Republicans should expand and pack the supreme court

[Girl_from_Ipanema]

I know what the OP said. I wrote it after hearing a bunch of dems suggest it.

Dems tried it once and failed. They are now discussing doing it again to thwart the will of the people.

Seems like preventative action against a maneuver that dems have already shown they’re willing to act upon.

[calirepub]

@Girl_from_Ipanema

I know that your only reason for being here is to create content for twitter trolls, but I’ll ask anyway. The OP clearly states that Democrats have been discussing it.

Can you cite the rule that a congressional expansion of the supreme court would violate?

1st. I have no idea what you’re talking about concerning my reason to be here. I don’t even have any idea what "twitter trolls’ means. Frankly, the only time i visit twitter is when I want to see what the President of the United States is saying. That should be a joke, but it isn’t.

2nd. I’m saying the Republican Party should definitely do what you’re suggesting. Political norms are already off the table, so might as well do it before the Democrats do it first.

[Safiel]

Actually, if anything, we should REDUCE the size of the Supreme Court to 7 Justices to allow for more collegiality and more efficiency.

Expansion is moronism of the worst sort, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are pushing it.

And yes, BOTH sides have mentioned it recently.

[Girl_from_Ipanema]

You didn’t answer the question.

[calirepub]

What we need to do is put justices on the Supreme Court who will pledge to rule the Supreme Court unconstitutional. Why do a few people in black robes get to decide what’s constitutional or not? It’s not like the Constitution even needs to be interpreted.

[calirepub]

@Girl_from_Ipanema

You didn’t answer the question.

I’m not the one saying it would violate anything. You must have me mistaken with someone else.

[Chris]

I say keep the Supreme Court at nine Justices.

[WuWei]

@CassandraJoe

a way to tilt the system so it favors the Republican Party so that it doesn’t have to answer to voters.

That’s easy. Elect dems.

[Girl_from_Ipanema]

@calirepub

We wouldn’t want the wrong kind of people to decide who to be sent to run our government. When the Republic is on the line, it’s justified to bend the rules in your favor. Liberals must be defeated at any cost.

@calirepub

I’m not the one saying it would violate anything. You must have me mistaken with someone else.

Ok. Bend.

What rule would be bent?

[Morgan]

I mean sure. I agree there are no moderate Republicans today.

[WuWei]

Why not 5?

[Chris]

Five is too few.

[WuWei]

Why? There were only 5 seated at the first session.

[Girl_from_Ipanema]

@CassandraJoe

Instead of bad legislation by Democrats, lets make bad legislation by Republicans.

So you will oppose democrats doing it should they regain the majority?

[Safiel]

I think 7 is the best size and is indeed the size of most State Supreme Courts.

Enough to allow for sufficient diversity of opinions, yet small enough to ensure collegiality and efficiency.

[calirepub]

@Girl_from_Ipanema

Ok. Bend.

What rule would be bent?

I’m saying that Republicans should use every tactic, that is not blatantly illegal, in order to ensure permanent rule of government. It is imperative that Democrats never come to power ever again, otherwise they will use the same tactics against us.

[Girl_from_Ipanema]

@calirepub

I’m saying that Republicans should use every tactic, that is not blatantly illegal, in order to ensure permanent rule of government. It is imperative that Democrats never come to power ever again, otherwise they will use the same tactics against us.

Why are you saying that?

[calirepub]

@Girl_from_Ipanema

Why are you saying that?

I want to Make America Great Again.

[WuWei]

I could live with 7. But if we go with 5 we can get rid of both Kagan and Big Sonia.

[Girl_from_Ipanema]

And you still didn’t answer the question.