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

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

  • Total voters
    131
#202
#202
midnight orange said:
I don’t disagree with much of your sentiment but I think as citizens we have to grasp some hard truths. We have the largest government in human history under the guise of the constitution. That it has been a failure is an understatement. With the exception of being pretty good on the 1st and 2nd amendments, it is for all practical purposes a dead letter. I would also argue that our tenuous hold on the 1st and 2nd amendment is due to it being engrained in the culture more than it being codified in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Again, that's because our duty to be informed citizens have been disappointing. We've lost the values as a whole. We keep re-electing the Pelosi's, McConnells, the Schumers, etc. If we kept our part, we wouldn't have such a big government. I'm sure you can see that I prefer small gov.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and theFallGuy
#203
#203
Take your one then lets put 4 or 5 new Liberals in when Biden takes office. Sounds like a fair trade.

Its all legal and we elect the POTUS to make these decisions as he sees fit right?
 
#204
#204
k-town_king said:
Take your one then lets put 4 or 5 new Liberals in when Biden takes office. Sounds like a fair trade.

Its all legal and we elect the POTUS to make these decisions as he sees fit right?
Click to expand...

You'll need the Senate and house to get it done.
 
#207
#207
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#209
#209
hog88 said:
Who told you that? Joe?
Click to expand...
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.
 
#210
#210
k-town_king said:
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.
Click to expand...
Potus term ends in Jan. Just an fyi and I said the same when Obama attempted it too
 
#212
#212
k-town_king said:
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.
Click to expand...

Potus term is 4 years, not 3 years 9 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#213
#213
utvols88 said:
Let's assume it was strictly political. So you want to do wrong because they did? That's your argument?
Click to expand...

I think that's a reasonable assumption, given that they've reneged on their previous commitment recently in a politically advantageous situation. Don't you?

But no, I'm against court packing. I'm also against appointing ACB because it is an exercise in political force over an opposition that can't stop it, and I know that Democrats will eventually reciprocate. I don't see how you can be for what the Republicans did but have some consistent argument against court packing.
 
#215
#215
k-town_king said:
Take your one then lets put 4 or 5 new Liberals in when Biden takes office. Sounds like a fair trade.

Its all legal and we elect the POTUS to make these decisions as he sees fit right?
Click to expand...

And then 10 or 12 conservatives the next time the Republicans take over. There's no way you don't see where this leads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, hog88 and landscapingvol
#218
#218
Wafflestomper said:
I think that's a reasonable assumption, given that they've reneged on their previous commitment recently in a politically advantageous situation. Don't you?

But no, I'm against court packing. I'm also against appointing ACB because it is an exercise in political force over an opposition that can't stop it, and I know that Democrats will eventually reciprocate. I don't see how you can be for what the Republicans did but have some consistent argument against court packing.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#219
#219
Wafflestomper said:
I think that's a reasonable assumption, given that they've reneged on their previous commitment recently in a politically advantageous situation. Don't you?

But no, I'm against court packing. I'm also against appointing ACB because it is an exercise in political force over an opposition that can't stop it, and I know that Democrats will eventually reciprocate. I don't see how you can be for what the Republicans did but have some consistent argument against court packing.
Click to expand...

Thanks to Harry Reid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#220
#220
utvols88 said:
Let's assume it was strictly political. So you want to do wrong because they did? That's your argument?
Click to expand...
It's kind of like when refs make a "make up call" when they realize they blew a call that impacted the game.
Two wrongs make more of a right than one wrong would.
 
#221
#221
luthervol said:
It's kind of like when refs make a "make up call" when they realize they blew a call that impacted the game.
Two wrongs make more of a right than one wrong would.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. And if it was reversed you wouldn't have that position.
 
#225
#225
luthervol said:
I think that if he wins, people would understand them going ahead with the appointment at that time.
Click to expand...

People should understand them going through with it now. If the Dems controlled the Senate in 2016 they would have confirmed Garland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top