One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Will Biden "Pack" The Supreme Court?
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
Oct 18, 2020 07:36:33   #
PeterS
 
Ronald Hatt wrote:
Why, would any "sitting" president nominate anyone for this job, that does not believe in the political ideals, of the e*****rate, that placed that President in to office? Trump, is not "packing anything"....he is doing the job of the e*****rate that put him there!....{ get it 'right" skippy! }

And the e*****rate want's him to pack the court with the most conservative judges he can find...

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 07:40:41   #
Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich
 
BigMike wrote:
Then the answer is yes and the Democrats would which is why no one will buy your $ht and no one is bothering to go see the walking corpse.

And if you managed somehow, someway to accomplish that it would lead to nasty consequences for everyone since you wouldn't find it possible to do so under the Constitution as it's written.

No reasonable person would pursue such a stupid course of action and if they tried they'd need to be stopped no matter what.


Great post! How about Trump, promising to pack the supreme court, { for real}....when this e******n is "over", & the dust settles, & he "is still in office"?....:O}}} { I think trump, has too much patriotism, integrity, & honor to do such a thing! } *Demoncrats...& we once knew them no longer exist! { they never "were"...for Rampant a******n, open borders, I*****l A***ns v****g, & usurping American tax dollars, sanctuary cities, anti police, promoting ugly r****m....{ Obama, & others}...{ TODAY....This "IS" their party platform, evil, & totally unacceptable to our American Constitution!}

Harris/Biden ticket, promises to use "many, many", Muslims in their administration! Look at the Koran, & tell me that is a good Idea! The Koran, promotes heinous activities, from hundreds of years ago, that are 180 degrees obtuse form American Political & humane ideals.....&, "Illegal", in this country!...{ think about that}

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 07:54:44   #
Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for wh**ever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)


I think the answer is that rather than letting nine justices decide the rule of law, legislatures should get off their butts & do it. If citizens don't like it the result, v**e them the out.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2020 07:57:39   #
Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial
 
Tug484 wrote:
This packing could go on forever once it's started.
The left just can't stand to lose.
They h**e the Constitution.


I think they should just make all citizens over a certain age justices. Then, when an issue arose, we would v**e. He'll the extra money wouldn't be bad either.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 08:15:22   #
Liberty Tree
 
PeterS wrote:
And the e*****rate want's him to pack the court with the most conservative judges he can find...


And you want the most liberal judges on the SCOTUS

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 08:27:49   #
meridianlesilie Loc: mars
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for wh**ever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)


he can't keep much of anything in his head anymore !!!!!!!!!!

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 08:55:31   #
Michael10
 
PeterS wrote:
So you want judges who will apply laws written in 1778 to a people living in 2020? And it doesn't matter that we don't live in 1778 we are to take what was written then and strickly apply it to our laws today?

Okay, let's give it a try. Consider this: A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the best example of what the founders meant, other than the revolutionary war, was the Whiskey R*******n where Washington drew on the m*****a from 4 different states to stamp out and put down the r*******n.

So let's consider what happened--a well-regulated m*****a--that would be a group that drilled regularly and was organized so that at a moment's need they could be called up to defend the country. "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Now the question to be asked is where does this leave our freestanding army. Well if you've read anything about the revolutionary war you will know that the founders did not want a freestanding army of any notable size because they didn't want it misused by a despot to enforce unlawful orders. But you guys are in love with our freestanding army and you are in love with your AR-15's so lets twist the Second Amedment like a pretizel and do what we what to do and not worry about anyone else...

Now there is no question that Washington thought he was correct in his use of the m*****a during the Whiskey R*******n. So if he was right doesn't that pretty much throw cold water on what you believe the Second Amendment to mean? A well-regulated m*****a--similar to the minutemen, who could be assembled and dispatched in a matter of hours. That doesn't fit the thugs and bullies that make-up today's 'm*****a' who report to no one but themselves and threaten a "free state" not support it...

The thing is, you people don't want the Second Amendment interpreted the way it was written but twisted into a pretzel logic so it will be forever misused to your advantage. So any pretence about original interpretation by judges is just bulls**t. You want your AR-15's and the like and you want to run around playing Rambo. And maybe, if you are lucky, you will be placed in a position, like Rittenhouse, where you can k**l with abandon and have a half-assed plausible case for self-defence.

