One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Will Biden "Pack" The Supreme Court?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
Oct 18, 2020 09:28:24   #
tomb215
 
AKA: The Unaffordable No-care Act... It sure screwed up my healthcare plan.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:46:05   #
P Lightfoot Loc: DEPLOYED ON STATION
 
By the constitution and for the constitution we have 9 justices and should have 9 only been that way for 150 years and must remain that way most all presidents have agreed to that but if the corrupt demonRATs could change that in there favor they would try
Schumer pissloosley shifty and the lot of them have to be thrown out

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 09:48:33   #
P Lightfoot Loc: DEPLOYED ON STATION
 
Moron

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2020 11:29:14   #
Ricktloml
 
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.


The Democrat/Socialist Party is more than willing to do any, and everything they can think up to attain and wield unfettered power. Court packing is just one part of the anti-American agenda of the Democrat/Socialist Party. If God forbid they are able to c***t their way back into power, they intend to make sure the American people NEVER have the opportunity to wrest it away from them again. They are totalitarians.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 12:20:17   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
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)



Reply
Oct 18, 2020 13:06:37   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
P Lightfoot wrote:
By the constitution and for the constitution we have 9 justices and should have 9 only been that way for 150 years and must remain that way most all presidents have agreed to that but if the corrupt demonRATs could change that in there favor they would try
Schumer pissloosley shifty and the lot of them have to be thrown out



Small correction. The Supreme Court originally had six judges. It has been nine for most of our history. The number of judges on the SC is set by Congress, not the Constitution. None of this invalidates your points!

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 13:21:55   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
lpnmajor wrote:
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.


And, of course, democrats will have no problem making up reasons to impeach them. I wonder how many of them will be accused of colluding with Russia or talking to the Ukraine on the phone? Or will they fall back on the tried and true "sexual assault 30 years ago"? Of course, in a democrat administration evidence will be optional.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2020 15:11:16   #
Michael10
 
RandyBrian wrote:
And, of course, democrats will have no problem making up reasons to impeach them. I wonder how many of them will be accused of colluding with Russia or talking to the Ukraine on the phone? Or will they fall back on the tried and true "sexual assault 30 years ago"? Of course, in a democrat administration evidence will be optional.


Republicans sure didn't have a problem denying Merrick Garland even a hearing so yes the precedent has been set and it was set by Republicans. If Barrett is seated on the court then all normal behavior is to the wind and Republicans threw it there.

So let me ask you, if someone committed sexual assault against your wife 30 years ago would you just look the other way? If so then you're not much of a man.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 16:12:53   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
PeterS wrote:
And you don't think McConnell and Trump have added Judges for a political reason? McConnell was downright gleeful in having blocked two years' worth of Obama's judges including the supreme court. If political reasons is your definition then McConnell and Trump fit it to a tee...


Adding means more than 9.

If you're trying to say what McConnell did is illegal you need to go back to 5th grade.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 16:14:12   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Michael10 wrote:
Republicans sure didn't have a problem denying Merrick Garland even a hearing so yes the precedent has been set and it was set by Republicans. If Barrett is seated on the court then all normal behavior is to the wind and Republicans threw it there.

So let me ask you, if someone committed sexual assault against your wife 30 years ago would you just look the other way? If so then you're not much of a man.


Nope...sure didn't! You're very observant!

We controlled the Senate then just like we do now.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 16:18:07   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Michael10 wrote:
Republicans sure didn't have a problem denying Merrick Garland even a hearing so yes the precedent has been set and it was set by Republicans. If Barrett is seated on the court then all normal behavior is to the wind and Republicans threw it there.

So let me ask you, if someone committed sexual assault against your wife 30 years ago would you just look the other way? If so then you're not much of a man.


You people decided you no longer will abide by the peaceful t***sference of power which means we're at an impasse...but only until your time runs out.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2020 16:59:59   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Michael10 wrote:
Republicans sure didn't have a problem denying Merrick Garland even a hearing so yes the precedent has been set and it was set by Republicans. If Barrett is seated on the court then all normal behavior is to the wind and Republicans threw it there.

So let me ask you, if someone committed sexual assault against your wife 30 years ago would you just look the other way? If so then you're not much of a man.


As to the first part, about Mr. Garland, you are discounting some differences in circumstances. Your privilege to do so, if inaccuracies do not bother you.
As to your question, it depends on the situation. If my wife suddenly "remembered" being sexually assaulted by a nominee of a political party she is opposed to, and she surprisingly "remembers" it well enough to identify the person doing so, at a drunken frat party no less, thirty years ago, and she can provide no evidence because she didn't press charges at the time......Yes, knowing my wife, I would believe her. But I would not expect anyone else to. Nor would I approve of her bringing accusations into the public arena. Nothing could be accomplished, and no good would come of it. Just reopen old wounds. As to my manhood, it has been proven several times in both pleasant and unpleasant circumstances. Enough so that your comment made me laugh.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 19:02:17   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
BigMike wrote:
Nope...sure didn't! You're very observant!

We controlled the Senate then just like we do now.

That's the way it's supposed to work.


You guys are missing it mike.. it is one thing for a nomination to be v**ed down.. it is very much different to violate the rules and not allow the nominee to come to the floor for a v**e..

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 19:54:28   #
Cuda2020
 
BigMike wrote:
You people decided you no longer will abide by the peaceful t***sference of power which means we're at an impasse...but only until your time runs out.


Back up there, all of this unpeaceful t***sference didn't happen until now with Trump, first time ever in our history, you know how he likes to set those new bars.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 20:03:37   #
Cuda2020
 
Michael10 wrote:
Republicans sure didn't have a problem denying Merrick Garland even a hearing so yes the precedent has been set and it was set by Republicans. If Barrett is seated on the court then all normal behavior is to the wind and Republicans threw it there.

So let me ask you, if someone committed sexual assault against your wife 30 years ago would you just look the other way? If so then you're not much of a man.


What should be done to put an end for majority control is select three judges for each, three to the left, three to the right and three in the middle, unaffiliated. Judges always used to practice neutrality and go by the simple rule of law, looks like that too is a thing in the past.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 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.