The Democrats Want Absolute Control Over The Government
Oct 27, 2020 09:13:33 #
tbutkovich wrote:
After Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in, they immedia... (show quote)
FYI, it is an action AGAINST a f*****t one party system, wtfu. The only thing radical here is the *new*GOP or should I say the Trump party.
What's happening in congress is from your own demise, it is from not considering anyone not in your party. There's no compromise any longer, it's only my way or the highway. The strong arm on actions from this administration is what is perpetuating this entire scenario.
Oct 27, 2020 09:15:43 #
working class stiff wrote:
Stop what? I just acknowledged that. If the Dems... (show quote)
So in other words same ole, same ole.. Yup that’ll do it for sure...
And just so you know I am one of the people that support finding a compromise that will benefit the country rather than stonewalling in the finest Nixon tradition and getting nothing accomplished...
Oct 27, 2020 09:18:05 #
Hug wrote:
They are not Democrats. They are C*******t calling themselves Democrats.
Yadda-yadda-yadda
Oct 27, 2020 09:21:51 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Isn't that exactly why mitch has been packing the courts for the last 4 years? 
That's a Big 10-4
Oct 27, 2020 09:51:36 #
lindajoy wrote:
How About Obama’s appointments at 34% of the federal judges during his two terms? What was he doing??
There were 118 seats open that McConnell would not allow Obama to fill.
Now trump has appointed 218 judges.
Oct 27, 2020 10:08:39 #
Milosia2 wrote:
There were 118 seats open that McConnell would not allow Obama to fill.
Now trump has appointed 218 judges.
Now trump has appointed 218 judges.
Im not sure about your comment but will check it out..
Trump has actually appointed 220 with 77(?) more vacancies to fill...
Oct 27, 2020 10:32:17 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Isn't that exactly why mitch has been packing the courts for the last 4 years?
You don't understand the concept of "packing the court" do you?
Oct 27, 2020 11:09:53 #
tbutkovich wrote:
After Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in, they immedia... (show quote)
tb, If the Democrats do raise the number of justices on the high court, it will be their answer to the bad faith shown by Lindsey Graham and Moscow Mitch. First they didn't allow Obama the right to select his nominee to the Supreme Court. Graham said that this should be decided by the incoming President. Now he refused to allow the next President to choose the next Justice to the Supreme Court. Paybacks are hell!
Oct 27, 2020 11:42:24 #
tbutkovich wrote:
.
The Democrats want to have it their way and their plan on packing the courts is another ploy to achieve that goal!
The Democrats want to have it their way and their plan on packing the courts is another ploy to achieve that goal!
Hmm.... That sounds VERY familiar! Oh wait. That's what the Republicans are doing right now.
Oct 27, 2020 17:43:33 #
kemmer wrote:
Hmm.... That sounds VERY familiar! Oh wait. That's what the Republicans are doing right now.
Exactly, they're very good at accusing people of what they themselves do.
Oct 27, 2020 18:57:07 #
If the Democrats get the chance to pack the court the term “RATPACK” will once again be resurrected!
Oct 27, 2020 20:30:41 #
tbutkovich wrote:
If the Democrats get the chance to pack the court the term “RATPACK” will once again be resurrected!
Thats a Big IF~~ Roosevelt’s 1937 over reach to stack the SCJustices saying they needed help and any over 70 was a problem...What it boiled down to was his New Deal program which had been struck down by unanimous and near-unanimous v**es. This frustrated Roosevelt got him thinking about adding justices to the court... When he won the e******n of 1936 in a landslide, Roosevelt decided to float the plan, now believing he had more control...
It met instant opposition, strong opposition..
Never even v**ed on in Congress, the Supreme Court justices went public in their opposition to it as well.. And a majority of the public never supported the bill, either...
“Congress and the people viewed FDR’s ill-considered proposal as an undemocratic power grab..” “The chief justice (Charles Evans Hughes) testified before Congress that the Court was up to date in its work, countering Roosevelt’s stated purpose that the “old justices “ needed help with their caseload.”
It was never realistic that this plan would pass, miscalculated reverence for the Court and its independence from an overreaching president, ruled in place of trying to diminish the Justices rulings...
In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices....Meanwhile the U.S. Constitution does not define the Supreme Court's size... An issue for Congress..
Oct 27, 2020 21:19:35 #
lindajoy wrote:
Thats a Big IF~~ Roosevelt’s 1937 over reach to st... (show quote)
Thank you for a good post.
Oct 28, 2020 07:38:40 #
Oct 28, 2020 07:50:24 #
Hug wrote:
Our Republic is no longer a Republic. It can not govern. What we need now is a dictator.
We just had that, but he was too dumb and selfish to lead a one man parade.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.