Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I'm just telling you about the consequences of it, feel free to ignore the warning just like you guys did when Republicans told you what would happen if the filibuster was ditched to confirm judges.
Any move to stack the court will not end well for Democrats....but if that's the game they want to play, their terms are acceptable as the meme goes.
It would be a call for civil war and the start of helicopter rides.
If Democrats are sane, and that's no guarantee, they just take the L and work towards leading within the confines of the Constitution if they happen to take power. The other options will end in a LOT of bloodshed and the destruction of the entire system.
Don't call me "you guys". I may be liberal, but I don't agree with everything the democrats do. I agree that ending the filibuster and the 60-vote requirement for judges was a big mistake on the part of Harry Reid. And I would not be in favor of stacking the Court. I'm just pointing out that it would be "within the confines of the Constitution", as you say.
No, he certainly wouldn't have been, a hearing would have just provided the Democrats with a platform to grandstand leading up to an election and given Garland had very little support in the Senate and no chance of confirmation, there was no reason to give them that platform.
Now your just making stuff up, there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't be confirmed and that's why he wasn't even allowed to get out of committee. If that were true they could have avoided all this by just holding a vote, they didn't want to do that because he would likely be confirmed so they came up with some outlandish reason.
I'm betting the wealthy donors and lobbyists got in touch and threatened them when Scalia passed, Garland was too moderate to make the Federalist List.
So if democrats win all 3 ,cant they stack the court with 3 more justices.
In theory, sure, but it would lead to the collapse of the entire system and all out civil war where many of those members of congress would end up dead as a result....probably best to not go there.
Her seat was the last Supreme Court seat prize for probably another 20 years (unless someone retires).
With the way Democrats have been acting, this 6-3 Supreme Court may be the last firewall against whatever nonsense "reformation of the country" that Democrats have planned as they amplify the voices of the Ilhan Omars, AOCs and Rashida Tlaibs of their party.
Clarence Thomas has supposedly been pondering retirement. Possibly Alito. And Stephen Breyer is 81.
Don't call me "you guys". I may be liberal, but I don't agree with everything the democrats do. I agree that ending the filibuster and the 60-vote requirement for judges was a big mistake on the part of Harry Reid. And I would not be in favor of stacking the Court. I'm just pointing out that it would be "within the confines of the Constitution", as you say.
Fair enough, I'm just pointing out that it would be a bridge too far. It would be outright corruption similar to if Trump declared martial law and used loyal military members to keep him in power and cancel elections.
Technically that could be done, but doing so would be declaring war on the country. Democrats stacking the SCOTUS would be the same.
Note, this may very well be what saves Romney from defeat when he is next up for election.
I surely wouldn't want to be Mitt Romney facing my constituents in Utah trying to explain why he gummed up the works, allowing a Far Left radically pro-abortion justice onto the Supreme Court. He might as well resign now if he pulls that stunt.
First, I said in the last few decades and you omitted that from your quote. Your linked chart does not provide D vs R votes, only those that voted yea or nay. So it is hard to say how much D support there was without further investigation.
When I say Lock Step I mean all but a few Dems voted no. Those voting yes were usually Dems in a state that may lean a little right and were facing re-election. Manchin, D WV comes to mind as an example.
Clarence Thomas has supposedly been pondering retirement. Possibly Alito. And Stephen Breyer is 81.
Thomas has stated that such rumors were untrue, though I can't speak to Alito. As far as I'm concerned, neither will be inclined to retire under a Dem president, but we'll see!
In theory, sure, but it would lead to the collapse of the entire system and all out civil war where many of those members of congress would end up dead as a result....probably best to not go there.
you have a fantasy and obsession over civil wars and deaths...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
