• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

Lutherf said:
Dude!

I went through 8 years of Obama even though he wasn't "my guy". I went through 8 years of Clinton before that. I have a city council here in Tucson that seems to think they're in Berkely. That's all part of living in a free society. Being free means that sometimes the other guy wins. When that happens you have to deal with it. You can deal with it by wandering the streets in a pink ***** hat and howling at the unfairness of it all or you can figure out how to cope with the circumstances in such a way that you don't come up short the next time.
Click to expand...

Right, I get that elections have consequences, but those consequences should not be that the other side gets to just disregard the rules when they don't like what would happen if they followed them.
How about do your job? Works well enough for the Patriots.
 
I think an interpretation is in order:

"To the members of the Supreme Court,

We, the Left wing, do not like that there are more Right leaning justices within the court than there are Left leaning. We have federal judges planted almost everywhere, and they typically side with us. That's the way it should be: Neglecting the law and the Constitution of the United States, and bending to our will. If you dare even take a case that challenges Roe v Wade directly, there will be severe consequences. Those consequences will be to add a few more seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with our people. Then, do a similar, but more severe, Kavanaugh like investigation into each conservative members to oust them and pack those seats with more of our people. Like our federal judges, the Supreme Court needs to remain in OUR control. No one will be allowed to oppose us, disagree with us, nor rule against us. The rule of law only applies to those who are not one of us. Constitutional rights are only permitted to us. We are the chosen ones of nature, and we will not be denied.

Sincerely,
The Left"

Sounds about right.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Not sure why you directed this at me personally, I know I am not "owed" anything, but any way you want to slice it, when Obama nominated his SCOTUS pick, it is with the idea that the Senate will do their job, and either confirm or reject.
Click to expand...

In hindsight it was a solid rejection. If you can make a legal case against congress, feel free to prosecute.
 
Perotista said:
Could have been both. Regardless, in my opinion Garland should have had a vote. He would never have been approved, it all seemed to me as petty politics. There was a lot said about Schumer and his statement at the time.

The bottom line, vote or no vote, Garland wasn't about to be approved. What that showed me is how far partisan politics and polarization has become. It is today, for the good of the political party and not the country. More loyalty to political party than the nation.

I could never become a member of either political party. Everything is done for purely partisan political reasons, not for the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

The point is not allowing a vote is not petty politics, but a dereliction of duty.
 
Pound4abrown said:
You're worried about ripping apart the constitution?
You weren't when the Republican's abdicated their sworn duty.
Click to expand...

"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote." -- Harry Reid
 
SLC said:
Oh Mitch followed the BIDEN rule and Democrats are upset.
Click to expand...

First of all, there is NO BIDEN RULE!!!!

Second of all, Moscow Mitch didn't follow what Biden proposed:

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Click to expand...

After the election, NOT until there was another President.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Right, I get that elections have consequences, but those consequences should not be that the other side gets to just disregard the rules when they don't like what would happen if they followed them.
How about do your job? Works well enough for the Patriots.
Click to expand...

No rules were disregarded. The president gets to NOMINATE. He or she does not get to APPOINT.
 
akyron said:
fyi. You are not "owed" anything.

This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court

"A 1937 political cartoon with the caption 'Do We Want A Ventriloquist Act In The Supreme Court?' which was a criticism of FDR's New Deal, depicting President Franklin D. Roosevelt with six new judges likely to be FDR puppets."

"“Congress and the people viewed FDR’s ill-considered proposal as an undemocratic power grab,” she says. “The chief justice (Charles Evans Hughes) testified before Congress that the Court was up to date in its work, countering Roosevelt’s stated purpose that the old justices needed help with their caseload.”

“It was never realistic that this plan would pass,” Perry says. “Roosevelt badly miscalculated reverence for the Court and its independence from an overreaching president.”"

"FDR eventually packed the Court the old-fashioned way,” she says, “through attrition, naming nine members.”

View attachment 67261858
Click to expand...

He started discussing the idea around 1936 and it immediately was met with opposition. Even his own VP John Garner came out against it.
 
uptower said:
Deflection: the Dems lost in 2016 for many reasons of their own making as well. That does not mean voter suppression does not happen or it is insignificant.

That it has gathered pace in the last few years is the direct result of 'conservative' justices who seem more interested in advancing the Republican hold on power by allowing states to go back to the Jim Crow days than 'upholding the constitution'. The court needs reform and it needs justices more representative of changing demographics and values.
Click to expand...

