get any of them to agree or compromise. That was very evident when the same individuals who wouldn’t confirm Garland voted to confirm Coney-Barrett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 15, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 19 minutes ago, BaconHound said: It won’t pass but I have no issue with it. I’d prefer term limits for the justices but believe that if the party in power is able to pass legislation, they have every right to. It is then incumbent on the people to vote accordingly. It’s so much easier to allow the party in power to push their agenda, then it is to get any of them to agree or compromise. Please. I know you're smarter than to suggest Nadler wants to do this to make the court more fair. Hes doing it because his guys have control of both houses. That way Joe gets four lunatics on the bench for life. That was very evident when the same individuals who wouldn’t confirm Garland voted to confirm Coney-Barrett. Yeah I don't know why with Garland they could have easily give him the hearing and turned him down. Now he has a job running flak for Biden and his kid. But let's be honest he seemed a lot more moderate back then than he does now. As for Barrett? I didn't know you were a misogynist. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: No I don’t believe for one second it’s about fairness, it’s about getting “your people” in positions of power as it always is. Garland has a pretty good resume and not sure if they could dig up enough dirt. So instead of potentially voting down a qualified candidate without real cause they took the path of least resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 15, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 24 minutes ago, BaconHound said: No I don’t believe for one second it’s about fairness, it’s about getting “your people” in positions of power as it always is. Garland has a pretty good resume and not sure if they could dig up enough dirt. So instead of potentially voting down a qualified candidate without real cause they took the path of least resistance. Come now. If a political party can't find enough dirt it's fairly simple operation to make some up. Especially if you have a psychologically imbalanced women to make outlandish and unprovable claims. I figure they could have branded Garland has a fire breathing liberal and had done with. Like you did from the other side with Barrett. Only then the republicans had the votes so in essence your original statement is correct. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 14 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Come now. If a political party can't find enough dirt it's fairly simple operation to make some up. Especially if you have a psychologically imbalanced women to make outlandish and unprovable claims. I figure they could have branded Garland as a fire breathing liberal and had done with. Like you did from the other side with Barrett. Only then the republicans had the votes so in essence your original statement is correct. WSS Ok. I agree the Republican Caucus is stupid or they believe it doesn’t matter what position they take on any given day as their supporters will support them regardless 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 13 hours ago, BaconHound said: Ok. I agree the Republican Caucus is stupid or they believe it doesn’t matter what position they take on any given day as their supporters will support them regardless And there, my friend, is the uncomfortable truth of politics. I absolutely understand the lure of money and power. Maybe there are some true believers holding elected office but I have to guess that holding on to those positions is job number one regardless of party. WSS 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 Pelosi dismisses progressive ‘court packing’ legislation “I have no intention to bring it to the floor,” Pelosi said of the legislative push. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/15/pelosi-dismiss-progressive-court-packing-bill-481895 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 19 hours ago, BaconHound said: Garland has a pretty good resume and not sure if they could dig up enough dirt. So instead of potentially voting down a qualified candidate without real cause they took the path of least resistance. There was this little unwritten rule in the Senate called “The Biden Rule” (remember him?) that they would not vote on a lame duck President’s SC nominee. The Dems brought this into play during the Bush Administration but completely forgot about it in Obammy’s last few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 9 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said: There was this little unwritten rule in the Senate called “The Biden Rule” (remember him?) that they would not vote on a lame duck President’s SC nominee. The Dems brought this into play during the Bush Administration but completely forgot about it in Obammy’s last few months. The issue here is don’t vote for Obama’s nominee but vote for Trump’s. Now the argument will be made that Trump could’ve won a second term but Obama couldn’t. That argument is only made for disagreement purposes as we all know why it played out the way it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 14 minutes ago, BaconHound said: The issue here is don’t vote for Obama’s nominee but vote for Trump’s. Now the argument will be made that Trump could’ve won a second term but Obama couldn’t. That argument is only made for disagreement purposes as we all know why it played out the way it did. I can’t disagree with your take on this matter, but to quote Barry “elections have consequences”. I can only speculate why the GOP ran the Coney-Barrett nomination through the Senate (besides they had the votes to do it). One guess is the GOP wasn’t thrilled with the way the Dems handled the Brett Kavanuagh nomination. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 16, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 19 minutes ago, BaconHound said: The issue here is don’t vote for Obama’s nominee but vote for Trump’s. Now the argument will be made that Trump could’ve won a second term but Obama couldn’t. That argument is only made for disagreement purposes as we all know why it played out the way it did. As for winning trump a second term I am only guessing but it seems to me that members of the Supreme Court will at least try to decide matters on the basis of the Constitution. At least that's my hope come call me pollyanna. If in fact certain States violated their own constitutional boundaries for voting it's something that should be brought to light whether he wins or loses. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said: I can’t disagree with your take on this matter, but to quote Barry “elections have consequences”. I can only speculate why the GOP ran the Coney-Barrett nomination through the Senate (besides they had the votes to do it). One guess is the GOP wasn’t thrilled with the way the Dems handled the Brett Kavanuagh nomination. I think we can agree Coney-Barrett was put through to change the dynamic of the Court to more what us viewed as more conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 16, 2021 Report Share Posted April 16, 2021 2 hours ago, BaconHound said: I think we can agree Coney-Barrett was put through to change the dynamic of the Court to more what us viewed as more conservative. wern't Ginsburg, Sotomayor , Kagan and Breyer put on the court to make it more liberal to the demise of the Constitution ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.