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

[luthervol]

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

Of course not. Some of them sock.

 

[C-south]

Stds?

Racists?

IQs below 100?

All the projects and section 8?

 

[newyorkvol]

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

I don’t know if they stole the pick so much as Ginsberg rolled the dice and lost. She wasn’t the picture of health in 2016 and she could’ve resigned during Obama ensuring he replaced her, but didn’t.

 

[C-south]

Of course not. Some of them sock.

When it comes to high school officiating I’m gonna bump it up from “some” to A LOT.

 

[volfanhill]

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.

Harry Reid started all this nonsense

 

[k-town_king]

All the projects and section 8?

Have you been to Knoxville? The three largest projects are mostly white people. Plenty in the trailer park and run down country houses on Section 8.

Try again

 

[VolStrom]

Have you been to Knoxville? The three largest projects are mostly white people. Plenty in the trailer park and run down country houses on Section 8.

Try again

Didn't the city take a huge amount of grief over tearing down the crime infested Magnolia Avenue low income housing 15+ years ago because it was beyond repair? I think the plan was to disperse people outside of public housing and break the cycle. So are you saying it worked?

 

[RikidyBones]

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

No it wouldn't have.

 

[luthervol]

No it wouldn't have.

Then why didn't they just vote?

 

[hog88]

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

yes

 

[hog88]

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

So you’re ok with the Dems playing political terrorism?

 

[RockyTop85]

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

Disagree. It would depend on the justification for turning him down. If it’s pretextual or obviously political, it doesn’t change anything.

The Republicans’ goal then was to avoid changing the status quo of the court, regardless of norms. The goal now is to change the status quo of the court, regardless of the rule established in 2016.

Individually, neither confirmation is offensive. I think there’s a prudential argument for waiting until after the election and innauguration, but there’s an argument for not waiting that’s also persuasive. The problem is vacillating between the two when one becomes politically advantageous.

That’s why I think the best case for court packing is to add 2 to reinstate the status quo that existed on September 17, 2020. That’s at least remedial.

Go beyond that and you’ve escalated the situation for political gain, rather than just to maintain. It’s still not ideal, but since Republicans didn’t seem to pay any political price for the Garland situation, idk what deterrent should he applied to democrats. Nobody seemed to able to get past how bad the democrats are long enough to give a reason for why they shouldn’t do this that would be persuasive to republicans.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

No, I'd say it's slanted conservative (which I agree with) 5-4. Adding another Trump appointee, however, tilts it too much IMO.

So it's slanted Conservative, that's fantastic after 50 years it's about time.

Seems only fair the side with common sense gets a shot at it.

 

[VolStrom]

Disagree. It would depend on the justification for turning him down. If it’s pretextual or obviously political, it doesn’t change anything.

The Republicans’ goal then was to avoid changing the status quo of the court, regardless of norms. The goal now is to change the status quo of the court, regardless of the rule established in 2016.

Individually, neither confirmation is offensive. I think there’s a prudential argument for waiting until after the election and innauguration, but there’s an argument for not waiting that’s also persuasive. The problem is vacillating between the two when one becomes politically advantageous.

That’s why I think the best case for court packing is to add 2 to reinstate the status quo that existed on September 17, 2020. That’s at least remedial.

Go beyond that and you’ve escalated the situation for political gain, rather than just to maintain. It’s still not ideal, but since Republicans didn’t seem to pay any political price for the Garland situation, idk what deterrent should he applied to democrats. Nobody seemed to able to get past how bad the democrats are long enough to give a reason for why they shouldn’t do this that would be persuasive to republicans.

So as long as the court is packed in the democrats favor it's okay, but let it possibly drift to the right then tear down the house? Why don't you just move to Europe and have the full Monty experience of living in a liberal utopia?

 

[luthervol]

So you’re ok with the Dems playing political terrorism?

I think the repubs should withhold the pick.
If they do not, then I would be for stacking the court in order to maintain the rightful balance.

 

[luthervol]

Disagree. It would depend on the justification for turning him down. If it’s pretextual or obviously political, it doesn’t change anything.

The Republicans’ goal then was to avoid changing the status quo of the court, regardless of norms. The goal now is to change the status quo of the court, regardless of the rule established in 2016.

Individually, neither confirmation is offensive. I think there’s a prudential argument for waiting until after the election and innauguration, but there’s an argument for not waiting that’s also persuasive. The problem is vacillating between the two when one becomes politically advantageous.

That’s why I think the best case for court packing is to add 2 to reinstate the status quo that existed on September 17, 2020. That’s at least remedial.

Go beyond that and you’ve escalated the situation for political gain, rather than just to maintain. It’s still not ideal, but since Republicans didn’t seem to pay any political price for the Garland situation, idk what deterrent should he applied to democrats. Nobody seemed to able to get past how bad the democrats are long enough to give a reason for why they shouldn’t do this that would be persuasive to republicans.

Sort of goes along with what I just posted.

 

[hog88]

I think the repubs should withhold the pick.
If they do not, then I would be for stacking the court in order to maintain the rightful balance.

LOL

Ok, then don’t whine when the Rs add more justices then next time they have the power.

 

[luthervol]

LOL

Ok, then don’t whine when the Rs add more justices then next time they have the power.

Maybe they will learn from the error of their ways.

LOL....Who am I kidding.

 

[VolStrom]

Maybe they will learn from the error of their ways.

LOL....Who am I kidding.

So Luther, did you get to vote yet?

 

[MontyPython]

So it's slanted Conservative, that's fantastic after 50 years it's about time.

Seems only fair the side with common sense gets a shot at it.

Well, your denigration of anyone not labeling themselves "conservative" aside, after the current appointment, the court will slant 6-3... not acceptable.

 

[luthervol]

So Luther, did you get to vote yet?

I didn't even try today. I'll probably wait until next week. I did hear that some other locations in the county only had a 30 minute wait yesterday.

 

[VolStrom]

I didn't even try today. I'll probably wait until next week. I did hear that some other locations in the county only had a 30 minute wait yesterday.

Early voting in Tennessee opens up tomorrow (14th) I'm really curious to see how many are lined up to vote.

 

[RikidyBones]

Then why didn't they just vote?

Idk. I'm not a republican senator or republican.

 

[k-town_king]

Didn't the city take a huge amount of grief over tearing down the crime infested Magnolia Avenue low income housing 15+ years ago because it was beyond repair? I think the plan was to disperse people outside of public housing and break the cycle. So are you saying it worked?

You have your facts confused.

Not what happened. And I'm talking for the last 50 years.

The projects still up are the ones that are mostly white. The "black" projects were all smaller and none were on Magnolia.

 

[1972 Grad]

You have your facts confused.

Not what happened. And I'm talking for the last 50 years.

The projects still up are the ones that are mostly white. The "black" projects were all smaller and none were on Magnolia.

Were they a block off at 5 Points?