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

[Wafflestomper]

Exactly the same situation You are truly an intellectual giant

I didn't say they were the same situation, wise landscaping person. I was implying that if Republicans are willing to exert political power over Democrats to swing the balance of the court in their favor they shouldn't be surprised if something similar happens to them eventually.

 

[newyorkvol]

1) the tables may well be reversed after this election and Democrats may well leverage their power--not that they should--to reciprocate for what is perceived as a stolen SCOTUS appointment. One might also say that if the tables were turned Republicans would be mulling the same thing.

2) this wasn't the argument advanced by Republicans in 2016. It was that we should not be appointing a new justice in an election year. And now that has changed.

there’s a big difference though between interpreting the “rules” regarding nominating/confirming a SC justice in an election year vs changing the rules completely.

 

[Wafflestomper]

there’s a big difference though between interpreting the “rules” regarding nominating/confirming a SC justice in an election year vs changing the rules completely.

The results happen to be fairly similar though. The exertion of political power over a minority that can't do anything about it. Let's not pretend that Republicans wouldn't be fuming if the shoe was on the other foot here.

 

[37L1]

The results happen to be fairly similar though. The exertion of political power over a minority that can't do anything about it. Let's not pretend that Republicans wouldn't be fuming if the shoe was on the other foot here.

Yep. Mutually assured destruction. It's what's for dinner.

 

[RockyTop85]

You severely over estimate your basic understanding of the Constitution and your own intelligence. Let me get this straight, they are going to “pack the courts” to make it a “more fair representation of the population and the political leanings of the nation” but none of that will have an impact on their interpretation of Constitutional law or previously ruled upon established law? The entire premise of court packing is to challenge the impartiality of the Court, otherwise why would more justices need to be added, not a rubber stamp for the whims of the party in power. Twelve year olds have better critical reasoning skills. Unless you legitimately believe Senate Democrats are going to be approving strict Constitutionalists with no political leanings?

That’s an impressive combination of logical fallacies that does nothing to address anything I’ve said in this thread.

It’s pure conjecture that wrongly ascribes positions to me that I’ve explicitly said I don’t hold.


0/3. Yer out.

Maybe you can use your time picking daisies in right field to read what I’ve actually said, find some cherished conservative precedent that liberal justices are actively working to overturn, or see if you can find a picture book explanation of abstract thought.

 

[RockyTop85]

Since when have you been afraid of what the "illiterate vultures" think?

My mind only holds so much brilliance, the rest is full of insults. My only fear is that I might waste some of the former upon someone who deserves the latter.

 

[AM64]

My mind only holds so much brilliance, the rest is full of insults. My only fear is that I might waste some of the former upon someone who deserves the latter.

Brutal cynicism. LG and EL wish they were in your league.

 

[Orangeburst]

Whew...Thought I might have to be a tiebreaker.

 

[newyorkvol]

Opinion | Mad About Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? The Best Way to Get Even Is to Pack the Court (Published 2019)

Posted this in Presidential thread, but it obviously fits better here. Packing the courts has been a goal of left since Kavanuagh was nominated/confirmed. It isn’t new because of Barrett. It was going to happen regardless.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Coons says that confirming Barrett 'constitutes court-packing,' Sasse responds that's 'obviously' incorrect

 

[MontyPython]

I find it interesting that everyone assumes that every judge placed by a republican president is going to be conservative and every judge placed by a democrat is going to be liberal. That has not always been the case over the years. It always seems to balance out.

The current nominee is very conservative. On the record as pro life.

 

[0nelilreb]

The current nominee is very conservative. On the record as pro life.

I know liberals that are pro-life and pro -2a ... womp womp womp

 

[evillawyer]

Here's McConnell turtle-laughing about how he held up the vast majority of Obama appointees. Of course, all within the rules of the Senate. Just like when we pack the courts. It will all been done by the rules.

 

[bamawriter]

Here's McConnell turtle-laughing about how he held up the vast majority of Obama appointees. Of course, all within the rules of the Senate. Just like when we pack the courts. It will all been done by the rules.

The Democrats don't seem to learn. Every time they revise the norms, they wind up regretting it when they lose control, even if those revisions were completely within the rules.

The Democrats gerrymandered like crazy. The Republicans gained control and became way better at gerrymandering than the Democrats had ever been.

Reid nuked the fillibuster for judicial nominees. The Republicans took control and the Democrats haven't been able to shut down Trump's picks.

If the Democrats take the Senate and start packing the courts, what do you think is going to happen when the Republicans take it back?

 

[VolStrom]

The current nominee is very conservative. On the record as pro life.

Have you ever been on jury duty? I've been on several and we actually let people go that I thought were guilty because the prosecutor didn't prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because you think one way doesn't mean you're going to apply your thoughts and feelings to a legal matter. A great judge applies the law and leaves the politics out of it which apparently RBG was incapable of doing.

 

[0nelilreb]

Here's McConnell turtle-laughing about how he held up the vast majority of Obama appointees. Of course, all within the rules of the Senate. Just like when we pack the courts. It will all been done by the rules.

Just like when Harry Reid pulled his stunt . It’s all within the rules all that’s left to decide ..is .
the payback going to be worth what you do . You absolutely can pack the court but the next time the R’s hold the Senate and the Oval they will make you pay for it and the timing will be worse for you and cases scheduled to come before the bench.

