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
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Comments
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
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.
Leave it alone. Things are cyclical.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Is expanding the court against the rules?
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.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
its not against the rules, and the gop are dicks, so do not think for a second that they will not try it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
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
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.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Why is it only the President has a term limit? That seems ass backwards.
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.