SCOTUS says Nyet to Trump
- Thread starter Bill4411
- Start date
The phrase “packing the Court” refers to adding a number of new seats all at once so that a sitting President can fill all those new seats with his selected people. The phrase arose out of FDR’s threat to do just that in response to some Court decisions he didn’t like. So it does indeed refer to expanding the number of seats on the Court.
There is nothing uglier than someone who can’t admit when they were wrong.
Take it from me, I’ve been you, I used to put my foot in my mouth plenty on this board and try to weasel out of it, move the goal posts until I got the last word in with my opponent.
Everytime I did I felt a little piece of my soul die. Recognizing you were wrong, and admitting to it, is a virtue not a vice.
So we agree it has to be expanded first. I’m glad we cleared that up. We can be friends now.
Would you do us all a favor and take COH out for a beer or six?
Um, I was saying I got it wrong. I didn’t type out the entirety of what I wanted to, which was my fault. Thanks for playing.
Whatever. You can go on believing you know what you’re talking about. I don’t really care.
Republicans' refusal to compromise isn't new. It didn't begin with Gaetz, Jordan and Paul. It's engrained in them now. Speaker Gingrich began refusing to compromise with Democrats in 1994.
FEISTY GINGRICH SAYS NO TO COMPROMISE
A triumphant Newt Gingrich, the Georgia Republican in line to become House speaker, returned here Friday vowing ``cooperation, yes; compromise, no'' as the GOP Congress prepares to confront the Clinton administration in January.<br> Gingrich said American voters, by overwhelmingly ending 40…
www.deseret.com
It hasn't just been Gingrich, either. Other conservative groups like the Tea Party and various conservative Congressional caucuses have also publicly refused to compromise. Today's militias obviously show no signs of compromise. Trump supporters today show no signs of even listening to alternate viewpoints, let alone compromise.
When McConnell flatout refuses to call any of Obama's judicial nominations for confirmation hearings to confirm them and also refuses just this year to let the Senate consider several hundred bills previously passed by the House, it's not realistic to expect the Democrats to be the ones to initiate discussions about compromise. It won't work until Congress is dominated by Republicans like John Boehner and Paul Ryan.
Republicans' refusal to compromise isn't new. It didn't begin with Gaetz, Jordan and Paul. It's engrained in them now. Speaker Gingrich began refusing to compromise with Democrats in 1994.
FEISTY GINGRICH SAYS NO TO COMPROMISE
A triumphant Newt Gingrich, the Georgia Republican in line to become House speaker, returned here Friday vowing ``cooperation, yes; compromise, no'' as the GOP Congress prepares to confront the Clinton administration in January.<br> Gingrich said American voters, by overwhelmingly ending 40…
It hasn't just been Gingrich, either. Other conservative groups like the Tea Party and various conservative Congressional caucuses have also publicly refused to compromise. Today's militias obviously show no signs of compromise. Trump supporters today show no signs of even listening to alternate viewpoints, let alone compromise.
When McConnell flatout refuses to call any of Obama's judicial nominations for confirmation hearings to confirm them and also refuses just this year to let the Senate consider several hundred bills previously passed by the House, it's not realistic to expect the Democrats to be the ones to initiate discussions about compromise. It won't work until Congress is dominated by Republicans like John Boehner and Paul Ryan.
McConnell is on video saying his #1 priority was to make Obama a one term president. McConnell also reportedly had a meeting with several fellow cons where they agreed to block anything and everything Obama supported from bills to nominees. McConnell will simply apply this same strategy to Biden.
I refuse to get on Parler, but I’ve seen lots of screen shots tonight. And yes, that’s one of the options, with secession being another.
But black people might break more store windows.
The GOP members managed to strike hypocritical poses with completely different rationales for stealing seats in the final years of both Obama and Trump...
Scalia died in Feb 2016, and from the outset, the main GOP point was that a Conservative should be replaced by a Conservative, so as not to disturb the balance of the SCOTUS. They further "justified" their unwillingness to even give Garland a hearing by claiming that a POTUS should not be allowed to fill a SCOTUS seat as a lame duck.
We didn't hear any of this "we control the Senate BS" in 2016 because they knew it would be stupid to argue that the luck of the draw regarding where the Senate battleground was fought in 2014 somehow trumped the rights of the people who gave Obama back to back mandates. People voted for Obama to make SCOTUS picks for 8 yrs, and a heavily pro-GOP geographic tilt to Senate races in 2014 didn't suddenly mean that the Majority of the voting populace wanted the GOP in charge...
Then in 2016, the GOP struck an even more hypocritical pose and basically abandoned the two main "principles" they used to steal Obama's right to choose in 2016. Ginsburg died and we didn't hear a peep about replacing a liberal with a liberal and maintaining SCOTUS balance. And while they had maintained Feb was "too close" (roughly 10 mos) to the election to nominate a new Justice, all of a sudden Sept 18 (about 6 weeks) was perfect.
