A Solution To The Left’s “Court Packing Initiative”.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The Republicans and Conservatives could ask the Dems to do one simple thing to garner support for their Court Packing scheme.

Pass the law, but have it come into affect AFTER the next Presidential election.

Simple.

You do realize the WHOLE PROBLEM came from the Republicans picking court nominees in an election year, when it was previously established that they wouldn't do that....

Your solution is to fix the problem your party created.

To avoid COURT PACKING all the GOP had to do was not violate the precedent with past court nominees.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

The left abided Trump for four years???????????????

All the left did for 4 years was say no!! Promote more division and conspiracy theories and stall any progress for the Country!

This is where a little education and knowledge comes in....

Um, The president had 2 years with Repub control, so the Dems said no for the final two years.

Sorry I cant draw pictures.

Also, the repubs did nothing but say NO for 6 straight years under Obama.... so im not sure what your point is really, if you even know what it is... turn on fox news to see what it is...

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you all "listening" to the LameStreamMedia caselaw interpretation and selective excerpts extracted from the pundit opinions OR are you actually reading the entire majority opinions?

Too many people declare "victory" when the Court issues an opinion without actually reading the opinion AND taking into consideration the procedural status of the case and/or the effects down the road when a set of facts arrive that are distinguished from those in the current litigation.

The Courts are not supposed to decide cases based on politics. That's what the CommunistSocialistLiberalDumbo Crats are attempting to create .... political preference .... like they do when they give illegal aliens money!

I think I could apply each word used here to describe the GOP's use of the courts for election fraud.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

My objection is the use of the word "fear" .... which is a personal emotion as opposed to a legal evaluation. Almost since its beginning the SCOTUS has repeatedly stated in opinions that it refrains from deciding "political" cases and/or cases that are legislative in nature. That is not "fear" that is historical precedent and good policy.

The current effort is PURELY POLITICAL when PACKING THE COURT with more judges to offset the current PERCEIVED makeup of the Court with respect to alleged "political bias" based upon Trump's selection and the Senate's approval during Trump's Presidency.

The SCOTUS stands as a third branch of our government to assure the other two branches remain consistent with our Constitution when they act and pass laws. Expanding the Court to simply get approval of acts and laws is the destruction of the purpose of the independent third branch .... independent, because the appointments are lifetime in nature to assure their independence.

Just explained why Trump shouldnt have packed the court before leaving office.

[Tiny]

Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, started the whole mess by making it where only 50% of Senators had to approve Obama's judicial picks. McConnell one upped him by making that apply also to supreme court nominees.

If this keeps escalating where does it all end? Well the strategy of the Progressive Democrats appears to be to convert the USA into a one party state, where Democrats would control the presidency, the courts, Congress and the Senate. They would do this by ending the filibuster, packing the courts, making D.C. and Puerto Rico states, and creating some kind of a federal election commission controlled by Democrats that would gerrymander congressional districts.

How would Republicans react? The worst case scenario would be something like the Liberal/Conservative conflict in Colombia, that is, lots of bloodshed.

Two years ago I would have said Biden would never let this happen. Now it's hard to say. Manchin, Sinema and other moderate Democrats though should rule the day.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by bf0082

Just explained why Trump shouldnt have packed the court before leaving office.

Which is a complete waste of keystrokes since he didn’t do that. Can you explain why water is dry next?

To avoid COURT PACKING all the GOP had to do was not violate the precedent with past court nominees.

Would you like a list of every time this “precedent” wasn’t, or are you content to wallow in historical ignorance?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, started the whole mess by making it where only 50% of Senators had to approve Obama's judicial picks. McConnell one upped him by making that apply also to supreme court nominees.

If this keeps escalating where does it all end? Well the strategy of the Progressive Democrats appears to be to convert the USA into a one party state, where Democrats would control the presidency, the courts, Congress and the Senate. They would do this by ending the filibuster, packing the courts, making D.C. and Puerto Rico states, and creating some kind of a federal election commission controlled by Democrats that would gerrymander congressional districts.

