Options

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1242527293049

Comments

  • Options
    Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom's Posts: 18,415
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
    Moving the goal posts is what the GOP did to Garland and again with Ginsburg. 
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • Options
    gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,412
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
    Moving the goal posts is what the GOP did to Garland and again with Ginsburg. 
    to be honest though, gop probably did us a favor by keeping garland off of the court. he has been nothing but a complete and utter disappointment as ag.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
    Moving the goal posts is what the GOP did to Garland and again with Ginsburg. 
    They've been moving a lot of goal posts in recent decades.
  • Options
    PoncierPoncier Posts: 16,440
    mickeyrat said:
    mrussel1 said:
    I guess to be clear, this isn't a subpoena.  But if he doesn't cooperate, I'm sure it will become one. The one problem is that Feinstein needs to be there to get it approved.  Otherwise the committee is split evenly.
    she's back....

    Didn’t anybody else find it a little crazy that you guys were talking about it then she’s back? 
    She looks awful. Time to pack it in. 
    Welcome to 1996.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
    Maybe because it’s already at 9?

    cmon, it currently could have meant to be read as from 9.
    Check with the original poster. Who really knows?
    mistyped.


  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 37,217
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
    Maybe because it’s already at 9?

    cmon, it currently could have meant to be read as from 9.
    Check with the original poster. Who really knows?
    mistyped.


    What’s a misty ped?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
    Maybe because it’s already at 9?

    cmon, it currently could have meant to be read as from 9.
    Check with the original poster. Who really knows?
    mistyped.


    What’s a misty ped?
    hahahahahaha!!!!
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    edited May 2023
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,302
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.

    It's not pouting,  it's the only constitutional remedy currently available to counter the extreme court.

    Unless you may be implying it's not that extreme.
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,302
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?
    Yes.  The dems add, the gop adds. It minimizes the impact one or two extremist judges have, and forces the gop to negotiate a reasonable solution to the problem an unbalanced court brings to our liberties 
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
    Punting on the Garland pick because it was an election year, but then ramming ACB through in September of 2020 wasn't making up the rules as they go along? That wasn't blatant fuckery? 

    Lyndsey Graham was on record in 2016 as saying they would refuse any supreme court pick Hillary nominated if she became president, but somehow the democrats talking about adding seats is going too far? 

    Come on. 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
    Punting on the Garland pick because it was an election year, but then ramming ACB through in September of 2020 wasn't making up the rules as they go along? That wasn't blatant fuckery? 

    Lyndsey Graham was on record in 2016 as saying they would refuse any supreme court pick Hillary nominated if she became president, but somehow the democrats talking about adding seats is going too far? 

    Come on. 
    They are allowed to do that though.  You might not like it but it is within their power to do so.
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
    Punting on the Garland pick because it was an election year, but then ramming ACB through in September of 2020 wasn't making up the rules as they go along? That wasn't blatant fuckery? 

    Lyndsey Graham was on record in 2016 as saying they would refuse any supreme court pick Hillary nominated if she became president, but somehow the democrats talking about adding seats is going too far? 

    Come on. 
    They are allowed to do that though.  You might not like it but it is within their power to do so.

    Is expanding the court against the rules? 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
    Punting on the Garland pick because it was an election year, but then ramming ACB through in September of 2020 wasn't making up the rules as they go along? That wasn't blatant fuckery? 

    Lyndsey Graham was on record in 2016 as saying they would refuse any supreme court pick Hillary nominated if she became president, but somehow the democrats talking about adding seats is going too far? 

    Come on. 
    They are allowed to do that though.  You might not like it but it is within their power to do so.

    Is expanding the court against the rules? 
    It's not and it is something I don't think is a good idea as explained before.
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
    Punting on the Garland pick because it was an election year, but then ramming ACB through in September of 2020 wasn't making up the rules as they go along? That wasn't blatant fuckery? 

    Lyndsey Graham was on record in 2016 as saying they would refuse any supreme court pick Hillary nominated if she became president, but somehow the democrats talking about adding seats is going too far? 

    Come on. 
    They are allowed to do that though.  You might not like it but it is within their power to do so.

    Is expanding the court against the rules? 
    It's not and it is something I don't think is a good idea as explained before.
    Cool.

    The GOP's chicanery wasn't a good idea either, and is taking us to a very dark place to boot.

    It will be fun to see how they ratfuck next year's election the way they tried to ratfuck 2020's. 
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 37,217
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.
    Punting on the Garland pick because it was an election year, but then ramming ACB through in September of 2020 wasn't making up the rules as they go along? That wasn't blatant fuckery? 

    Lyndsey Graham was on record in 2016 as saying they would refuse any supreme court pick Hillary nominated if she became president, but somehow the democrats talking about adding seats is going too far? 

    Come on. 
    They are allowed to do that though.  You might not like it but it is within their power to do so.

    Is expanding the court against the rules? 
    It's not and it is something I don't think is a good idea as explained before.
    Cool.

    The GOP's chicanery wasn't a good idea either, and is taking us to a very dark place to boot.

    It will be fun to see how they ratfuck next year's election the way they tried to ratfuck 2020's. 
    20 times worse. Just wait for those repub state legislatures or SOSs to throw out results from certain districts. The fix is already in, way in.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,412
    the dems will regret this "turn the other cheek" schtick they always play when the gop adds 3 more conservative justices to the court just to make sure the dems never hold it again.

    its not against the rules, and the gop are dicks, so do not think for a second that they will not try it.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though. 

    That branch of our government has been so ratfucked over the years, maybe expanding it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to people. 
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,674
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though. 

    That branch of our government has been so ratfucked over the years, maybe expanding it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to people. 

    or reform. term limits scotus 18 yrs. oldest cycles off every 2 years. maybe 15 yrs for the appellate division. 10 for the district courts.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,704
    mickeyrat said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though. 

    That branch of our government has been so ratfucked over the years, maybe expanding it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to people. 

    or reform. term limits scotus 18 yrs. oldest cycles off every 2 years. maybe 15 yrs for the appellate division. 10 for the district courts.
    Absolutely. 

    Expanding the court doesn't need to be the path forward, but the status quo doesn't seem to be cutting it. 

    Clarence Thomas is clearly compromised and needs to be investigated... if only there was a court in the America that could rule on such a thing. 
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 37,217
    mickeyrat said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though. 

    That branch of our government has been so ratfucked over the years, maybe expanding it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to people. 

    or reform. term limits scotus 18 yrs. oldest cycles off every 2 years. maybe 15 yrs for the appellate division. 10 for the district courts.
    Absolutely. 

    Expanding the court doesn't need to be the path forward, but the status quo doesn't seem to be cutting it. 

    Clarence Thomas is clearly compromised and needs to be investigated... if only there was a court in the America that could rule on such a thing. 
    Welcome to the third world.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    mickeyrat said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though. 

    That branch of our government has been so ratfucked over the years, maybe expanding it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to people. 

    or reform. term limits scotus 18 yrs. oldest cycles off every 2 years. maybe 15 yrs for the appellate division. 10 for the district courts.
    I don't have a problem with this.

    Why is it only the President has a term limit?  That seems ass backwards.
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,655
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
Sign In or Register to comment.