Amy Coney Barrett

[BillStime]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Big Blitz]

Lol yep.  Don't get me wrong.  I want Trump to win and believe he will.  But my biggest reason for voting how I do for my Senators and POTUS is bc of the Courts the Left needs to shove their agenda no one agrees with down our throats.

 

And the inevitable replacement for RBG (may God rest her soul) was at the top of my list of reasons he absolutely has to win.  Everyone knew this.  Getting ACB on the SCOTUS has completely obliterated whatever stress level I had over this rigged election.

 

 

 

Trump's mission, getting us to a 6-3 conservative court to protect America for the next 30 plus years, and now as we see here with this tremendous news, may also strike down Roe, has been achieved.

 

Think about this leftists.  Had Hillary won, the SCOTUS would be 6-3 Lib for the next 30 years.  

 

We truly saved this country in 2016.  

 

Next time, visit Wisconsin.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...if Barrett's principal disqualifier is religion, that sure as hell tells me this country has gone WELL beyond the "state of disrepair"........

[Backintheday544]

On 10/2/2020 at 12:08 AM, Big Blitz said:

Lol yep.  Don't get me wrong.  I want Trump to win and believe he will.  But my biggest reason for voting how I do for my Senators and POTUS is bc of the Courts the Left needs to shove their agenda no one agrees with down our throats.

 

And the inevitable replacement for RBG (may God rest her soul) was at the top of my list of reasons he absolutely has to win.  Everyone knew this.  Getting ACB on the SCOTUS has completely obliterated whatever stress level I had over this rigged election.

 

 

 

Trump's mission, getting us to a 6-3 conservative court to protect America for the next 30 plus years, and now as we see here with this tremendous news, may also strike down Roe, has been achieved.

 

Think about this leftists.  Had Hillary won, the SCOTUS would be 6-3 Lib for the next 30 years.  

 

We truly saved this country in 2016.  

 

Next time, visit Wisconsin.  

 

This is the exact reason why if the Dems take the Senate and White House, while keeping the house as all the polls are pointing, the Dems should add 4 judges. 3 liberal and 1 moderate.

 

The Republicans made that much easier to do by ending the filibuster on Supreme Court judges.

 

I'm on the fence about trying to add PR and DC as a state. They should definately move to add DC. That's been a long time coming.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

This is the exact reason why if the Dems take the Senate and White House, while keeping the house as all the polls are pointing, the Dems should add 4 judges. 3 liberal and 1 moderate.

 

The Republicans made that much easier to do by ending the filibuster on Supreme Court judges.

 

I'm on the fence about trying to add PR and DC as a state. They should definately move to add DC. That's been a long time coming.

 

...NEVER...they are overtly catered to and their corruption is beyond legendary (Mayor Barry posthumously does NOT approve of my message)......

[B-Man]

Short Tempered Joe Biden Says “Voters Don’t Deserve To Know” His Position on Supreme Court…

Original Article

 

In a remarkable exchange between candidate Joe Biden and KTNV Las Vegas journalist Matt Dimattei, the intemperate democrat candidate says that voters are not allowed to know his position on packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Dimattei: “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” Biden: “No, they don’t deserve to know”.. Just below the surface of Joe Biden is the aged persona of a very angry, unstable, often confused and intemperate, life-long politician. Essentially Biden’s #1 talking point is: you have to vote for me to find out what those who control me have in mind for me

 

 

[Westside]

6 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Short Tempered Joe Biden Says “Voters Don’t Deserve To Know” His Position on Supreme Court…

Original Article

 

In a remarkable exchange between candidate Joe Biden and KTNV Las Vegas journalist Matt Dimattei, the intemperate democrat candidate says that voters are not allowed to know his position on packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Dimattei: “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” Biden: “No, they don’t deserve to know”.. Just below the surface of Joe Biden is the aged persona of a very angry, unstable, often confused and intemperate, life-long politician. Essentially Biden’s #1 talking point is: you have to vote for me to find out what those who control me have in mind for me

 

 

He doesn't have the temperament to be president. He's a ticking time bomb.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 10/1/2020 at 12:13 PM, BillStime said:

 

 

...well that settles it...she is no more a lawyer than our very own Section3/Section8/Third Chair/Hi-Chair......Kavanaugh Time......

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, westside2 said:

He doesn't have the temperament to be president. He's a ticking time bomb.

This! He’s shown this tendency time and time and time again over the years.

[Backintheday544]

25 minutes ago, westside2 said:

He doesn't have the temperament to be president. He's a ticking time bomb.

 

So true. He seems like the kind of guy who would throw temper tantrums on Twitter.

 

The full quote of they don't deserve to know: “Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know-” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

32 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Short Tempered Joe Biden Says “Voters Don’t Deserve To Know” His Position on Supreme Court…

Original Article

 

In a remarkable exchange between candidate Joe Biden and KTNV Las Vegas journalist Matt Dimattei, the intemperate democrat candidate says that voters are not allowed to know his position on packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Dimattei: “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” Biden: “No, they don’t deserve to know”.. Just below the surface of Joe Biden is the aged persona of a very angry, unstable, often confused and intemperate, life-long politician. Essentially Biden’s #1 talking point is: you have to vote for me to find out what those who control me have in mind for me

 

 

 

...so "elect me and I'll tell you"....wadda deal......."IF Kamala or my teleprompter tells me".......

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This! He’s shown this tendency time and time and time again over the years.

 

 

...but...BUT the astute Delaware electorate BOLDLY differs with you... he's their chosen son......hell even his late son was AG......."All In The Family" meathead......

[B-Man]

Entitled, privileged white man lectures woman that her views make her ‘not qualified’ to sit on SCOTUS

So this is mansplaining? Right?

