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

[bamawriter]

Like Garland?

Again, to the best of my knowledge, Garland's nomination was to fill a vacancy.

Just so I understand: you do know what the term "court packing" means, right?

 

[bamawriter]

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

We heard the same thing in '08. "Never" isna funny way to describe 2 years.

 

[landscapingvol]

Again, to the best of my knowledge, Garland's nomination was to fill a vacancy.

Just so I understand: you do know what the term "court packing" means, right?

No, he doesn’t

 

[hog88]

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

Nope, if the dems win and start adding justices it's all on them. They will own it.

 

[k-town_king]

Again, to the best of my knowledge, Garland's nomination was to fill a vacancy.

Just so I understand: you do know what the term "court packing" means, right?

Yes and you justified this ramming through due to a vacancy. Garland should have been conformed in that case.

Once we take control justices should be added to reflect the electorate and American values. The POTUS can do what he see fit just like he is doing now.

 

[luthervol]

You've held both positions on this subject





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?

My position seems consistent.
When did the dems steal a pick?
When we get that pick back, things will be "even".

 

[landscapingvol]

Yes and you justified this ramming through due to a vacancy. Garland should have been conformed in that case.

Once we take control justices should be added to reflect the electorate and American values. The POTUS can do what he see fit just like he is doing now.

So in your opinion, everyone who is nominated should be approved?

 

[luthervol]

Damn the torpedoes, right?

That is the republican stance.

 

[C-south]

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

As long as your “majority” populates a handful of places it’ll be ok. I can tell you what the conservatives have the majority of though.

 

[luthervol]

That is pathetic.

Being okay with bad calls balancing out is pathetic?
I think the reverse is pathetic.

 

[RikidyBones]

My position seems consistent.
When did the dems steal a pick?
When we get that pick back, things will be "even".

If they held the vote and it was turned down via vote, would it have been a stolen pick as well?

 

[bamawriter]

Yes and you justified this ramming through due to a vacancy. Garland should have been conformed in that case.

I believed at the time, and still believe, that Garland should have been confirmed.

Once we take control justices should be added to reflect the electorate and American values. The POTUS can do what he see fit just like he is doing now.

Court packing polls terribly. So you're advocating creating a court to "reflect the electorate" by going against the will of the electorate.

 

[luthervol]

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.

Some are better than others. Most want to do a good job.

 

[luthervol]

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.

When they refused to vote.

 

[bamawriter]

That is the republican stance.

Is it? Still haven't seen a Republican back court packing.

You're comparing declaring that deuces are wild for a few hands to tearing up the deck and setting fire to the scraps.

 

[bamawriter]

When they refused to vote.

And if they'd voted down the nomination, what then?

 

[k-town_king]

So in your opinion, everyone who is nominated should be approved?

Well he was more qualified. More experienced. More moderate. More unbiased. Had more time before the election.

He should have been if this one is confirmed.

 

[luthervol]

Nope, if the dems win and start adding justices it's all on them. They will own it.

The repubs know they stole a pick and are willing to suffer the consequences, that's on them.

 

[luthervol]

If they held the vote and it was turned down via vote, would it have been a stolen pick as well?

Not as much, but that would have established a new precedent.

 

[landscapingvol]

Well he was more qualified. More experienced. More moderate. More unbiased. Had more time before the election.

He should have been if this one is confirmed.

Robert Bork?

 

[luthervol]

Is it? Still haven't seen a Republican back court packing.

You're comparing declaring that deuces are wild for a few hands to tearing up the deck and setting fire to the scraps.

Not at all. I'm comparing doing what you "legally" can in order to pack the court in your favor without regard to precedent or repercussions.

 

[bamawriter]

Not as much, but that would have established a new precedent.

Really? Nominees have been voted down before.

 

[k-town_king]

As long as your “majority” populates a handful of places it’ll be ok. I can tell you what the conservatives have the majority of though.

Stds?

Racists?

IQs below 100?

 

[C-south]

Some are better than others. Most want to do a good job.

The intent of wanting to do a good job doesn’t mean you’re going to be good at it.

 

[bamawriter]

Not at all. I'm comparing doing what you "legally" can in order to pack the court in your favor without regard to precedent or repercussions.

No one has questioned the legality.