How would Republicans react? The worst case scenario would be something like the Liberal/Conservative conflict in Colombia, that is, lots of bloodshed.

Two years ago I would have said Biden would never let this happen. Now it's hard to say. Manchin, Sinema and other moderate Democrats though should rule the day.

when one party momentarily carries the political power

and they press it to obliterate all norms, including designing a perpetual defacto democracy that gives themselves structural advantages

in the senate

in the courts

in federalizing voting laws that remove all safe guard, with loose strings to be pulled as needed

in corrupting departments of the state to their uses by indoctrination and infiltration and pay and benefit

in effect supplanting constitutional republicanism and our system of federalism without so much as one constitutional amendment

when they give commonly understood words meanings known only to them

where they institute learning in our schools based on lie and anti-Americanism, the founding was white supremacy the founders racists, whiteness is bad, where anything can be white supremacy at their choosing

when they ban words and thoughts and find and persecute " terrorists" among their political opposition who might resist

where truth and debate and reason are all supplanted by the rights of feelings

when their media, the head of large corporations, in favor of profit, and the manipulators in social media aid and abet this destruction and censorship

it is a brave new world they wish to create for us to live in, one of psychological manipulation and classical conditioning

where up is down and right is wrong and all hate is directed at freedom and truth

[Jacuzzme]

I read a book like that once. It was purported to be a cautionary fiction, but turned out instructional.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I read a book like that once. It was purported to be a cautionary fiction, but turned out instructional.

forewarned is forearmed

take it to heart, and alarm the unwary

hopefully more will listen than not

it is happening

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by bf0082

You do realize the WHOLE PROBLEM came from the Republicans picking court nominees in an election year, when it was previously established that they wouldn't do that....
....:

Incorrect. The rationale was that Obama was finishing up his second term. Whether Trump was not going to have a second term at that point was undecided.

Originally Posted by bf0082

This is where a little education and knowledge comes in....

Um, The president had 2 years with Repub control, so the Dems said no for the final two years.

Sorry I cant draw pictures.

Also, the repubs did nothing but say NO for 6 straight years under Obama.... so im not sure what your point is really, if you even know what it is... turn on fox news to see what it is...

The Dims had a supermajority for almost 2 years of Obama's Presidency. They could have packed the court, they could have passed reparations, they could have done a lot of things. They focused on Obamacare mainly by lying and got it passed by the reconciliation method without a single Republican vote. The Dims were voted out of office in droves.

Originally Posted by bf0082

Just explained why Trump shouldnt have packed the court before leaving office.

So you wanted Trump to expand the SCOTUS to 13 seats and add 4 more conservative Justices? I remember that some Republicans wanted to do away with the 60 vote filibuster but the Turtle wouldn't let them. He learned his lesson from Harry Reid.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bf0082

Just explained why Trump shouldnt have packed the court before leaving office.

Trump didn't "pack" the Court. The Dims can fill any vacancies.

"Elections have consequences"!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

So you wanted Trump to expand the SCOTUS to 13 seats and add 4 more conservative Justices?

Not really. But that is a rationalization for stuffing ballot boxes.

As well as facilitating illegal aliens to enter and register to vote.

HR1 allows them to enter and vote without citizenship verification.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bf0082

This is where a little education and knowledge comes in....

Perhaps you should get some education then .. instead of your "little."

It will help you increase your "knowledge" also.

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by bf0082

You do realize the WHOLE PROBLEM came from the Republicans picking court nominees in an election year, when it was previously established that they wouldn't do that.

That's really a dumbass precedent.

The President is in power from Jan 20th the year he/she starts until Jan 20th 4 years later.

A Senator is in power from Jan 3rd the year he/she starts until Jan 3rd 6 years later.

A Congressman is in power from Jan 3rd the he/she starts until Jan 3rd 2 years later.

If a Justice dies inside that time period, that seat's up for grabs.

Blowing out the court to specifically have enough sympathetic seats to keep a majority is literally nothing less that a fucking Coup because they know they want to pass unconstitutional shit, and they don't want to be stopped.

[royamcr]

But can't sit a justice during an election cycle, wait yes you can.