Social Democrat Leaders plan to pack the SC if they take over Congress

[MichaelScarn]

Your thread title is wrong. It’s supposed to say:

CORTEZ CONFUSION

[party-free]

@Cratic3947

They have no idea how to build a wealthy society.

In Trump’s America, we build a wealth society but slashing taxes, especially those for the uber rich, increase spending, and don’t worry about our debts and deficits!

[party-free]

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

[Tguns]

@biggestal99

Thomas is the next one for sure, old birds like Ginsberg are a tough out.

Allan

I don’t think the old buzzard is going to outlast Thomas.

[johnwk2]

@Spartacus

Trumpflakes are some of the most timid of flakes

Trumpflakes? Are you talking about the millions of American citizens who voted for Trump?

Or, are you talking about the millions of American Citizens who believe in innocence until proven guilty?

Tell me, do you really support the Democrat Party Leadership’s desire to provide Medicaid for all by raiding the Medicare Trust Fund?

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, Andrew Gillum and the Democrat Leadership’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs

[johnwk2]

@party-free

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

What does that have to do with the Democrat Party Leadership wanting to pack the court? Do you understand what packing the court means?

Try paying attention and keep to the subject of the thread.

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”

[party-free]

Bzzzt, try again;

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

[johnwk2]

@party-free

Bzzzt, try again;

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

For the second time, what does that have to do with the Democrat Party Leadership wanting to pack the court? Do you understand what packing the court means?

Try paying attention and keep to the subject of the thread.

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”

[DougBH]

Supreme Court packing sounds great. Why wait. Assuming the Republicans take the Senate again, lets start in January.
If we’re going this route, maybe we should start work on a new Supreme Court building to handle the thousand or so justices who could eventually wind up there as we go back and forth.

[zantax]

@DougBH

Supreme Court packing sounds great. Why wait. Assuming the Republicans take the Senate again, lets start in January.
If we’re going this route, maybe we should start work on a new Supreme Court building to handle the thousand or so justices who could eventually wind up there as we go back and forth.

You assume Republicans would ever be allowed to regain control government after they finished packing the court, don’t bet on it.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@party-free

Bzzzt, try again;

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

For the second time, what does that have to do with the Democrat Party Leadership wanting to pack the court? Do you understand what packing the court means?

Try paying attention and keep to the subject of the thread.

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”

Yep the subject is how you don’t like the DEM’S packing the court but are just fine with the gop packing the court.

[DougBH]

@mobulis

Yep the subject is how you don’t like the DEM’S packing the court but are just fine with the gop packing the court.

Try searching for “court packing definition”. Hint…it doesn’t mean any tactic you use to get your people in the court.

[mollyBrown]

All this talk about wonky nominations for judges and no mention of Rick Scott. Tisk tisk.

Supreme Court rules Rick Scott can’t name 3 new justices

[party-free]

Bzzzt, try again;

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@party-free

Bzzzt, try again;

There were conservative leaders suggesting they would refuse to seat any Hillary nominee, keeping the court at 8 justices-were you equally angry about that, OP?

For the second time, what does that have to do with the Democrat Party Leadership wanting to pack the court? Do you understand what packing the court means?

Try paying attention and keep to the subject of the thread.

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”

Yep the subject is how you don’t like the DEM’S packing the court but are just fine with the gop packing the court.

The GOP packing the court? Do you understand what packing the court means?

Try paying attention before posting.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, Andrew Gillum and the Democrat Leadership’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs

[JayJay]

Unconstitutional?

Can someone point out where in the Constitution it says that there is an optimal number of SCOTUS justices, and where that number is defined?

[johnwk2]

@JayJay

Unconstitutional?

Can someone point out where in the Constitution it says that there is an optimal number of SCOTUS justices, and where that number is defined?

Can you point to who asserted it is unconstitutional?

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.

[party-free]

@johnwk2

Can you point to who asserted it is unconstitutional?

From the OP:

@johnwk2

Of course, this plan requires an overwhelming number of Justices on the Supreme Court who will ignore the true meaning of our Constitution, and give an illusion that social justice legislation adopted by a socialist political leadership in Congress, is within the meaning of our Constitution, and does not defy the text or legislative intent of our Constitution.

Now please, explain what you “really meant.”

[johnwk2]

@party-free

@johnwk2

Can you point to who asserted it is unconstitutional?

From the OP:

@johnwk2

Of course, this plan requires an overwhelming number of Justices on the Supreme Court who will ignore the true meaning of our Constitution, and give an illusion that social justice legislation adopted by a socialist political leadership in Congress, is within the meaning of our Constitution, and does not defy the text or legislative intent of our Constitution.

Now please, explain what you “really meant.”

Really meant? I meant what I said and said what I meant. And I identified what is not within the meaning of our Constitution in the OP . . . the part you edited out of what you quoted from me.

Try paying attention.

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.

[party-free]

Why do you believe Dems adding more justices is more nefarious than Repubs refusing to seat justices nominated by a Dem? Both are major political power grabs. Why is one more righteous than the other?