But I think ole Kyle is still in Jail so you better think long and hard before you pull the trigger. And don't call anyone right after you k**led someone and boast about your accomplishment. That makes it sound more like first-degree murder than justifiable homicide.
So you want judges who will apply laws written in ... (show quote)



Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regulated since every other word in the 2nd means so much.

Definition of regulate
t***sitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
regulate one's habits
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
regulate the pressure of a tire

No where in this definition does it call for individuals to carry weapons or anything else without restrictions. regulated would suggest that guns would have to be registered and/or controlled by the government or law officials. Regulate means just that to put regulations on something. Funny all the people who will quote the 2nd amendment to freely carry a weapon and ignore the other words written in that same amendment.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2020 08:59:08   #
Gatsby
 
PeterS wrote:
That's what conservatives are doing right now so he's going to have to even it out. The best suggestion I heard was to add 20 new judges bringing the total to 29. The point being is that with 29 judges there is less incentive to add far left or far-right candidates because to gain a majority you would have to work towards the center instead of taking a radical action...such as abolishing RvW.

McConnell has made it so Biden HAS to pact the court. If Biden does it first thing then we will have a proactive administration that can undo much of the damage that Trump and McConnell had done to this nation. I would like to see him do it first thing then redoing Obamacare and turn it into law. From that, he has a base from which to attack C***D on and be successful in taking it down.
That's what conservatives are doing right now so h... (show quote)


Then the next Republican president, with a Republican majority in congress, will repeal your bill,

and dismiss your appointees. That SCOTUS would then overturn all of the "packed court" decisions.

So much for the best laid plans of mice & MORONS!

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 08:59:46   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
PeterS wrote:
So you want judges who will apply laws written in 1778 to a people living in 2020? And it doesn't matter that we don't live in 1778 we are to take what was written then and strickly apply it to our laws today?

Okay, let's give it a try. Consider this: A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the best example of what the founders meant, other than the revolutionary war, was the Whiskey R*******n where Washington drew on the m*****a from 4 different states to stamp out and put down the r*******n.

So let's consider what happened--a well-regulated m*****a--that would be a group that drilled regularly and was organized so that at a moment's need they could be called up to defend the country. "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Now the question to be asked is where does this leave our freestanding army. Well if you've read anything about the revolutionary war you will know that the founders did not want a freestanding army of any notable size because they didn't want it misused by a despot to enforce unlawful orders. But you guys are in love with our freestanding army and you are in love with your AR-15's so lets twist the Second Amedment like a pretizel and do what we what to do and not worry about anyone else...

Now there is no question that Washington thought he was correct in his use of the m*****a during the Whiskey R*******n. So if he was right doesn't that pretty much throw cold water on what you believe the Second Amendment to mean? A well-regulated m*****a--similar to the minutemen, who could be assembled and dispatched in a matter of hours. That doesn't fit the thugs and bullies that make-up today's 'm*****a' who report to no one but themselves and threaten a "free state" not support it...

The thing is, you people don't want the Second Amendment interpreted the way it was written but twisted into a pretzel logic so it will be forever misused to your advantage. So any pretence about original interpretation by judges is just bulls**t. You want your AR-15's and the like and you want to run around playing Rambo. And maybe, if you are lucky, you will be placed in a position, like Rittenhouse, where you can k**l with abandon and have a half-assed plausible case for self-defence.

But I think ole Kyle is still in Jail so you better think long and hard before you pull the trigger. And don't call anyone right after you k**led someone and boast about your accomplishment. That makes it sound more like first-degree murder than justifiable homicide.
So you want judges who will apply laws written in ... (show quote)


You never did quote the last sentence.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:03:04   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
Michael10 wrote:
Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regulated since every other word in the 2nd means so much.

Definition of regulate
t***sitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
regulate one's habits
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
regulate the pressure of a tire

No where in this definition does it call for individuals to carry weapons or anything else without restrictions. regulated would suggest that guns would have to be registered and/or controlled by the government or law officials. Regulate means just that to put regulations on something. Funny all the people who will quote the 2nd amendment to freely carry a weapon and ignore the other words written in that same amendment.
Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regu... (show quote)


The Supreme Court says you are wrong. Heller decision.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:12:55   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for wh**ever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)


All dems have to do is impeach the huge number of incompetent and unqualified morons trump and mitch "packed" the courts with, and replace them with folks actually approved by the National Bar association and the federalist society.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2020 09:13:50   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
Tiptop789 wrote:
I think the answer is that rather than letting nine justices decide the rule of law, legislatures should get off their butts & do it. If citizens don't like it the result, v**e them the out.


