LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:17 pm Actually, I don't think so...the Senate can kill that with a quick vote to acquit.

Wishful thinking.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:37 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:56 pm maybe you should have begged Harry Reid not to put the nuclear option into law first.

Maybe you should have begged Moscow Mitch not to unreasonably block all of Obama’s judicial appointments which forced Harry to invoke the nuclear option.

All of this circles back to Mitch. All of it.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:14 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:44 pm The big constitutional mistake McConnell made with Garland is that he refused to allow hearings and a vote. To my mind, that was illegal. The constitution required the Senate to advise and consent. McConnell illegally blocked the Senate from doing so.

Had McConnell allowed hearings and a vote, and had Garland then been voted down, the system would have “worked” in that the Senate would have done it’s job.

I always wondered why McConnell didn’t allow there to be a vote. Back then, Garland needed 60 votes. It is hard for me to imagine that enough Republicans would have crossed over to vote for him, particularly if McConnell was beating on them to vote “no.”

The large majority of supreme court justices have been approved overwhelmingly if they were qualified, regardless of whether they were conservative or liberal.

McConnell’s Garland ploy may mean that from now on, a justice will only be approved if the same party holds the presidency and the Senate. That would not be a good thing for the court or the country.

+1

He can spin it all he wants, but the truth is what you have written. There is no precedent for what McConnell did. In the end however I blame Obama and the democrats. They should have created a constitutional crises by playing the, "no hearing, no vote, you have given your consent" and Obama seated him. Make SCOTUS deal with it. The democrats just play too nice sometimes. That must end.

Apparently the dems are considering impeachment, of Barr, or Trump which would put a halt on all other business. This would definitely move the vote until after the election.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:47 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:17 pm Actually, I don't think so...the Senate can kill that with a quick vote to acquit.

Wishful thinking.

Pelosi controls the timing and process until the charges are formally presented. You don't drop the bomb until a few days before election. I think by the written process they can delay a few days, thereafter, forcing Mitch to violate the constitution if he votes before having an actual written copy of the charges. Recall Pelosi delayed a number of days between notification of impeachment and formal presentation of charges for Trump.

The dems use all of the standard parliamentary moves the minority has available, get close to election day and then drop the bomb.

I would not be so quick to dismiss as a possibility. Not suggesting it is a good idea, haven't thought about the effects on the election.

It also plays chicken with the entire Senate. 3 or 4 republicans could stop it at any time.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:57 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:29 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:47 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:17 pm Actually, I don't think so...the Senate can kill that with a quick vote to acquit.

Wishful thinking.

Pelosi controls the timing and process until the charges are formally presented. You don't drop the bomb until a few days before election. I think by the written process they can delay a few days, thereafter, forcing Mitch to violate the constitution if he votes before having an actual written copy of the charges. Recall Pelosi delayed a number of days between notification of impeachment and formal presentation of charges for Trump.

The dems use all of the standard parliamentary moves the minority has available, get close to election day and then drop the bomb.

I would not be so quick to dismiss as a possibility. Not suggesting it is a good idea, haven't thought about the effects on the election.

It also plays chicken with the entire Senate. 3 or 4 republicans could stop it at any time.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:13 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:57 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:29 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

YOU COSMIC DUMB ASS!!

The SCOTUS that made the Roe v Wade decision was 6-3 REPUBLICAN appointed judges!!

Democrats did not pack the court with liberal judges!! What a f*ing moron!

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:52 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:14 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:44 pm The big constitutional mistake McConnell made with Garland is that he refused to allow hearings and a vote. To my mind, that was illegal. The constitution required the Senate to advise and consent. McConnell illegally blocked the Senate from doing so.

Had McConnell allowed hearings and a vote, and had Garland then been voted down, the system would have “worked” in that the Senate would have done it’s job.

I always wondered why McConnell didn’t allow there to be a vote. Back then, Garland needed 60 votes. It is hard for me to imagine that enough Republicans would have crossed over to vote for him, particularly if McConnell was beating on them to vote “no.”

The large majority of supreme court justices have been approved overwhelmingly if they were qualified, regardless of whether they were conservative or liberal.

McConnell’s Garland ploy may mean that from now on, a justice will only be approved if the same party holds the presidency and the Senate. That would not be a good thing for the court or the country.

+1

He can spin it all he wants, but the truth is what you have written. There is no precedent for what McConnell did. In the end however I blame Obama and the democrats. They should have created a constitutional crises by playing the, "no hearing, no vote, you have given your consent" and Obama seated him. Make SCOTUS deal with it. The democrats just play too nice sometimes. That must end.

Apparently the dems are considering impeachment, of Barr, or Trump which would put a halt on all other business. This would definitely move the vote until after the election.

Obama should have used the recess appointment mechanism to get Garland on the bench. Mitch was trying to play games about keeping the Senate always in session, but I think there was a good argument that that was just a charade and would not have been upheld by the courts. Obama took the high road, however. Darn those Obamas with their high road stuff.

I don’t understand how impeachment would help the Dems. They are going to try to impeach Trump between now and the election? On what grounds? And, as MD said, why couldn’t the Senate vote to acquit and then vote on the supreme court nominee an hour later?

Any move to impeach Trump now would cost the Dems votes on November 3, I would be quite sure.

While packing the court is a dicey proposition, I think there would be more popular support for that than there would be for an October impeachment of Trump.

