I am talking about your ethics point
Who has been nominated by the dems for these additional seats?
They had the numbers to also not hold an up and down vote on a nominee.
The talk about ethics is crocodile tears… again
At this time.
She never said she would never bring it to a vote. Right now she wants to spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave without the distraction of this.
She said it’s not out of the question, and is being looked into.
Don’t try to ■■■■■■■■ people that this is dead. It’s just on the back burner because they can’t afford the bad publicity this will give them while they are busy with other things they want first.
Trusting Pelosi’s line of bull ■■■■■ Nominate yourself for dumb ass of the year.
1 Like
The people telling you to trust Pelosi to not bring it to a vote EVER are the same people that were saying months ago it would NEVER get THIS far (where we are now).
1 Like
It always swings back the other way, regardless of how hard they try, if anything and event will happen like covid or a financial crisis and those in power will be the ones that get the blame.
Trump was cruising to a second term before covid who knows what the country will be like by 2023. It could be wonderful or the opposite no one has a crystal ball.
This bill is. Packing the court is a terrible idea
Here’s a question for everyone that thinks scotus can interpret the constitution in new ways.
Say they pass the bill expanding the SC…what if the current scotus rules it un-constitutional?
Yet, that is not exactly what Pelosi said.
Cool cool cool. What did she say that makes you believe
We are busy ramming through this other ■■■■ right now…
I support the president’s commission to study such a proposal, but frankly I’m not — right now, we’re back, our members, our committees are working. We’re putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest,"
But don’t worry. We are still considering it, just not until we finish bleeding the country dry first.
“It’s not out of the question. It has been done before in the history of our country a long time ago. And the growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy, etc., might necessitate such a thing.”
That’s some good red meat for the base
Don’t worry we are gonna think hard about it
Commissions are about as toothless as you get
Sounds a lot like a certain healthcare bill the best healthcare bill anyone has ever seen!
Increments, increments.
See, he won’t even answer the question, it will never happen.
That’s just campaign talk, he’s not serious, it will never happen.
Well, yes, he’s brought it up again after inauguration as an option, but it will never happen.
Sure, they created a commission, but it’s just all talk, it will never happen.
Ok, yeah, they are putting a bill forth, but Pelosi says not right now, so it will never happen.
Yeah, but…
1 Like
And as the saying goes:
“Fool me once shame one me
Fool me twice , laugh yer arse off at how stupid we are”
I don’t think they have that authority. That said, I don’t think it’s a good idea anyhow. Kinda like releasing the kraken for real. The repercussions could be disastrous, and I mean in the long run when it’s time for payback.
Pelosi lies???
Say it ain’t so!!!
Where did you get that?
I am wrong. I was pointing to consolidation of power and went a little too far.
1 Like
USSC Justices interpret the law and form their opinions either for or against. As I understand someone will have to present the case before the Court and let the nines do their thing.
Packing the Supreme Court would pretty much releas…set the political mode for the judiciary for the future. If Democrats add 4 new judges in 2022, what do you thing Republicans would do if the had the House, Senate and Presidency in 2024? You’re right, of course they would. And they had that control in 2017 but didn’t use it.
As Breyer said, the judicial system becomes completely mixed into the political system and will loose all credibility.
I agree they don’t.
But there’s a whole slew full of the left that point to the SC ruling in their favor in the past on another topic in the news right now on a topic the govt is forbidden from meddling in, and claiming that makes it OK.
Just wondering what the difference would be.
