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.
I know serval people who are going to lose sleep tonight. Fortunately I’m a normal regular person who won’t. Can’t believe a lot of people make politics run their lives into the ground.
Yes, it is insane. Even if I was not in support of this nomination, I would still sleep like a baby. The most radical of the left is up planning right now on which town to burn down next as a result of this confirmation.
That's a foolish assumption on your part, there absolutely would be severe consequences for an attack like that on the SCOTUS.....and if it was Trump making that attack on the SCOTUS, you'd see things my way, it's just that apparently you are blinded by cognitive bias due to partisanship.
I think in the end, sanity will win out and court packing will remain nothing but a fantasy of the far left, but I suppose anything is possible and the far left authoritarians could get their way.
You can’t claim to love the constitution and claim its powers for nominating SC justices and be against congress setting the size of the SC. The constitution explicitly states that congress sets the size of the court. It’s been smaller as well as larger in the history of our republic. At least be consistent. Geez.
Well we have the Bobby the Great definition and then we have what actually occurred. Just pointing out that the term Court Packing is general in nature and relates to one party stacking the court with their picks.
What happened in 2016 wasn't ordinary by any means, but keep trying. I do believe that taking a presidents pick and using it for another president is COMPLETELY different along with changing the rules.
But let's be clear, anything goes now as along as it's constitutional, no blue slips, majority only throughout the courts even the Supreme Court and if the opposing senate is in power they can make up a rule and hold up a pick for any reason they come up with, it's all constitutional.
So now expanding the court is the next step up, but correct me if I'm wrong wasn't dropping the filibuster for a Supreme Court pick the next step up. Wasn't taking a presidents pick away the next step up?
Court "packing" means expanding the number of justices on a court and filling those new seats with a preferred ideology/philosophy.
Court "stacking" means picking justices of a preferred ideology/philosophy to fill vacated seats in the court as it is currently constructed.
Nominating and confirming justices that are preferred by Trump and approved by a Republican majority in the Senate is court "stacking." Being butthurt about that and vowing to expand the number of justices on the SCOTUS to 11 or 13, in order to have a Democrat president fill those seats with liberal justices would be court "packing."
You can’t claim to love the constitution and claim its powers for nominating SC justices and be against congress setting the size of the SC. The constitution explicitly states that congress sets the size of the court. It’s been smaller as well as larger in the history of our republic. At least be consistent. Geez.
When Democrats want to expand the Court (which is allowed by the Constitution) to appoint judges who have zero respect for the Constitution, yes you can.
Could you please provide me data or a link to that record? Thanks. I googled it and didn’t find any evidence that has Ms. Harris on the record against “the right to own firearms of any kind.” Thanks.
What I am specifically referring to is when she submitted an amicus brief in the Heller case arguing that
"the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, the Second Amendment does not
apply to legislation passed by state or local governments, and the restrictions bear a reasonable relationship
to protecting public safety and thus do not violate a personal constitutional right"
Her argument is that no individual person has a right to keep or bear arms and thus there is no way that a state or local government can infringe on the 2nd amendment with gun bans because it's not an individual right.
There's just no way to spin it, she outright does not believe that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep or bear arms.
You can’t claim to love the constitution and claim its powers for nominating SC justices and be against congress setting the size of the SC. The constitution explicitly says that congress sets the size of the court. It’s been smaller as well as larger in the history of our republic. At least be consistent. Geez.
I’ve tried very patiently to explain this simple concept to him. Just let it go. He’s not really receptive to the information no matter how factual.
Ok. Well congratulations on Justice Barrett. She is deserving even if I disagree with her on most issues.
What issues do you disagree with her on?
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.
.