 

[AM64]

Just like when Harry Reid pulled his stunt . It’s all within the rules all that’s left to decide ..is .
the payback going to be worth what you do . You absolutely can pack the court bit the next time the R’s hold the Senate and the Oval they will make you pay for it and the timing will be worse for you and cases scheduled to come before the bench.

You ever get the feeling dems don't plan to give up power the next time they get it?

 

[0nelilreb]

You ever get the feeling dems don't plan to give up power the next time they get it?

..it’s funny to watch , every time they gain control they believe it will be forever because they absolutely think everyone but a tiny % believes the same way they do . History proves over and over again that the fastest way to get politicians out of office is to give them full control of the House , the Senate and the Oval . They have the memory of a goldfish .

 

[volfanhill]

The results happen to be fairly similar though. The exertion of political power over a minority that can't do anything about it. Let's not pretend that Republicans wouldn't be fuming if the shoe was on the other foot here.

Harry Reid is to blame if you don’t like what’s going on. And that’s before he went to the extreme. He was the first to use filibusters, in any real strategic way, to block federal judge appointments. Every time he broke a Senate tradition, he was warned there would be pay back, and then the left gets outraged and acts innocent.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Harry Reid is to blame if you don’t like what’s going on. And that’s before he went to the extreme. He was the first to use filibusters, in any real strategic way, to block federal judge appointments. Every time he broke a Senate tradition, he was warned there would be pay back, and then the left gets outraged and acts innocent.

Oh I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[bUTchLookin4Dimez]

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ to Know His Position on Court Packing

Watch the video. "Trump is always changing the subject..." which is literally what Biden does and is doing in this video.

 

[MontyPython]

Have you ever been on jury duty? I've been on several and we actually let people go that I thought were guilty because the prosecutor didn't prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because you think one way doesn't mean you're going to apply your thoughts and feelings to a legal matter. A great judge applies the law and leaves the politics out of it which apparently RBG was incapable of doing.

This is a ridiculously naive statement. By your logic, it would make no difference who gets the SCOTUS seat then.

 

[MontyPython]

The Democrats don't seem to learn. Every time they revise the norms, they wind up regretting it when they lose control, even if those revisions were completely within the rules.

The Democrats gerrymandered like crazy. The Republicans gained control and became way better at gerrymandering than the Democrats had ever been.

Reid nuked the fillibuster for judicial nominees. The Republicans took control and the Democrats haven't been able to shut down Trump's picks.

If the Democrats take the Senate and start packing the courts, what do you think is going to happen when the Republicans take it back?

Republicans should honor their own words from 2016 when they said the SCOTUS process was too close to the election (reminder: March, 2016 v. October, 2020).

If there's a silver lining, it's that even SC's super flip-flopper Lindsey Graham might lose his Senate seat over this and his other political waffling.

2016 Lindsey Graham:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," he said four years ago when arguing against then-President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

Here's what Lindsey Graham previously said about Donald J. Trump:

• December 2015: A Trump nomination “would be an utter, complete and total disaster. If you’re a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you’re going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you’re going to do irreparable damage to the party.”
• December 2015: “You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell. He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represents the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. … He’s the ISIL man of the year.”
• December 2015: “I believe Donald Trump is destroying the Republican chances to win an election that we can’t afford to lose. I believe we’re losing the Hispanic vote because they think we don’t like them…I believe Donald Trump is destroying the Republican Party.”
• January 2016, on choosing between Trump or Cruz: “It’s like being shot or poisoned. What does it really matter?”
• March 2016: “The bottom line is that I believe Donald Trump would be an absolute, utter disaster for the Republican Party, destroy conservatism as we know it. We’d get wiped out, and it would take generations to overcome a Trump candidacy. Here is why we’re losing the Hispanic vote. Nobody is going to listen to you about your economic plan or your ability to defend the nation if you’re going to deport their grandmother. This is why we’re getting killed with Hispanics. And Mr. Trump has taken every problem we have had with Hispanics and poured gasoline on it.
• March 2016: “If Trump is the standard bearer, it’s not about 2016, it’s about losing the heart and soul of the conservative movement. I’m not going to stand behind a guy that gets David Duke’s support. What is it about Trump’s campaign that David Duke likes? I don’t think he is a reliable conservative Republican. So it’s no longer about winning the election for me, it’s trying to salvage a party that I love and conservatism as I know it.”
• April 2016, on running as Trump’s VP: “That’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic.”
• May 2016: “When it comes to women and Hispanics, Trump polls like Lucifer.”
• May 2016: “I…cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief. I think Donald Trump is going to places where very few people have gone and I’m not going with him. Eating a taco is probably not going to fix the problems we have with Hispanics. I think embracing Donald Trump is embracing demographic death.”

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The current nominee is very conservative. On the record as pro life.

And that disqualifies her? I am all for allowing you lefties to kill all your unborn. Have at it. YOU pay for it though. That's all I ask.

 

[MontyPython]

And that disqualifies her? I am all for allowing you lefties to kill all your unborn. Have at it. YOU pay for it though. That's all I ask.

A packed court (6-3) is a bad thing. Just my $0.02.