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

[0nelilreb]

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.”

Dude you spent all that time typing out what politicians said before they “ evolved “ in their beliefs ? Let me show you how to save some time .. “All Politicians will say things when it benefits them , then the opposite when it benefits them” . YouTube videos are free to watch .

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Ginsburg warned against court packing, said it would make Supreme Court 'look partisan'

 

[Wafflestomper]

Ginsburg warned against court packing, said it would make Supreme Court 'look partisan'

They are partisan. No one would care about SCOTUS appointments otherwise. RBG wouldn't have requested we wait to appoint her replacement until after the election if they weren't partisan.

 

[bamawriter]

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

Can we start using words properly? "Court packing" has a specific definition.

 

[landscapingvol]

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.

You were trying to spell, fill a legitimate opening on the Court not create an illegitimate opening for partisan purposes

 

[n_huffhines]

"You can't end this longstanding tradition!" - Republicans who are comfortable justifying anything as long as it isn't illegal

 

[bamawriter]

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).

I principle, I agree. People should say what they mean and mean what they say. The Republicans are trying to split hairs now, and I don't care for it. I believe Judge Garland should have received a hearing, and I believe he was qualified to sit on the court, even if I don't agree with all of his opinions.

Now, despite my preference, if McConnell and Company had just been honest I wouldn't have had a problem with holding up the nomination. The Constitution gives them that ability. No need to pretend that you're acting out of principle.

However, whatever moral highground the Democrats possessed was surrendered when they willingly perpetuated the slander of Brett Kavanaugh. While I'm sure Judge Garland is disappointed, at least the Republicans left his reputation intact. He still sits on the second highest court in the land. Had the Democrats succeeded with their defamation, the same would not be true of Justice Kavanaugh. Had his nomination been defeated, he would have been declared a rapist in the eyes of the US Senate. He'd have had to resign from the Court of Appeals. His life's work would have been over.

So, there's principle, and then there's having principles. The Republicans violated the former. The Democrats proved they have no interest in the latter.

 

[Wafflestomper]

You were trying to spell, fill a legitimate opening on the Court not create an illegitimate opening for partisan purposes

What do you call setting a new precedent and then reneging on it four years later when it's politically advantageous, if not partisan?

 

[newokie03]

If the Dems do attempt to pack the courts, what would stop the courts from simply saying the law is unconstitutional and striking it down? Wouldn't that open up a can of worms.

 

[landscapingvol]

What do you call setting a new precedent and then reneging on it four years later when it's politically advantageous, if not partisan?

Setting a “new” precedent?? Several SC nominees have been denied approval, it wasn’t invented with Merrick Garland but changing the makeup of the SC hasn’t happened in nearly 150 years. You keep dancing around the basic facts

 

[MontyPython]

I principle, I agree. People should say what they mean and mean what they say. The Republicans are trying to split hairs now, and I don't care for it. I believe Judge Garland should have received a hearing, and I believe he was qualified to sit on the court, even if I don't agree with all of his opinions.

Now, despite my preference, if McConnell and Company had just been honest I wouldn't have had a problem with holding up the nomination. The Constitution gives them that ability. No need to pretend that you're acting out of principle.

However, whatever moral highground the Democrats possessed was surrendered when they willingly perpetuated the slander of Brett Kavanaugh. While I'm sure Judge Garland is disappointed, at least the Republicans left his reputation intact. He still sits on the second highest court in the land. Had the Democrats succeeded with their defamation, the same would not be true of Justice Kavanaugh. Had his nomination been defeated, he would have been declared a rapist in the eyes of the US Senate. He'd have had to resign from the Court of Appeals. His life's work would have been over.

So, there's principle, and then there's having principles. The Republicans violated the former. The Democrats proved they have no interest in the latter.

Ethical/Moral arguments aside, Kavanaugh *is* a SCOTUS judge, so at the end of the day, the court will tilt to 6-3 with this appointment. This is really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Setting a “new” precedent?? Several SC nominees have been denied approval, it wasn’t invented with Merrick Garland but changing the makeup of the SC hasn’t happened in nearly 150 years. You keep dancing around the basic facts

Yes, clearly I'm the one denying the facts.

Precedent - an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

You want me to post quotes from Republican Senators from 2016 about why there shouldn't be a SCOTUS nomination in an election year? Or is that not considered a matter of fact to you? And why is changing precedent related to the court makeup significantly different from changing precedent for when judicial nominees can be confirmed if both are or will be done for partisan purposes? Do you see the back and forth ending once ACB is appointed or the Democrats pack the courts?

If you'll note the open poll in this thread, I'm against packing the courts. I'm just also against further escalating this fight because it isn't good for anyone in the long term.