Not sure what country you live in but I live in the greatest country on the face of the earth that you people want to change. Everything you do is right and everything the Republicans do is wrong IN YOUR OPINION. You don't seem to have any clue as to the foundation upon which this country was built and it certainly wasn't a massive central gov't usurping state and local responsibilities. I grew up a staunch Democrat but your party today is a disaster, you don't make the country greater by packing the courts with political appointees or making more people dependent on the federal bureaucrats. You do so by promoting individual responsibilities and accountability.

Your Democratic Party today is run by a group of radicals and there is no reason to vote for any one of those bozos in 2020. Elections have consequences as does the Constitution, doesn't seem that either matter to you any more as long as you get your way. Pack the courts, let California select the President, ignore personal responsibility and bail out people who make bad choices. Those are all prescriptions for failure which is why the left will never win another national election
 
uptower said:
If the court is just going to be used as an arm of the GOP, a tool to keep power because they cannot win majorities anymore, then it will need reform. It must reflect the spirit of the constitution and one would hope the values of the majority, not the vote-suppressing, power-grabbing influence of old, rich, white oligarchs.
Click to expand...

Amazing how much **** can be put into 1 post....
 
Mr Person said:
If you wanted this sort of thing firmly off the table, you should have gotten your GOP reps not to refuse to vote on Garland based on a made-up bull**** rule - the kind of standard DP conservatives love to invent on the spot and tailor to suit their position - that because someone hadn't been nominated in that exact amount of time before a President is out of office, they shouldn't be so much as voted on.

Guess what, the Dems are threatening to fight fire with fire. It was only a matter of time before they got sick of getting kicked in the nuts for taking a higher road.
Click to expand...
So, I guess you're saying that that Constitution is a dead document in liberal progressive minds? Sad

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
Outlook said:
What does heal itself mean?
Does that mean they need to start agreeing with liberals?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Their way or the highway. The Dems will "restructure" it so that it will work for them and NOT the Constitution.
 
Acadia said:
What does that have to do with undermining the way SCOTUS is formed and operated. Too bad, so sad. Ya lost.
You're not going to rip apart SCOTUS and our Constitution because ya can't even get one Dem candidate to look sane and not trip over their own feet!
Click to expand...



Where in the Constitution does it say how many justices SCOTUS must or may have?

There have been as few as 6 and as many as 10.

As a matter of fact, it doesn't even say they must be appointed for life.
 
The Dems want SCOTUS to be their bitch. Well guess what? That's not how SCOTUS works!
 
BWG said:
Where in the Constitution does it say how many justices SCOTUS must or may have?

There have been as few as 6 and as many as 10.

As a matter of fact, it doesn't even say they must be appointed for life.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Where does it say Democrats can threaten to extort SCOTUS to get rulings to go their way?

See, I can do it, too...
 
Mr Person said:
If you wanted this sort of thing firmly off the table, you should have gotten your GOP reps not to refuse to vote on Garland based on a made-up bull**** rule - the kind of standard DP conservatives love to invent on the spot and tailor to suit their position - that because someone hadn't been nominated in that exact amount of time before a President is out of office, they shouldn't be so much as voted on.

Guess what, the Dems are threatening to fight fire with fire. It was only a matter of time before they got sick of getting kicked in the nuts for taking a higher road.
Click to expand...
Trump is going to win in 2020 so hold on to your hat. Trump will get 1 or 2 more supreme court nominations. RBG can't stay on the bench forever. :lol:
 
Pound4abrown said:
The court wouldn't be the way it is today if Mitch McConnell did not hold a seat hostage to give it to a conservative judge that was not appointed by Obama.
So, you know what, you can take your "radical liberalism gone crazy" and be off with your bad self.
Click to expand...

Waaa! Waaa! Mean ol' Mitchie kicked our asses again. :cry:

Many of us LIKE the court of today

AS if Dems could do anything. :roll:
 
So the Dems pass a law that changes how the SCOTUS operates. That law gets challenged in court. It gets sent to the SCOTUS to be decided if it's constitutional. How do you think that will work out.:lol:
 
Bullseye said:
Waaa! Waaa! Mean ol' Mitchie kicked our asses again. :cry:

Many of us LIKE the court of today

AS if Dems could do anything. :roll:
Click to expand...

How many is many? Sounds like someone who isnt interested in actually governing but ruling. Every trumpist shows how deranged they are even if they have to lie about a thought experiment that was never an actual rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom