One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Will Biden "Pack" The Supreme Court?
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
Oct 19, 2020 18:00:54   #
Capt-jack Loc: Home
 
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)


Of course, he will, that is the only way to get his c****e agenda to pass. Biden may not do it but Spread Eagle will.
And to answer your question "will Biden Pack the Supreme Court" Well, do bears SH*T in the woods?

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 18:05:58   #
Big Kahuna
 
PeterS wrote:
That's true but it's the president who conducts the orchestra. I would like to see it so there is no more incentive to pack the court as McConnell and his cronies have been doing for the last 5 1/2 years. They can do this by putting in enough new members so that the incentive is gone to simply appoint someone as quickly as possible to a lifetime gig that they may or may not be ready for. If the incentive is returned to appointing qualified new members whether they lean left or right will be of less importance and at last, we will have a court that works for the common good of the nation and not what is best for one party or the other.
That's true but it's the president who conducts th... (show quote)


There is so much $hit coming out on Slo Quid Pro Joe and H****r that the only thing Slo Joe will be packing is his toothbrush and butt plug to make sure he is ready for a long prison stint.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 18:45:18   #
WEBCO
 
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)

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...pretty simple. And yes the SC should follow the wisdom that our founding fathers did.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 18:55:18   #
WEBCO
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
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.


I thought Hillary told Biden to "never concede" before Trump was even asked. I may be wrong. The media and big tech are already interfering in a "fair" e******n, aren't they?

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 18:57:23   #
WEBCO
 
Kickaha wrote:
The Senate had more than enough v**es to v**e down the nomination of Merrick Garland. The Senate leadership decided that rather than waste everybody's time, they wouldn't bother with hearings or a v**e. I understand their thinking, but we would have been better served had they gone ahead and v**ed his nomination down.


Well said, I fully agree. They should have done their jobs.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 19:06:12   #
WEBCO
 
Michael10 wrote:
There is no difference here, Trump is not guaranteed a re-e******n and the peoples voice should be heard. If he is re-elected this could have waited, if not Republicans have stolen a seat. To place a lifetime appointment in the middle of an e******n is a power grab plan and simple doesn't matter how you spin it.


Its been done 19 previous times, were all of those "power grabs?"

So this e******n goes to the Supreme Court, which seems likely, what would happen if the Supreme Court was split 4 to 4? Do we hold another e******n? When do we hold it? After Nancy Pelosi takes office? Do we then throw out any laws that she signed?

Life is complicated, the American people deserve clarity. Is our country going to continue as our founders intended, or is our country going to be "foundationally changed?" That's a pretty big question isn't it?

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 19:12:26   #
WEBCO
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Not really seeing that, seems her opinions have already been recorded before the review. But we shall see, I'm sure she'll get in there before the e******n. The right has been stacking the deck with republican leaning judges, why do you think that is, because they're all neutral and bipartisan?


Aren't they all replacing left leaning judges? I would rather have a constitutionalist judge than an advocate judge. Follow the laws, don't write/change them.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 19:27:38   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
BigMike wrote:
And how did the Republican Senate break the rules? How are they different than Dems?



I know you want to call it only a violation of ethics and not rules, but as ethics do not matter to trump supporters, 250 years of ethics mean not a thing to any trump supporter slithering around in the republican mud..

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 19:58:41   #
Tug484
 
WEBCO wrote:
I thought Hillary told Biden to "never concede" before Trump was even asked. I may be wrong. The media and big tech are already interfering in a "fair" e******n, aren't they?


You can bet the Dems aren't going to concede.
Their hatred for someone trying to drain the swamp is strong and they're trying to protect their criminal actions.
When the e******n is finally decided in Trump's favor, a lot of them are going to Gitmo.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 20:08:27   #
Big Kahuna
 
WEBCO wrote:
I thought Hillary told Biden to "never concede" before Trump was even asked. I may be wrong. The media and big tech are already interfering in a "fair" e******n, aren't they?


Facebook and Twitter are colluding with the demorat party to try and steal another e******n. I am beginning to think that no demorat President has ever been honestly elected since Truman.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 20:18:49   #
WEBCO
 
permafrost wrote:
I know you want to call it only a violation of ethics and not rules, but as ethics do not matter to trump supporters, 250 years of ethics mean not a thing to any trump supporter slithering around in the republican mud..


So ethics matter to Biden supports? How about Hillary supporters? Hell, how about Ilhan Omar supporters?

Please don't even try to grab some kind of moral high ground.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 20:27:43   #
son of witless
 
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)


Biden will have to go along with it. He won't lead it, but he could stop it, which he won't. So Democrats will destroy another AmeriKan institution. Every thing they touch, begins to stink like an outhouse.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 22:46:45   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Showing how it's done? Like that last debate, LMAO


Just to be sure, you mean the actual debate or the supposed Town Hall?? Not that there was any impartiality of either moderator but which are you referring to?

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 22:58:29   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
permafrost wrote:
I know you want to call it only a violation of ethics and not rules, but as ethics do not matter to trump supporters, 250 years of ethics mean not a thing to any trump supporter slithering around in the republican mud..


Ethics be damned! Winning is what counts.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 22:59:32   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
WEBCO wrote:
So ethics matter to Biden supports? How about Hillary supporters? Hell, how about Ilhan Omar supporters?

Please don't even try to grab some kind of moral high ground.


Isn't it funny? Turn their tactics against them and suddenly it isn't fair.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 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.