What I don't understand is why you don't understand that the court is already packed. The GOP won't be happy until they own all nine.
Last year in the debates, Biden said that he was against court packing and that he wouldn't support hearings close to a presidential election
Hell, we could make it an annual thing if the Senate doesn't flip. It will be a new national holiday "trump Impeachment Day"
Harry Reid went 'nuke.' That singular even is what changed everything in the Senate re SCOTUS nominations. The GOP/McConnell simply reacted accordingly and rationally, given the nature of politics and power. Dems are threatening to nuke again and transform the Senate into a more parliamentary form of govt, which is kinda dumb given the history and it how it backfired last time when they went nukular. And the so called McConnell rule has a second part conveniently omitted by his detractors - "when the Senate is held by opposite party." So the rule stands firm despite the president exercising his presidential power this week. Obama's guy Garland never would have been confirmed, even if he was presented to Senate he would've almost certainly been Borked, failing that he would've just failed at confirmation. And if you read the Constitution carefully you'll find that it doesn't say "President shall have the Power w advice/consent of the Senate to appoint Judges to the SC during only the first 3 years of his 4 year term, that latter year being an "election year" and therefore inappropriate for the exercise of Presidential powers (since it would piss off the leftist nutjobs threatening to riot)."
A guest on Ari Melber's MSNBC talkshow made an interesting point yesterday about packing the Supreme Court. Expanding the number of Justices would dilute the importance of any one vacancy as is the case on Appeals Courts. If you have a 15 member court, but only nine of them rule on any given case...well, it was just an angle that I hadn't thought of.
The Senate’s constitutional duty is to provide advice and consent on the President’s nominee. They did neither of those for Merrick Garland.
For a so-called independent, you are really good at repeating the Republican talking-points, but this simply is not true. There is nothing in the constitution that sets a time frame on filling SCOTUS seats. The issue here is not IF the senate should confirm an appointment, but WHEN. And saying that the "when" is "right now, as quick as possible, so we'll have as favorable a court as possible before the election we intend to contest" is not in any way, shape or form their "constitutional duty". If it was a constitutional duty to do it quickly, they would not have left so many appointments unfilled when Obama was president. So that "it's just their constitutional duty" lie is wearing really, really thin.
Though I would love to say the dems will do great things when they get the senate back, I have been fooled way to many times to think they will do anything but make excuses until the republicans can get control back. I hope I am wrong this time and they do something, but do not hold your breath.
But not "for nominating someone before the election". That is just something you made up in your zeal to defend Trump. There has been plenty of talk of impeaching him for the many impeachable offenses he has committed, and the Dems argument has been, "Why bother? No matter how air-tight the case, the Senate will blow it off without even bothering to look at it." Pelosi's idea is that it might be worthwhile to go ahead with it anyway, just to keep Trump and the Senate busy. But you twisted that, without bothering to check out what she actually said, into "impeach him for making a nomination". That's just another case of you, as such a fervent "independant", repeating the lies of the Republicans. Do you really wonder why just about everyone on the board considers you to be not only a Republican, but a very faithful Republican?
6 minutes into the video you posted, it confirms that it was Reagan who began packing the SCOTUS with conservative justices. Thank you. Robert Bork... I'm old enough to remember his confirmation hearings as my grandpa watched them intently. Robert "Woman and Blacks who know my record fear me" Bork. Yes, Dems did block him and as a child, I can remember that quote from Bork and the relief my parents and grandparents felt when he failed to be appointed. Thank god. There's a lot of things the Constitution doesn't say.
You know what @Tererun, I'll give you points if you can tell me the last time the Dems had a majority in the Senate... Extra points if you can tell me the last time they had a filibuster proof majority. Without googling it. This is on the honor system. You're so quick to paint Dems with a broad brush but are you really paying attention to what's going on in the Senate?
If you are taling about a filibuster proof majority in the senate then that is not happening this election. Maybe next election, but that is probably not in the cards. The dems give up the ball more than not, and are already saying they will not go after the trump tax cuts if they win. When they are not even going to try, the filibuster does not matter. I would also like to note the filibuster proof majority would be moving the goal posts at this point. They have a chance to have a majority in the senate. The excuse will be that they need a filibuster proof majority to do anything so they won't bother doing anything. Really, they should use winning back the majority from the republicans as a threat that they will blame them for filibustering any changes in 2022 when the reps are again having to defend more seats. That sort of hardball is not what give it up chuck and the rest of the dem senate is going to do. The excuses are already coming, and it is good to see the dem supporters accepting them before the dems even get sworn in for the next term. This is why the dems always lose. I am tired of it.
