Poll: Do you support "Packing the SCOTUS" once ACB is confirmed?

[ABINGDON VOL FAN]

That is what we are being told with the unethical SCOTUS rush job. A guy who will be out in less than a month trying to set up a lifetime appointment.

A freaking joke.

So if he can do that, a guy with at least four years on the way can do what he wants with appointments.

Trump term ends in January, he serves 4 years. What is being done now is constitutional and not unethical. What happened in Obama’s last year was underhanded but still constitutional because the Republicans controlled the Senate. I have no problem with what is going on now because of the character assassinations of Kavanaugh and the treatments of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork 20 plus years ago. The Democrats started the chaos with the Supreme Court picks.

 

[C-south]

What was the goal of blocking a vote on a SCOTUS nominee when a spot was open in 2016?

You can call it blocking but the reality was it was just pointless. It saved everyone a lot of wasted time.

 

[luthervol]

No you wouldn't. You're a liar.

You're pathetic.
It happened Friday night during our game.
We picked up a big first down when the refs clearly missed a holding by our guy that was key to the run.
On the next possession, they called a bogus pass interference on us that extended the other team's drive. I even said to our other coaches "that's a make up call, it's all good."

 

[luthervol]

People should understand them going through with it now. If the Dems controlled the Senate in 2016 they would have confirmed Garland.

People evidently understand doing whatever you can legally get away with to advance your side.
Packing the court clearly falls under that umbrella.

 

[landscapingvol]

You're pathetic.
It happened Friday night during our game.
We picked up a big first down when the refs clearly missed a holding by our guy that was key to the run.
On the next possession, they called a bogus pass interference on us that extended the other team's drive. I even said to our other coaches "that's a make up call, it's all good."

Science

 

[bamawriter]

People should understand them going through with it now. If the Dems controlled the Senate in 2016 they would have confirmed Garland.

If the Dems had controlled the Senate, I don't believe Garland would have been the nominee.

 

[RikidyBones]

You're pathetic.
It happened Friday night during our game.
We picked up a big first down when the refs clearly missed a holding by our guy that was key to the run.
On the next possession, they called a bogus pass interference on us that extended the other team's drive. I even said to our other coaches "that's a make up call, it's all good."

You've held both positions on this subject

Again with the retaliation for a past wrong. Was it wrong to deny a vote on Garland? 10 fold, you say?

As a show of disgust over Garland being denied a vote and Obama being denied his rightful appointment? Just spit balling.

and it was wrong to deny a vote on Garland.

How many "make up calls" do you get? Kavanaugh, ACB, packing the court?

In other words, a missed call deserves make up calls until your team gets a TD?

 

[hog88]

People evidently understand doing whatever you can legally get away with to advance your side.
Packing the court clearly falls under that umbrella.

If the Dems win both houses and the WH they can pack the court. They should expect the same and not bitch when the Rs take them. It will be a never ending cycle.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Court packing sets a new precedent from a norm that's lasted over a century and for reason.

Appointing a judge within your elected term is hardly as egregious. Is the timing unfortunate? Sure but they were elected for four years, not 3 1/2 and it is the Presidents duty to appoint that judge within a reasonable time to guarantee the courts function and the Senate's duty to hold the proper hearings and votes of the process. Should they have heard Garland? Of course. But that doesn't justify adding seats to the court in retaliation. That's asinine.

Just because you call me a name doesn't mean I get to shoot you. Adding seats is shooting the SCOTUS and it's role as a balance.

If the argument is that we get to do whatever we want because we're in charge, which seems to be the case since the justification from 2016 apparently was a farce, then the same should hold for Democrats if/when they have the opportunity. Not that I agree with that justification, of course. I'm sure the democrats would add a couple justices to the court and frame it as providing equal representation on the court given that the majority of voters in the country do seem to lean that way.

When was the last time, prior to 2016, that a SCOTUS nominee didn't receive a vote at all? Looks to me like it was 1853. No one seems to care about that. Precedent means nothing anymore.

 

[bamawriter]

People evidently understand doing whatever you can legally get away with to advance your side.
Packing the court clearly falls under that umbrella.

Damn the torpedoes, right?

 

[Wafflestomper]

If the Dems win both houses and the WH they can pack the court. They should expect the same and not bitch when the Rs take them. It will be a never ending cycle.

Which is why we should stop it before it starts!

 

[hog88]

You're pathetic.
It happened Friday night during our game.
We picked up a big first down when the refs clearly missed a holding by our guy that was key to the run.
On the next possession, they called a bogus pass interference on us that extended the other team's drive. I even said to our other coaches "that's a make up call, it's all good."

That is pathetic.

 

[southgatevol]

Liberals believe blocking Garland was wrong. Liberals believe nominating ACB is wrong. Must be right.....

 

[hog88]

If the Dems had controlled the Senate, I don't believe Garland would have been the nominee.

You're probably right, it would have been someone much further left.

 

[RikidyBones]

If the argument is that we get to do whatever we want because we're in charge, which seems to be the case since the justification from 2016 apparently was a farce, then the same should hold for Democrats if/when they have the opportunity. Not that I agree with that justification, of course. I'm sure the democrats would add a couple justices to the court and frame it as providing equal representation on the court given that the majority of voters in the country do seem to lean that way.

When was the last time, prior to 2016, that a SCOTUS nominee didn't receive a vote at all? Looks to me like it was 1853. No one seems to care about that. Precedent means nothing anymore.

Garland should have received a vote. I won't argue that. But a retaliation by changing the make up of SCOTUS is also unacceptable.

 

[hog88]

Which is why we should stop it before it starts!

I agree, stop it by voting for anyone else besides a Democrat.

 

[k-town_king]

Garland should have received a vote. I won't argue that. But a retaliation by changing the make up of SCOTUS is also unacceptable.

Number of Associate Justices is not set in stone.

 

[C-south]

You're pathetic.
It happened Friday night during our game.
We picked up a big first down when the refs clearly missed a holding by our guy that was key to the run.
On the next possession, they called a bogus pass interference on us that extended the other team's drive. I even said to our other coaches "that's a make up call, it's all good."

High school? The majority of high school officials are just terrible at their part time job and want to throw as many flags as they can.

 

[RikidyBones]

Number of Associate Justices is not set in stone.

Precedent to add solely on tilting the court is not a good thing. It can't be put any simpler for you. If you don't understand the ramifications of it, you deserve what is coming from it.

 

[luthervol]

If the Dems win both houses and the WH they can pack the court. They should expect the same and not bitch when the Rs take them. It will be a never ending cycle.

That seems to be what you are advocating.
The repubs could have chosen to stop the cycle now.

 

[bamawriter]

That seems to be what you are advocating.
The repubs could have chosen to stop the cycle now.

When did the Republicans begin the cycle? To the best of my knowledge, Barrett's nomination is to fill a vacancy, not a new seat.

 

[landscapingvol]

When did the Republicans begin the cycle? To the best of my knowledge, Barrett's nomination is to fill a vacancy, not a new seat.

It’s unfair because RBG died before Biden is elected

 

[k-town_king]

Precedent to add solely on tilting the court is not a good thing. It can't be put any simpler for you. If you don't understand the ramifications of it, you deserve what is coming from it.

Conservatives will never be a majority again. I'll deal with it

 

[k-town_king]

When did the Republicans begin the cycle? To the best of my knowledge, Barrett's nomination is to fill a vacancy, not a new seat.

Like Garland?

 

[RikidyBones]

Conservatives will never be a majority again. I'll deal with it