 

[bamawriter]

Ethical/Moral arguments aside, Kavanaugh *is* a SCOTUS judge, so at the end of the day, the court will tilt to 6-3 with this appointment. This is really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

It may be the only thing that matters, but even that matters very little.

 

[volfanjustin]

LOL

 

[0nelilreb]

Ethical/Moral arguments aside, Kavanaugh *is* a SCOTUS judge, so at the end of the day, the court will tilt to 6-3 with this appointment. This is really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

Maybe the party that tries there best to Fk over and end the careers of the judges should have thought of that before their confirmation hearings that have zero standards for being qualified according to the constitution. Nah you dumnazzs just try it then cry they are leaning away from your party when you fail .The party of logic and critical thinking you are not .

 

[AM64]

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

Guess your side should have nominated moderates and set the tone the last go around, but your fools had to go all out the other way. Remember this: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"? Poke someone in the eye and he tends to remember. Someone bent on making statements like that should consider just who runs banana republics and their track record vs ours.

 

[landscapingvol]

Yes, clearly I'm the one denying the facts.

Precedent - an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

You want me to post quotes from Republican Senators from 2016 about why there shouldn't be a SCOTUS nomination in an election year? Or is that not considered a matter of fact to you? And why is changing precedent related to the court makeup significantly different from changing precedent for when judicial nominees can be confirmed if both are or will be done for partisan purposes? Do you see the back and forth ending once ACB is appointed or the Democrats pack the courts?

If you'll note the open poll in this thread, I'm against packing the courts. I'm just also against further escalating this fight because it isn't good for anyone in the long term.

The “precedent” that you keep referring to wasn’t invented by McConnell and was nothing more than rejecting Garland’s nomination which again has happened several times in US history. Would it help you to sleep better at night if he had admitted that they were simply rejecting his nomination instead of making up a ridiculous SC nomination in an election year defense created by Joe Biden? The facts are the Republicans controlled the Senate and rejected his nomination for a legitimate vacancy. There is not a legitimate or Constitutional argument that can be made for creating vacancies on the Court simply because you don’t like the nomination. There is no law stating that a liberal judge must be replaced by another liberal judge or the opposite. If the Democrats controlled the Senate right now, they would not bring his nomination to a vote which would be expected and there would be no cry from the media or Republicans about packing the court because it’s unfair.

 

[VolStrom]

Ethical/Moral arguments aside, Kavanaugh *is* a SCOTUS judge, so at the end of the day, the court will tilt to 6-3 with this appointment. This is really the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

So what is the difference between a 5-4 court and a 6-3 court? Either way they are both majorities.

 

[MontyPython]

Guess your side should have nominated moderates and set the tone the last go around, but your fools had to go all out the other way. Remember this: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"? Poke someone in the eye and he tends to remember. Someone bent on making statements like that should consider just who runs banana republics and their track record vs ours.

Whatever. Come January, Dumb Donald gone, and we'll flip SCOTUS.

 

[MontyPython]

So what is the difference between a 5-4 court and a 6-3 court? Either way they are both majorities.

Robert's has taken on Stevens' role, and sided with liberal justices on several occasions... much to Dumb Donald's chagrin.

 

[1972 Grad]

Robert's has taken on Stevens' role, and sided with liberal justices on several occasions... much to Dumb Donald's chagrin.

To the chagrin of a lot of us. I think the deep state has him by the short hairs.

 

[VolStrom]

Whatever. Come January, Dumb Donald gone, and we'll flip SCOTUS.

Who is we? The fat ass white girls/near girls rioting in liberal cities? The 4 ignorant liberals on this website? Believe all of the polls you want and think you liberals will win this November. 4 more years of Trump will drive you and your idiots crazy.

 

[VolStrom]

Robert's has taken on Stevens' role, and sided with liberal justices on several occasions... much to Dumb Donald's chagrin.

So it's not really a packed conservative court like you libtards are portraying then?

 

[loggervol]

What if they don’t undo the prior decisions? What if the court is expanded to 11 or 13 members and all they do is continue to hear cases and make decisions based on which constitutional interpretation garners the most votes with deference given to established judicial precedent, as the Court (more or less) does now?

Here’s the problem, radical judges would make decisions on personal feelings and radical thoughts. The constitutional rulings should be ruled on what the constitution says on the matter at hand. It should not be with sjw in mind or what benefits who in what area. This is the problem with packing the courts. That is what the dems want to do.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Who is we? The fat ass white girls/near girls rioting in liberal cities? The 4 ignorant liberals on this website? Believe all of the polls you want and think you liberals will win this November. 4 more years of Trump will drive you and your idiots crazy.

I hope.