We agree on something. Can you get on board with a budget resolution? Congress has failed to pass an annual budget only four times in over forty years, the last time was in 1996. Both Republicans and Democrats have been in charge during this time. No continuing resolutions, they must complete the budget process. If the budget isn't done, Congress must remain in session until a budget is passed and Congress doesn't get paid until it is done (none of this Congress still gets paid even if no one else in government gets paid). Also Congress doesn't get 'back' pay after they finally pass a budget. Maybe with a little incentive they will actually do their job. I know Congress does more than just pass a budget, but if we can get them to do this essential job first then maybe we can get them to start doing the other parts of their job.
Next we get any laws they pass to apply to them also.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:14:32   #
Gatsby
 
Michael10 wrote:
Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regulated since every other word in the 2nd means so much.

Definition of regulate
t***sitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
regulate one's habits
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
regulate the pressure of a tire

No where in this definition does it call for individuals to carry weapons or anything else without restrictions. regulated would suggest that guns would have to be registered and/or controlled by the government or law officials. Regulate means just that to put regulations on something. Funny all the people who will quote the 2nd amendment to freely carry a weapon and ignore the other words written in that same amendment.
Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regu... (show quote)


You clearly need to read D.C. v HELLER, and dispel your glaring IGNORANCE!

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:18:03   #
Michael10
 
amadjuster wrote:
The Supreme Court says you are wrong. Heller decision.


I claim no right or wrong in this I only point out the difference people put on one word, m*****a, then ignore the words they don't like.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:19:46   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
PeterS wrote:
So you want judges who will apply laws written in 1778 to a people living in 2020? And it doesn't matter that we don't live in 1778 we are to take what was written then and strickly apply it to our laws today?

Okay, let's give it a try. Consider this: A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the best example of what the founders meant, other than the revolutionary war, was the Whiskey R*******n where Washington drew on the m*****a from 4 different states to stamp out and put down the r*******n.

So let's consider what happened--a well-regulated m*****a--that would be a group that drilled regularly and was organized so that at a moment's need they could be called up to defend the country. "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Now the question to be asked is where does this leave our freestanding army. Well if you've read anything about the revolutionary war you will know that the founders did not want a freestanding army of any notable size because they didn't want it misused by a despot to enforce unlawful orders. But you guys are in love with our freestanding army and you are in love with your AR-15's so lets twist the Second Amedment like a pretizel and do what we what to do and not worry about anyone else...

Now there is no question that Washington thought he was correct in his use of the m*****a during the Whiskey R*******n. So if he was right doesn't that pretty much throw cold water on what you believe the Second Amendment to mean? A well-regulated m*****a--similar to the minutemen, who could be assembled and dispatched in a matter of hours. That doesn't fit the thugs and bullies that make-up today's 'm*****a' who report to no one but themselves and threaten a "free state" not support it...

The thing is, you people don't want the Second Amendment interpreted the way it was written but twisted into a pretzel logic so it will be forever misused to your advantage. So any pretence about original interpretation by judges is just bulls**t. You want your AR-15's and the like and you want to run around playing Rambo. And maybe, if you are lucky, you will be placed in a position, like Rittenhouse, where you can k**l with abandon and have a half-assed plausible case for self-defence.

But I think ole Kyle is still in Jail so you better think long and hard before you pull the trigger. And don't call anyone right after you k**led someone and boast about your accomplishment. That makes it sound more like first-degree murder than justifiable homicide.
So you want judges who will apply laws written in ... (show quote)


Congratulations Peter. That was a well reasoned and clearly thought out argument. Completely wrong of course, but well thought out.
We do NOT live under laws written in 1778. We live under laws written since then. Many, if not most, written or updated in the last fifty years. All of those laws, however, were written under the guidelines that WERE written and approved by the states in the early years of our nation. The guidelines are not laws. They are there to provide a framework for the organization of our government, and to set strong and unbreakable limitations on the power of government, in order to maximize individual and personal liberty. We call them the Constitutuion. Changes to that Constitution REQUIRE something called an amendment, and must be approved by the states.
Have I already mentioned that civics night class?

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.