Geez Blackwolf, we are well beyond the 5th Column, we are at the 8th Column now. Try paying attention.
Shhh! They can hear you.
Wrong. Check the title of the thread. The subject is the Democrat Leaders plan to pack the SC if they gain political power to do so.
Try paying attention.
JWK
Like I said, a political power grab. You’re upset by a D power grab, but refuse to also condemn the Rs threatening a power grab.
Why won’t you just admit that?
Which you don’t like but have no problem with repubs doing it.
1 Like
1John 4:18 The one who fears is not made perfect
I’m surprised they make it through the day. They’re followed by their shadow everywhere, and we all know how scared they are of that.
Where is your evidence the Republican Party Leadership wants to expand the number of Supreme Court Justices?
I never claimed they did. I said that Republicans floated the idea of using their majority power to keep the supreme court at 8 justices to prevent democrats from having a majority…aka, a power grab, just like democrat leaders floated the idea of increasing the number of justices to prevent republicans from having a majority.
So why are you OK with one and not the other?
Harry Reid started that last big judicial power grab when he did away with judicial filibusters for all but the Supreme Court (at the time he did this there was no benefit to doing so for the SC). What you describe are Republican additions to the court power plays.
Yes, it would be possible to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices. I’m surprised that Dems would talk about it right now because Republicans are actually in a position to do this right now. You would think they would bide their time.
But if the Dems do get into a position to do this, the next step would be for the Repubs to come back. We’d better start on a Suprme Court building to hold about a hundred justices right now.
Power grab? There was no power grab by Republicans.
The Republican Party Leadership, to the best of my knowledge, has no intention to increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, unlike Democrats may do if they seize political power.
You need to pay attention to what is going on.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance the economic needs of millions of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
Because Hillary lost, so they never got the opportunity to keep the court at 8 justices, which would hav been an attempt at a power grab-using their power to prevent a sitting president’s nominees from going through the process.
They had the intention of using their power to prevent a D president’s nominees from being seated by whatever means they had at their disposal. Aka-power grab.
I pay attention, and treat both sides the same. I don’t ignore things one side or the other does because there’s a special letter after their name.
Try paying attention . . . the exercise of political power is not synonymous with a “power grab”. Winning an election, however, can be construed, if one stretches the meaning, as a “power grab”.
Now, what on earth are you carrying on and on, and on about?
JWK
Let us not forget it was Nancy Pelosi who SAID about Obamacare: “We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it”___ Voting democrat will make her Speaker of the House
Republicans floated the idea of using their majority power to keep the supreme court at 8 justices to prevent democrats from having a majority…aka, a power grab, just like democrat leaders floated the idea of increasing the number of justices to prevent republicans from having a majority.
So why are you OK with one and not the other?
You are not paying attention.
The exercise of political power is not synonymous with a “power grab”. Winning an election, however, can be construed, if one stretches the meaning, or has a warped imagination, as a “power grab”.
Do you not recall what Obama stated: “Elections have consequences”. Keep that in mind my friend while you stew over the use of authorized power.
There was no power grab. There was a legitimate exercise of the Senate’s authority. The Constitution, since you seem to be grossly uniformed, empowers the Senate to "…advise and consent". It does not specify any time requirement.
Have you forgotten the Biden rule? When Social Democrat Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he argued that President Bush ought to withhold any nominees to the Supreme Court until the end of the "political season."
Mitch McConnel was simply following the Biden Rule, and exercising a constitutionally authorized authority. Does it upset you? If so, you’ll get over it. But to conclude there was a “power grab” is utterly absurd, uninformed, and misrepresents an authorized exercise of constitutionally granted power.
There was no “power grab”. There was an election, and elections have consequences. Relax, have a beer.
JWK
Oh yes, I am. You just dont like being hoisted by your own petard.
Oh? So whether is constitutional is the goalposts moved litmus test? Why didn’t you just say so…because there would be nothing unconstitutional about dems increasing the number of justices. You just don’t like it. But you’re fine with Rs abusing their power with a power grab to constitutionally keep 8 justices on the bench. The reason is so obvious.
Biden specifically stated that the purpose if his suggestion, not rule, was to keep politics out of the process, and that after the election, the nominee would move forward with hearings and a vote.
Mitch forgot the part where Biden stated that the confirmation process would resume after the election. There never was a Biden rule, and Mitch certainly didn’t follow the idea Biden suggested. You’ve been lied to…and you believed it.
Correct, because Hillary wasn’t elected, so Cruz and the Rs never got to do it. I’ve already been over this. Please keep up.
Emoji emoji emoji
You still are not paying attention.
The exercise of political power is not synonymous with a “power grab”.
Winning an election can be construed as a “power grab”, if one stretches the meaning of winning an election, or has a warped imagination.
There was no “power grab”. There was an election, and elections have consequences. Relax, have a beer.
JWK
Let us not forget it was Nancy Pelosi who SAID about Obamacare: “We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it” Voting democrat will make her Speaker of the House
One wouldn’t have to increase the number of justices in order for the action to be considered a power grab.
So, let me cover both sides of this so you don’t go crying that nobody addressed your incredibly narrow scope of a question, while ignoring the larger issue of judicial power grabs. NO, it wouldn’t be okay for Democrats to try to add justices. Again, in case you missed it…IT WOULD NOT BE OKAY IF DEMOCRATS ATTEMPTED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES IN ORDER TO GARNER SOME SORT OF IDEOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE ON THE COURT.
Now that that has been stated…why are you somehow okay with Republican leadership openly admitting that they will attempt to garner the same ideological advantage on the court by basically using thier power to prevent any vote on a candidate not nominated by a Republican, which is ALSO a huge power grab?
And before you go here, let me go ahead and address it…I am well aware that you only brought up what the Democrats MIGHT try to do. I am asking why you have such a problem with that when you don’t have a problem with likeminded power grabs from your own side.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, elections have consequences. You seem okay with those consequences being that one side simply abdicating thier responsibility to actually govern.
Hell, I’m not even advocating that they have to approve of anything. Not even holding hearings or a vote is simply not doing thier jobs, and you are perfectly okay with it…even going so far as to defend it with the old canard of elections have consequences.
Thoughts?
We know exactly what you mean.
Republican’s do something=exercise of political power.
Democrat’s do something=power grab.
1 Like
