Was Earl Warren Impeached?
If this were just a group of extremist mouthing off, then that would be comparable. It is leading Dems.
Apparently many Dems take this as a reasonable thing to do.
They should never, ever use the word “authoritarian” when referring to other.
1 Like
They are campaigning on the make up of the court. A court that has been shaped by McConnell refusing to let any of Obama’s appointments through while changing the rules to cram as many of Trump’s appointments though as possible.
This is the new normal.
get used to it.
2 Likes
Well no dems are upset because mitch stole a seat when Obama should have been able to have a seat.
I fond it more interesting how you tend to get overly emotional about these things.
Nothing has happened now either.
FDR tested similar ideas and pulled them back. Doesn’t mean he was a socialist, a hater of the Constitution or much of anything else.
My point is everyone gets frustrated with the court.
You mean like when right-wingers pondered altering the number of justices on the court ("restructuring) were Hillary to win? Because that’s what some Rs considered doing if Hillary were to win…they planned to indefinitely block any of her nominees.
2 Likes
And Fox/talk radio would be silent/supportive.
Round and round it goes.
Well we dont have the old board so…who cares.
Remember when someone was posting things from the old board and you guys deleted it…
Claiming things from the old board is irrelevant now.
So if Dems want to pack the court with 6 new judges if they take the Senate and the Presidency, name a good reason…just one…why Trump shouldn’t go ahead and do that right now?
After all…if it is the new normal.
1 Like
There isn’t one.
he is perfectly free to try.
You take my opinion in all of this as being for it.
That is wrong.
1 Like
Even when it’s true? What about non-libs? Can they call “other” authoritarians?
This sorta reminds of the dumb meme that goes around from time to time about abortion and kids in cages-about how if you aren’t outraged about one you can’t be outraged about the other. What if you find both to be appalling? Why can’t the both be appalling?
Why can’t both sides have authoritarian tendencies?
Oh. Ok.
My mistake.
Since the gop stole a Supreme Court dear and have changed the rules to make it easier for them to pack lower courts I hope when the dems take over they not only restructure the Supreme Court but I hope the expand and pack the lower courts to blunt every judge the gop has confirmed
Different. Better. Civilized.
With voter I’Ds coming I see the Democrats getting crazier.
I can’t help but wonder, what if this was Ted Cruz…
When I read an article about this earlier, I asked, what can the Dems do?
What power do they have over the judiciary?
I am not going to get into a back and forth on this, just want to opine and let it ride.
In 1828, President John Quincy Adams recess appointed, then nominated a certain William Creighton Jr. to be United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Ohio (since subdivided into Northern and Southern districts). The Senate, then under Jacksonian control refused to consider the nomination and went so far to pass a resolution stating that “it is not expedient to fill this vacancy at this session of Congress.” They held the seat for Andrew Jackson.
The United States refused to even consider THREE different nominees under President Fillmore to fill a Supreme Court seat, holding that seat open for President Franklin Pierce.
The United States Senate has, for purely partisan reasons, refused to even consider many nominees since that time.
The Senate is not obligated to vote on any nominee, LONG STANDING precedent indicates they may refuse for even the pettiest of reasons.
So Democrats, stop whining about this and Republicans, do not whine if Democrats do it to you down the row.
And partisans, if you want judges of your choice, you need to win the Presidency and win and hold the Senate. If you cannot do so, just shut the **** up when you don’t get your way. If you want to BE blind partisans, you need to accept that your opposition are going to be blind partisans also.
Now with THAT out of the way.
Any talk of restructuring or expanding the Supreme Court is irresponsible and if they are successful, I guarantee that they will live to regret the day they did so, because once you break the taboo, both sides will respond back and forth in kind.
Just as a practical matter, the Supreme Court with 9 Justices is at the maximum size it can effectively function as an en banc panel. I frankly would like to see it REDUCED in size to 7 Justices, which I believe would be a more collegiate and efficient size.
I oppose and condemn the Senator’s position as reckless.
If he wants Justices of his liking, his party needs to win the Presidency AND the Senate (and subsequently retain the Senate). If his party cannot do so, he simply has to live with the partisan consequences.
BTW, I, Safiel, would have moved forward with a vote on Merrick Garland and would have voted yes. While not my ideal choice, he was an acceptable candidate. However, I am not a blind partisan like so many on both sides. 
But what happened with him is the long standing American Way, a practice that dates back to the early Jacksonian’s.
I won’t whine about, any more than I will whine about the MANY Circuit Judge candidates blocked by filibusters during the George W. Bush presidency.
**** happens, and **** happens both ways.
Live with it.
4 Likes
So they only want to take that a step farther. Cool. What’s the quota for liberals on the court?
1 Like
Thus sayeth the Safiel, thus sayeth us all.
