The fact that it was Justice Breyer was the only reason I considered it news:
Surely thatis a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted? The USA SC has already been packed after the refusal to hold a hearing into Obama’s nomination of Garland and the “unholy haste” to appoint a replacement for RBG.
The left has redefined “racism” and “infrastructure” to suit their needs. They will no doubt redefine “court packing” to suit their needs.
6 Likes
Presidents aren’t entitled to seat a justice, only to nominate one.
2 Likes
Agreed, they destroyed any chance of me caring about Supreme Court changes, there is no trust.
You have no idea what you are asking for.
I don’t specifically have an ask. I just don’t care. McConnell made the play that pleased his side, and the only thing that matters for the Supreme Court is holding the senate and getting re-elected while holding a seat open until the same side has the presidency. Could be one year, two, three, four, eight. Doesn’t matter as long as you don’t lose the senate majority in the process.
1 Like
It is not reasonable to have the belief that the founding fathers of the USA would have considered it appropriate that a President’s nomination to the SC would not have had a Senate hearing to consider that nomination.
I don’t agree with expanding the court.
Now y’all have to broad bush libs, except AZslim…
4 Likes
Expanding it seems like it will end up with 1000 judges dialing in their votes on their phones like a game show. I’m not sure what a good solution is, it’s just too much of a coveted partisan prize to be seen as above it all.
That’s not the definition of “packing the court.” That is simply how the political cookie crumbles.
1 Like
If WA was an American, I would say that it has already started. Of course, our home grown leftists will soon be on it, I’m sure.
Now you know how half the people in this country feel about elections.
1 Like
Why not?
And how a chunk feel about the basement of a pizza shop. Mitch held the supreme court seat open because he could, no Kraken has to be released to prove my distrust.
1 Like
How does Mitch’s maneuver make you distrust the Court? The Justices had nothing to do with it, and everyone on the Court was duly appointed by a President and vetted and approved by Congress in complete accordance with the Constitution. I think you are letting your politics get the best of your imagination.
1 Like
If they wished to make a hearing mandatory they had the means to do so, they did not.
1 Like
Sorry, you voted for the guy who refused to rule it out, no pass.
They obviously gave more credit to the integrity of Senators than was warranted in the case of M McConnell and his fellow Republicans.
Hilarious. Integrity has nothing to do with it. Nobody is under any obligation to seat a Presidents nominee or to hold a hearing.