Obama should have been able to nominate a justice in 2016, and Trump should be able to nominate a justice now. I think it would be impractical/unwise to rush a nomination prior to the election (we are about 40 days out), but if the process starts prior to the election, I think it is doable before January without negligently rushing things. That being said, I think Trump is gonna nominate Judge Judy.
If McConnel gave a damn about American democracy, he would have put ALL the bills to a vote - including Obama's SCOTUS nomination. He does not care about American democracy. He has proven that over and over. So, to allow him to make a decision on whether or not trump's nominee gets voted on, is to allow a grifter to make decisions that affect law abiding citizens.
I wish I could rep this a thousand times. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain what is going on, and I'm not even American. Regardless of who wins the election, it's going to be ugly and there's better than even odds of the Supreme Court getting involved.
You didn’t answer my question. I’m not trying to be an asshole. You seem to be upset towards Senate Dems. When was the last time Dems controlled the Senate and what did they do that pissed you off?
That's not what packing means. The term "packing the court" is used in reference to adding more justices to the nine that we have now. FDR tried it back in the 30s and even his own party stood in his way. Presidents appointing justices according to their philosophical beliefs has been happening since the beginning. Sorry, but that's always benefited the party in power. Obama had no problem ramming thru his agenda in the brief time that his party controlled congress and I don't recall a single lefty on this board having an issue with it. Don't try and pretend that if the shoe was on the other foot that Dems wouldn't do the same thing. I know better. And? I fail to see how that helps your case. Take back the White House and Senate and you can push through whatever left wing ideologue you want.
The difference is, the only reason FDR wanted to "pack the court" was because the justices kept interfering in his "new deal" proposals. If Biden ups the number of justices to 13, then it re-balances the court with a 6 to 6 balance and 1 swing vote.
The similarities between the two would be both wanting to change the numbers because it isn't "their" judges sitting on the bench. And adding judges isn't going to change the partisan nature of the process. Presidents will still try and pick judges based on ideological preference. Senates will confirm based on the same criteria. The only difference now is both parties would be fighting for a majority of 13 instead of 9. What happens when the court shifts again to a conservative majority? Will the left keep packing judges every time ? What if the right decides "Hell, liberals get to pack it whenever they want, we should do the same." How many judges should be allowed to sit on that court before we say enough? It stinks no matter how well you try and dress it up.
Didn't hear you hollering anytime Moscow Mitch threw a spanner in the works. AND CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE YOUR TEXT ANY BIGGER?
I can see it now. First time she tells him "You're out of line, sir. This is my courtroom. Be quiet." he yells "YOU'RE FIRED!" Comedy gold.
It is still an irrelevant tangent which has only the purpose to change direction towards an excuse. If all you expect from your electe4d senators from the dem party is to act when they have a filibuster proof majority then that is you, and I think that is pretty much weak sauce. They should be fighting to make things better IMO, and that is it. I would figure that would be obvious, and yes I am going to criticize them for not fighting towards the ideals of the party because it is to hard for them. There is a reason republicans seem to be loyal to their people in a way the dems are not. That is because the reps will fight over and over again for the beliefs of their voters. I wish the dems had fighters like the republicans. Instead they have not been elected yet, and Biden and the establishment dems have already said they are not going to change trump tax cuts, they are not going to get us some government health care, they are not going to end the wars, they are not going to put an end to the patriot act, they are going to keep militarizing the police, and they are going to give the republicans a chance to live up to their words and ideals. If that is the sort of shit you vote for then there is a reason things are getting worse. You simply do not win by surrender. This is why Biden is slipping in the polls. Why vote for trump lite?
Democrats need to grow some balls and realise that Republicans are only interested in the naked exercise of power. Trying to appeal to them on grounds of principle or precedent is a waste of time. They need to start playing dirty too. Either cause some procedural delays (impeachment etc.) or pack the court if/when they defeat Trump.
