Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Packing the courts
-
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:46 pm
Packing the courts
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ToLY1-ijlo
There’s a reason Biden wouldn’t give a straight answer to the court packing question during the debates.
Hopefully this burns the Dems in the midterms.
There’s a reason Biden wouldn’t give a straight answer to the court packing question during the debates.
Hopefully this burns the Dems in the midterms.
Re: Packing the courts
They can do it through legislation. That’s just as legitimate a path as blocking Garland and a bunch of lower judge nominees under Obama and ramming through as many of your own folks as possible when the Republicans had the reins. They were effectively stacking the court as well by delaying until they had power. Congress sets the number of justices. There’s nothing magically special about 9 and that’s before we consider that they are not supposed to be running around deciding what’s constitutional the way that they do. That’s a precedent they claimed in 1803 and nobody ever fought back on it. The language around the Supreme Courts function is some of the vaguest in the constitution. What they do now is NOT part of the plan.Chrocket87 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:00 pm https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ToLY1-ijlo
There’s a reason Biden wouldn’t give a straight answer to the court packing question during the debates.
Hopefully this burns the Dems in the midterms.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: Packing the courts
I'll let Uncle Joe give you my opinion...
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Packing the courts
Fortunately nobody can change their opinion ever. That’s why Ice cream remains in my view one of the four food groups. It was a good idea when I was 6 and by god I guess I’m stuck with it.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: Packing the courts
One can certainly change their position on things. However, it is always prudent to ask the reason why.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Packing the courts
And the reason is quite simple... the other party has stopped playing fair and decided not to advance an agenda but rather to achieve its goals only through the courts. It’s not a hard one to figure out.Bryce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:58 amOne can certainly change their position on things. However, it is always prudent to ask the reason why.
It’s also not the first second or third time the size of the court has been debated or changed or proposed to be changed. Every time something happens it’s like some of you think it’s a brand new never before seen thing. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: Packing the courts
And I don't get all upset because once the other party retakes the top spot the extra justices go bye bye and it goes back to 9 like it should be.
Re: Packing the courts
What you describe was the Democrat Party playbook for YEARS.
I think what you fail to consider is that the framers reason for creating our representative republic, with three separate branches of government and not a true democracy, was to make it difficult for one person or one group to advance an agenda.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Packing the courts
It’s made the country entirely ungovernable. If that was their goal they have succeeded behind their wildest dreams.Bryce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:08 amWhat you describe was the Democrat Party playbook for YEARS.
I think what you fail to consider is that the framers reason for creating our representative republic, with three separate branches of government and not a true democracy, was to make it difficult for one person or one group to advance an agenda.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Re: Packing the courts
Biden don't want to do it because he knows it will turn into a clusterfudge every time the majority changes.
The Democrats jack the number up until they are a majority.
Then the Republicans jack it up even higher when they come back.
Pretty soon there's 37 justices.
The Democrats jack the number up until they are a majority.
Then the Republicans jack it up even higher when they come back.
Pretty soon there's 37 justices.
Re: Packing the courts
im surprised TT didnt turn this into a thread about fudge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbIGZliN_IM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbIGZliN_IM
Re: Packing the courts
According to the United States Constitution, the legislative branch has the right to control the size of the Supreme Court.
FDR asked for more judges back in the 1930s, but Congress wouldn't do it. When some of the justices retired or died, FDR managed to pack the court anyway.
FDR asked for more judges back in the 1930s, but Congress wouldn't do it. When some of the justices retired or died, FDR managed to pack the court anyway.