Having said that, I’m all for impeaching Bill Barr any day of the week.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:25 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:52 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:14 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:44 pm The big constitutional mistake McConnell made with Garland is that he refused to allow hearings and a vote. To my mind, that was illegal. The constitution required the Senate to advise and consent. McConnell illegally blocked the Senate from doing so.

Had McConnell allowed hearings and a vote, and had Garland then been voted down, the system would have “worked” in that the Senate would have done it’s job.

I always wondered why McConnell didn’t allow there to be a vote. Back then, Garland needed 60 votes. It is hard for me to imagine that enough Republicans would have crossed over to vote for him, particularly if McConnell was beating on them to vote “no.”

The large majority of supreme court justices have been approved overwhelmingly if they were qualified, regardless of whether they were conservative or liberal.

McConnell’s Garland ploy may mean that from now on, a justice will only be approved if the same party holds the presidency and the Senate. That would not be a good thing for the court or the country.

+1

He can spin it all he wants, but the truth is what you have written. There is no precedent for what McConnell did. In the end however I blame Obama and the democrats. They should have created a constitutional crises by playing the, "no hearing, no vote, you have given your consent" and Obama seated him. Make SCOTUS deal with it. The democrats just play too nice sometimes. That must end.

Apparently the dems are considering impeachment, of Barr, or Trump which would put a halt on all other business. This would definitely move the vote until after the election.

Obama should have used the recess appointment mechanism to get Garland on the bench. Mitch was trying to play games about keeping the Senate always in session, but I think there was a good argument that that was just a charade and would not have been upheld by the courts. Obama took the high road, however. Darn those Obamas with their high road stuff.

I don’t understand how impeachment would help the Dems. They are going to try to impeach Trump between now and the election? On what grounds? And, as MD said, why couldn’t the Senate vote to acquit and then vote on the supreme court nominee an hour later?

Any move to impeach Trump now would cost the Dems votes on November 3, I would be quite sure.

While packing the court is a dicey proposition, I think there would be more popular support for that than there would be for an October impeachment of Trump.

Having said that, I’m all for impeaching Bill Barr any day of the week.

We are in agreement re the one to impeach is Barr. I suspect you are correct, but I really have not thought it through in terms of who benefits in the election. This tactic is apparently on the Dems list of tactical / strategic options. I have said it before, I think the best strategy is to beat the republican Senators senseless with their duplicity and hypocrisy and get out the vote. Go through the motions of putting up a fight in the Senate and lose. From the perspective of the election, I actually think a loss on this appointment is better for the democrats.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:20 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:13 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:57 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:29 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

YOU COSMIC DUMB ASS!!

The SCOTUS that made the Roe v Wade decision was 6-3 REPUBLICAN appointed judges!!

Democrats did not pack the court with liberal judges!! What a f*ing moron!

Well, you have been saying since I have been on these forums how stupid Republicans are. You have your own proof right there. Hell you always tell us Republicans never get it right. I guess they got it right for once, at least in your opinion.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:33 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:20 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:13 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:57 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:29 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

YOU COSMIC DUMB ASS!!

The SCOTUS that made the Roe v Wade decision was 6-3 REPUBLICAN appointed judges!!

Democrats did not pack the court with liberal judges!! What a f*ing moron!

Well, you have been saying since I have been on these forums how stupid Republicans are. You have your own proof right there. Hell you always tell us Republicans never get it right. I guess they got it right for once, at least in your opinion.

It should also be noted that 5 republican appointed judges voted for Rowe, only one democrat!! It was a 7-2 decision. Once upon a time republicans were a party of foresight and honor. Not so much any longer.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:36 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

If the dems do pack the court, I would not blame them if they do, does this change the dynamic forever? Every POTUS and Senate of the same party can keep stacking it until they run out of room for benches. The Dems go to 11, the Rs can take it to 13 and so on and so on and so on. They can do it but it sure gets ridiculous after awhile. The vast majority of Americans will not be able to remember all of their names. The SCOTUS would become nothing more than a joke.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:52 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:36 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

If the dems do pack the court, I would not blame them if they do, does this change the dynamic forever? Every POTUS and Senate of the same party can keep stacking it until they run out of room for benches. The Dems go to 11, the Rs can take it to 13 and so on and so on and so on. They can do it but it sure gets ridiculous after awhile. The vast majority of Americans will not be able to remember all of their names. The SCOTUS would become nothing more than a joke.

... actually there is a school of thought that says, so what?, big deal! The court could actually be made to work better, less dependent on a single or particular judge.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:36 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

If the dems do pack the court, I would not blame them if they do, does this change the dynamic forever? Every POTUS and Senate of the same party can keep stacking it until they run out of room for benches. The Dems go to 11, the Rs can take it to 13 and so on and so on and so on. They can do it but it sure gets ridiculous after awhile. The vast majority of Americans will not be able to remember all of their names. The SCOTUS would become nothing more than a joke.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:57 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:36 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

If the dems do pack the court, I would not blame them if they do, does this change the dynamic forever? Every POTUS and Senate of the same party can keep stacking it until they run out of room for benches. The Dems go to 11, the Rs can take it to 13 and so on and so on and so on. They can do it but it sure gets ridiculous after awhile. The vast majority of Americans will not be able to remember all of their names. The SCOTUS would become nothing more than a joke.

In theory, yes, but each party would need to have both houses of Congress and the presidency. If, for example, the Republicans don’t have the House, then Congress would never pass legislation expanding the court.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 pm I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

I really doubt Biden will go for court packing. He is a creature of the collegial Senate.