 

We don’t exactly know what the term includes these days but pretty sure if some old, entitled, elected, white guy told Kagan or Sotomayer that their views made them not qualified to serve on SCOTUS the Left would burn more buildings down.

 

***** is such a jacka*s. Sorry, not sorry:

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

So true. He seems like the kind of guy who would throw temper tantrums on Twitter.

 

The full quote of they don't deserve to know: “Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know-” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

Is it your impression that his words were taken out of context?  
 

He says voters don’t deserve to know.  He then says “I’m not gonna play Trumps game.”  Had DJT suggested a game of “Voters deserve to know!”?  Was DJT the interviewer, was that it?

 

It seems clear that unless  Trump suggested playing a game, or unless DJT was the interviewer and caused Biden to “assert” something, the entire quote and stream of consciousness reveals Biden is a cranky geez who’s mind wanders mid-topic. 

[Backintheday544]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Is it your impression that his words were taken out of context?  
 

He says voters don’t deserve to know.  He then says “I’m not gonna play Trumps game.”  Had DJT suggested a game of “Voters deserve to know!”?  Was DJT the interviewer, was that it?

 

It seems clear that unless  Trump suggested playing a game, or unless DJT was the interviewer and caused Biden to “assert” something, the entire quote and stream of consciousness reveals Biden is a cranky geez who’s mind wanders mid-topic. 

 

I'd chalk it up more as a gaffe than a political position.

 

All the voters know the Dems are going to pack the court once they win the Senate and White House.

[Big Blitz]

12 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

This is the exact reason why if the Dems take the Senate and White House, while keeping the house as all the polls are pointing, the Dems should add 4 judges. 3 liberal and 1 moderate.

 

The Republicans made that much easier to do by ending the filibuster on Supreme Court judges.

 

I'm on the fence about trying to add PR and DC as a state. They should definately move to add DC. That's been a long time coming.

 

 

So do this because you can't win legitimately? 

 

I guess Republicans should have been packing the SCOTUS in the first 2 years of Trump's presidency. 

 

You people are unhinged.  

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

I'd chalk it up more as a gaffe than a political position.

 

All the voters know the Dems are going to pack the court once they win the Senate and White House.

I'm not so sure. Probably the best class I took in law school was American Legal History. In that class you'd learn what happened to FDR's court packing plan: it put the pressure on the Supreme Court to stop blocking all his New Deal legislation, until Justice Owen Roberts shifted his position in a key case. That led to the quip, "A switch in time saved nine (justices)."

We have a constant jockeying for position among the 3 branches, and when one (or particularly two, when the political branches are controlled by the same party) overreaches another one pushes back.

It is wrong for Biden to say "I won't tell you whether I'd support a court packing plan." But it is fine for him to tweak that a bit to the old "If the Senate marches forward on confirmation, everything is on the table." And I suspect that's what we'll start hearing soon.

[realtruelove]

9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So do this because you can't win legitimately? 

 

I guess Republicans should have been packing the SCOTUS in the first 2 years of Trump's presidency. 

 

You people are unhinged.  

It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them.  Power is what they seek.  They do not represent the people.

[The Frankish Reich]

19 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

It's unfortunate that the constitution means nothing to them.  Power is what they seek.  They do not represent the people.

But as with FDR, it isn't the constitution that's stopping anyone from increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. It's legislation, a statute, the Judiciary Act of 1869.

FDR proposed adding a new justice for every sitting justice over 70 years old. 

If Biden and a Democratic House were to do the same, we'd have a new justice added for Breyer (82), Thomas (72) and Alito (70). Maybe they'd say stop at an odd number, so that would mean only 2 more.

There's nothing undemocratic or unconstitutional about it. It does violate tradition, but hey, the filibuster was tradition too.

I hope it doesn't happen because as we've seen with the filibuster, no one knows where this will end. But I do think we need to seriously revise -- through legislation if possible, otherwise through constitutional amendment -- the current life tenure system for Supreme Court justices, which now puts way, way, way too much emphasis on every choice, and results in absurd things like presidents trying to appoint justices with the greatest life expectancy (ACB: 48 years old; life expectancy for a woman of that age is 35 years). The founding fathers likely didn't contemplate Supreme Court justices serving for three and a half decades ....

 

EDIT: a good summary - https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution

We had 5 justices in the early days. And it was hard work, not the type of work a 70 or 87 (RGB) year old was willing to do. You had to "ride circuit" -- in other words, Supreme Court justices spent a good portion of the year hearing cases from one of the lower circuit appellate courts, which could mean Boston or Charleston or (later on) inland locations. Not easy before the days of rail travel. The job is too cushy now. Light case loads, 4 clerks reviewing/writing decisions,  long spells when the Court is out of session and the justices do things like "teach" a summer course in Europe and attend expense paid conferences in Aspen, etc., etc.

Make it hard again, they'll retire earlier.

Edited October 12, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Big Blitz]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

I hope it doesn't happen because as we've seen with the filibuster, no one knows where this will end. 

 

 

People that understand history know exactly how this ends.

 

The damage the Leftist Maoists, the Democrat party, the lockdowns, the unprecedented powers given to governors in light of a super flu and for how long they've done so without any justification or explanation might have already caused irreparable harm we can never recover from. 

 

No one understood this when "15 days" was announced then extended.  Government just doesn't cede you your "freedom" back after seeing all that it can control.  

 

Did you hear Cuomo today?  About WNY and Covid?  You don't say the things they fascists say unless you know just enough useful idiots agree with you.  

 

And wait till the election is decided for Trump in the House 27-23.  The reason neither is saying they won't contest the results is because there are going to be 80 million ballots in the mail and this pending disaster is headed for either SCOTUS or the House no matter what happens.