I don't know if the Dems can capture GA and gain a Senate majority, but if they do I am all for a watch and see regarding the SCOTUS. As long as Roberts maintains a moderate advantage, and Roe and same-sex decisions remain intact then I favor not expanding. But if Crazy Thomas gains new adherents and basic freedoms are threatened I'd hope the Dems expand the Court and Biden restores the ideological balance. Imo we've worked too hard to establish universal rights to allow Religious Zealots to deny people their rights as citizens...
John Jay, John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist would like a word when you have time.
Feeling my way. Didn’t want to make an assumption. But “papist”. Yikes.
Along this same line, I read that the vaccine about to be distributed is being stored in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I can envision the militia looneys disrupting that I’m some way.
single ="larsIU, post: 3064383, member: 9172"]
John Jay, John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist would like a word when you have time.
[/QUOTE]
Were they also appointed specifically to vote a certain way on a single issue?
John Jay, John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist would like a word when you have time.
[/QUOTE]
Were they also appointed specifically to vote a certain way on a single issue?
Were they also appointed specifically to vote a certain way on a single issue?
[/QUOTE]
You seem focused on Roe v Wade. As that’s been pretty settled law for nearly 50 years I’m concerned you’re not going to pay attention to votes cast and opinions written relative to regulatory, environmental and whatever other issues come before the court over the next several years. To be sure, as she was appointed by a republican president and serves on a majority conservative court, you may want to consider she’s going to vote on far more than a single issue.
To answer your question. No they weren’t appointed to vote on a single issue and neither was she.
I’m amazed that Donald Trump is the last straw for these people. He will surely go down as the worst President in US history, An impeached, one term president who lost the popular vote twice. A game show host who is over $1 billion in debt, but calls himself a billionaire.
Yet these lunatics are ready for a civil war to keep him in office. The Founders are rolling over in their graves.What happened to the United States of America? It’s shocking.
Another part of the dynamic:
6 current members are 60 or older
3 of these are also 70 or older
1 (Breyer) is 82
According to some, Thomas (72) and Alito (70), both conservatives, are most likely to retire.
Rumors Swirl: Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas May Retire
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas may be planning to retire soon, according to rumors in the media Wednesday.
www.breitbart.com
Supreme Court rumor: Hugh Hewitt claims Alito retirement being floated
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt told listeners Wednesday morning that according to his sources, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is considering retirement.
Probably to late to put another conservative justice on the court at this point. If the Republicans were going to do it they should have already had Alito and Thomas retire.Another part of the dynamic:
6 current members are 60 or older
3 of these are also 70 or older
1 (Breyer) is 82
According to some, Thomas (72) and Alito (70), both conservatives, are most likely to retire.
Rumors Swirl: Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas May Retire
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas may be planning to retire soon, according to rumors in the media Wednesday.
Supreme Court rumor: Hugh Hewitt claims Alito retirement being floated
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt told listeners Wednesday morning that according to his sources, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is considering retirement.www.foxnews.com
Lindsey floated that idea back in the Spring...
Top Senate Republican urges older conservative judges to retire
Lindsey Graham urges judges to retire so that their places can be filled before November election
I’m not arguing she did. Just pointing out many justices who’ve served also never did so. Many folks are trying to justify their displeasure with her being on the court using her inexperience. I don’t think that’s the best rationale considering the court’ history.
Look, I’m probably going to disagree with her often. I was uncomfortable with how she was appointed in light of the prior Garland nomination. But saying she is unqualified isn’t a strong argument.
Additionally,what about Kagan? She was never a judge prior to being on the court. Was there outrage when she was nominated. Probably, but it was just as political as the outrage now.
Trying a case doesn’t matter. It’s a completely different gig than being a trial judge.
mcm to WC: "I wish I knew how to quit you."
Welcome back, you old so and so.
He was gone?
Lol nah too busy for long fights and rankings but I’ll check in! This board occupied my quarantined Covid days. I owe a debt of gratitude! When I can post more regularly I’m replacing my rankings with the list of people I’d like to punch. In order. Of course.mcm to WC: "I wish I knew how to quit you."
Welcome back, you old so and so.
That story is dated in May 2020. Indicates that, even as early as May, Graham considered that Trump might not win.Lindsey floated that idea back in the Spring...
Top Senate Republican urges older conservative judges to retire
Lindsey Graham urges judges to retire so that their places can be filled before November electionwww.theguardian.com
Then, we also know from the recent stories about FBI raids in August 2020, that people were in touch with the White House to discuss possible pardons while Trump was still in office. Another indication that as early as August people thought it likely that Trump might lose.
If Graham and the others knew this, then it certainly was known to Trump as well. Starting to look more and more like Trump was planning his disruptive anti-democracy exit strategy for several months before the election. Really sad.
Similar threads
