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.
The mid century tactics aren’t really going to work anymore. Most reasonable people recognized that McConnell was exercising his prerogative to block judicial appointments under Obama. He exercised the same prerogative here to push through justices. But these accusations of “court packing” will have less meaning given we, as a society, have witnessed and accepted judicial reform as an integral part of the political process. Neither side should be surprised by judicial reforms in the future.
Saint RBG said 9 was the right number. Why was she so wrong?
The great appointment has certainly brought the LWNJ's out of the closet. And that's a good thing.
More acronyms.
That’s all they have.
It’s alright you wish people with cancer shouldn’t be able to get coverage in the name of corporate profits. Or only the well to do can get medical procedures for abortions and poor woman can use the hanger.
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.
I would laugh so hard if the judge right wingers have put everything into - including Lindsay Graham's non-existent integrity - betrayed them on the 2nd Amendment. That would be hysterical. Remember, when the Constitution was written, they were carrying muskets, not AKs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
And maybe the end to sanctuary cities.....
It's funny to see right wingers betray themselves over "state's rights".
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate
Right wingers are celebrating stripping people of their healthcare and bringing coat hangers back out of the closet.
Did you expect anything different from so-called evangelicals? This is exactly what I expect from them.
"...Specific discussion reviewed the need to address the problem created by the Dred Scott decision, but also the possibility that the language of the Howard amendment would apply in a broader fashion to almost all children born in the United States.
The specific meaning of the language of the clause was not immediately obvious. In 1884 the Supreme Court of the United States in Elk v. Wilson, 112 U.S. 94, held that children born to members of Indian tribes governed by tribal legal systems were not U.S. citizens. In 1924 the Congress extended citizenship to all Indians by passing the Indian Citizenship Act, 43 Stat. 253, ch. 233.
In 1898 the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment."
I would add the ruling was born to parents legally and permanently domiciled or essentially legal permanent resident.
I would laugh so hard if the judge right wingers have put everything into - including Lindsay Graham's non-existent integrity - betrayed them on the 2nd Amendment. That would be hysterical. Remember, when the Constitution was written, they were carrying muskets, not AKs.
It's funny to see right wingers betray themselves over "state's rights".
Well don't get your hopes up too soon. ABC explained originalism that the 4th amendment is a principle and applies to a constable banging at your door in 1791 also applies to cell phones, so it follows the 2nd amendment is a principle that applies to muskets and AR-15s. Also she wanted felons to have their 2nd amendment rights restored .
Exactly, it's one of the most serious attacks on the country possible and even attempting it is something that is enough to stain even the most popular US presidents in history.
Oooohhh a serious attack? Like refusing to have a vote for a Supreme Court Justice nominee then turning around and doing the opposite when it's politically convenient? That is a serious attack on the country and right wingers don't care one bit. I'm not going to shed a tear if the court is packed to the point Serena Joy's opinion is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
Was Obama not elected for FOUR years in his second term? Lol.
Yes he was but the GOP thinks four years only counts for Republican presidents. Pack the court.
No, there's THE definition, then there's the spin that you've been fed and are attempting to regurgitate all over this board.
Court packing has always meant adding justices to the court in order to get favorable rulings.
You are attempting to expand the definition in order to justify attempting to destroy SCOTUS and it's transparent.
The Senate has always had the power to reject nominees either outright or by pigeonholing them. You are upset about it right now, but you would have supported it if Democrats controlled the Senate right now.
Either way though, expanding the court is not going to happen because there would be violent consequences for an attack on the country like that.
If they expand the court there are vacancies then they are entitled to fill those positions.
So when a republican senate steals a presidents nominee is that considered court packing or just an administrative issue. I've hear the term packing many times in the past relative to vacancies this is nothing new, Obama was accused of packing for filling two DC court vacancies.
I noticed you didn't address the claim that expanding the court would be completely different, wasn't the senate rules change on blue slips, dropping the filibuster for supreme court nominees or changing the rules for a president in his 4th term and dropping the requirement when it suited their needs also COMPLETELY different.
Basically the senate just stated they can do anything they want within the limits of the constitution, it's a pure power grab so why can't the democrats do the same.
So would be upset if the democrats expanded the courts so much that you're now claiming violence, but you don't see any downside with the actions of the senate the last 5 years because you're wearing your partisan parochial goggles.
The politicizing of the courts by McConnell and the Federalist Society is bad for the country and it will not end well.
An anarchist who shrieks about decorum and détente...sure.
Contrary to what media and politicians say, an anarchist is someone who believes in the rule of nobody. Nobody has the right to involuntary rule over anyone else. My entire worldview is guided by the NonAggression Principle, voluntary association and individual liberty.
Not sure why that disqualifies me from speaking on either decorum or détente, given that I am a firm believer in the peaceful, mutually beneficial and VOLUNTARY association between anyone free from harm, interference or coercion?
If they expand the court there are vacancies then they are entitled to fill those positions.
So when a republican senate steals a presidents nominee is that considered court packing or just an administrative issue. I've hear the term packing many times in the past relative to vacancies this is nothing new, Obama was accused of packing for filling two DC court vacancies.
I noticed you didn't address the claim that expanding the court would be completely different, wasn't the senate rules change on blue slips, dropping the filibuster for supreme court nominees or changing the rules for a president in his 4th term and dropping the requirement when it suited their needs also COMPLETELY different.
Basically the senate just stated they can do anything they want within the limits of the constitution, it's a pure power grab so why can't the democrats do the same.
So would be upset if the democrats expanded the courts so much that you're now claiming violence, but you don't see any downside with the actions of the senate the last 5 years because you're wearing your partisan parochial goggles.
The politicizing of the courts by McConnell and the Federalist Society is bad for the country and it will not end well.
No it won't but it will be worse if Democrats don't fight equally dirty. Take the gloves off. If McConnell and the GOP can change the rules, so can Democrats. It's perfectly constitutional.
No it won't but it will be worse if Democrats don't fight equally dirty. Take the gloves off. If McConnell and the GOP can change the rules, so can Democrats. It's perfectly constitutional.
They didn't change the rules. If and when the Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate and a vacancy opens up on the supreme court, they too can fill it a week before an election.
Democrats are sore losers.
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.
.