One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
How long must we have this 8 person Supreme Court?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Jul 10, 2018 17:33:43   #
Radiance3
 
oldroy wrote:
It appears to me that you were watching Fox News to see that crowd. I watched the other two channels just to see what was going on out on those steps and they just didn't show the same crowd that Fox did. I didn't watch those two to see what was going, but to see what they were showing and try to figure out how they managed it all.

==============
All I can see on those crowds are uncivilized people just out of the caves of the liberals and democrats.

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 18:53:44   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
oldroy wrote:
Is there some information that you have I don't? Do you understand that the only way you increase the number on the Supreme Court bench is to amend the Constitution? Surely you understand that amendments always take over 2 years and the one you seem to know about hasn't even been proposed yet. How will the progs in Congress get this amendment, you talk about, through the Congress? Then the states have to accept this change and I don't think 3/4 of the state legislatures will come to what you speak of in less than 2 years.

Kevyn, of course you know something from your troll employers that the rest of us don't. Right? Where did you get this information?
Is there some information that you have I don't? ... (show quote)


Kevyn has not been programmed with that information. He only obtains proof from the socialists democrats twisted f**e news and repeats it.

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 19:11:24   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Well, if you'll recall, ole Mitch poisoned the well......................when he refused to give Obamas nominee ( Garland ) a v**e..................and held the seat open for 17 months. That is now the precedent; no nominee will be approved during an e******n year, or the year before.


P**********l e******n...that precedent hasn't been set in the mid-term yet.

And the precedent is set... actually set...the majority will prevail when they want. Hopefully there will be no more of this lazy, "Let's not filibuster and say we did" BS. All that rule does is make it possible to keep issues as political footballs FOREVER.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2018 08:38:17   #
Kevyn
 
oldroy wrote:
Is there some information that you have I don't? Do you understand that the only way you increase the ones by the legesnumber on the Supreme Court bench is to amend the Constitution? Surely you understand that amendments always take over 2 years and the one you seem to know about hasn't even been proposed yet. How will the progs in Congress get this amendment, you talk about, through the Congress? Then the states have to accept this change and I don't think 3/4 of the state legislatures will come to what you speak of in less than 2 years.

Kevyn, of course you know something from your troll employers that the rest of us don't. Right? Where did you get this information?
Is there some information that you have I don't? ... (show quote)
The number of justices is determined by the legislature not the constitution.

Reply
Jul 11, 2018 08:49:26   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Kevyn wrote:
The number of justices is determined by the legislature not the constitution.
It's been tried before. It didn't work out.

A thinking person might consider trying to change their parties platform to please the people instead of trying to think of ways to manipulate the system.

Democrats had a fillibuster proof Senate, House, and, POTUS and did not even attempt to pass A******n legislation, because they knew it would have been political suicide.

Reply
Jul 11, 2018 09:41:43   #
greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont
 
I was looking at my copy of that silly old document called The Constitution of the United States. You know, that thing that none of the politicians in Washington pay much attention to anymore, and it didn't say how many judges there are supposed to be on the Supreme Court. I've run across some information, that back in the 19th century, there were fifteen of 'em at one time. So don't worry about having eight for a while.

Reply
Jul 11, 2018 11:03:19   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==============
Schumer wants to delay it. So they could manipulate the system, and perhaps even create violence.

The sight last night on front of the Supreme Court building was d********g and dangerous. Those people protesting looked wild, dangerous, and were ready to commit crimes and violence in defense of protecting their rights to k**l babies and rights for men to marry another man, or for woman to marry another woman and have all the benefits protected under the constitution.

The framers did not envision those events to happen. Liberal and democrat women looked so ugly and indecent.
============== br Schumer wants to delay it. So th... (show quote)


We're those normal people, looked like demon possessed people to me.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2018 17:04:16   #
son of witless
 
Super Dave wrote:
Hahahahahaha.....

Losers are so funny to watch...


He makes predictions with nothing to back them up.

Reply
Jul 11, 2018 17:10:45   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Kevyn wrote:
The number of justices is determined by the legislature not the constitution.


Kev...take a chill pill. T***p w*n't need to appoint additional judges. The 9 will be plenty.

Reply
Jul 11, 2018 21:57:39   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
Chocura750 wrote:
This new appointee is a typical Republican judge, v**es for employers versus employees, favors the government over the individual and has rigid uncharitable world view. What did you expect. He also repeats the Republican unt***hful legal philosophy that judges interpret the law and don't make the law. This is meaningful to the low intelligence party members, but not true.


Why is this so meaningful to the progs?

Reply
Jul 12, 2018 19:37:12   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
greenmountaineer wrote:
I was looking at my copy of that silly old document called The Constitution of the United States. You know, that thing that none of the politicians in Washington pay much attention to anymore, and it didn't say how many judges there are supposed to be on the Supreme Court. I've run across some information, that back in the 19th century, there were fifteen of 'em at one time. So don't worry about having eight for a while.


There is nothing about the number of Justices on that Bench but the Congress was told to create all the courts and 9 was their number and always has been. However, that 15 you talk about was suggested by FDR because he thought if he could appoint 6 new judges he could get people that liked what he did. It was such a good thing that the Congress just didn't have enough progressives to accept that crap.

Reply
 
 
Jul 13, 2018 09:55:17   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
oldroy wrote:
The Dems have promised to keep a new one off the bench unless he/she is a left leaner. Today Chunk Schumer was so excited on the floor of the Senate that I thought he may be ready to take his own life and the appointment hadn't been made, yet, then.c

Do any of you left leaners remember back a few years ago when the Dems agreed to give up the filibuster on judicial appointments? Oh yeah they did just that for fear that the GOP would try to use it to throw out any Obama appointees. Yep, now they don't even have that method left. I think they really believe they can hold things off for over two years when they may be able to beat Trump and get control of the Senate. It is sorrowful to see they trying to hold back the next appointment which Trump made this evening. Somehow, I just can't accept them believing they can hold the Court to 8 members very much longer.

Oh well, there will be a Constitutionalist appointed long before they can hold back, forever. Poor old Chunk may go clear out of his mind before he stops the acceptance.
The Dems have promised to keep a new one off the b... (show quote)


Can the D's block this nomination and the other 23 judges on Trump's list for another 2 years?
And then another 4 years?

Reply
Jul 13, 2018 10:13:28   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
eagleye13 wrote:
Can the D's block this nomination and the other 23 judges on Trump's list for another 2 years?
And then another 4 years?


No. If they could they would have blocked then for the last 2 years.

Reply
Jul 13, 2018 10:18:09   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Super Dave wrote:
No. If they could they would have blocked then for the last 2 years.


Funny how there own legislation has come back to bite them in their own ass.

Reply
Jul 13, 2018 10:21:24   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
eagleye13 wrote:
Funny how there own legislation has come back to bite them in their own ass.
Rule changes, you mean.

Funny is an understatement...

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.