SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

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. 

gimmesometruth27

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Poncier

HughFreakingDillon said:

cblock4life said:

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.

tempo_n_groove

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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?

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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!!!!

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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? 

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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?

Lerxst1992

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Lerxst1992

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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 

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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?

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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. 

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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? 

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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. 

Halifax2TheMax

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.