Democrats to unveil plan to pack SCOTUS because they're losers

[Big Blitz]

BREAKING: Democrats Just Revealed Their Plans to Pack Supreme Court with Radical Justices

 

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-democrats-just-revealed-their-plans-to-pack-supreme-court-with-radical-justices-knab/?utm_source=economics

 

 

Cannot wait to read why all the why this is a good idea hot takes because ACB.  That's such sound logic. 

 

 

*Popcorn Ready*

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Big Blitz

[Doc]

Not gonna happen.

[Big Blitz]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

Not gonna happen.

 

I agree and would be shocked if it was even put up for a vote in the House.  Let alone pass.  

 

Currently this is just doing the bidding of the special interests that put President Cardboard Cutout in the WH.  

 

Just running thru the lunacy platform in the first 100 days agenda.

[Backintheday544]

Shouldn’t you change the topic title to because they’re winners? They won the House, Senate and White House. As @SoCal Deekloves to say, elections have consequences.

 

So yea: 

Democrats to unveil plan to pack SCOTUS because they're winners

 

seems to be more appropriate 

[BillStime]

Perfect! Pack the court and finally take your guns!!!! lmao

[B-Man]

 

 

Last week, President Biden signed an EO that he said would form a “bipartisan” commission to study expanding the Supreme Court, but obviously some Democrats don’t want to wait for that report.

 

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley had some things to say about congressional Democrats reportedly readying legislation to pack the court:

 

 

 

 

 

If the report is true, they have decided not to wait for the Commission. A move to just add 4 new justices would dispense with even the pretense of principle. The bill will now strip away any semblance of constitutional values for members who do not denounce raw court packing.

 

...The late Justice Ginsburg and most recently Justice Breyer condemned the court packing scheme and the public overwhelmingly opposes it. Yet, these members would reduce the court into little more than a partisan commission tasked with a political agenda.

 

Ultimately, this shows the cost of a failure of leadership in the Democratic party, including President Biden. Rather than denounce court packing, Biden played to the far left and called for a Commission to study something he called a "bone headed" and "terrible, terrible idea."

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2021/04/14/jonathan-turley-thread-shreds-planned-dem-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-from-9-justices-to-13/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

Shouldn’t you change the topic title to because they’re winners? They won the House, Senate and White House. As @SoCal Deekloves to say, elections have consequences.

 

Why didn't Republicans think of this brilliant idea in 2017???  Cement conservative rule for decades.   

 

 

So we can assume you're for packing the court.  

 

Explain why this is necessary.  

  

 

 

Also, packing the Court will have consequences.  As will a lot of the boneheaded things the *progressives* would do.   

Edited April 15, 2021 by Big Blitz

[BillStime]

16 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Last week, President Biden signed an EO that he said would form a “bipartisan” commission to study expanding the Supreme Court, but obviously some Democrats don’t want to wait for that report.

 

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley had some things to say about congressional Democrats reportedly readying legislation to pack the court:

 

 

 

 

 

If the report is true, they have decided not to wait for the Commission. A move to just add 4 new justices would dispense with even the pretense of principle. The bill will now strip away any semblance of constitutional values for members who do not denounce raw court packing.

 

...The late Justice Ginsburg and most recently Justice Breyer condemned the court packing scheme and the public overwhelmingly opposes it. Yet, these members would reduce the court into little more than a partisan commission tasked with a political agenda.

 

Ultimately, this shows the cost of a failure of leadership in the Democratic party, including President Biden. Rather than denounce court packing, Biden played to the far left and called for a Commission to study something he called a "bone headed" and "terrible, terrible idea."

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2021/04/14/jonathan-turley-thread-shreds-planned-dem-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-from-9-justices-to-13/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts and Prayers

[Big Blitz]

Just now, BillStime said:

Thoughts and Prayers

 

 

At the QAnon forum for smart people, we have constructive discussions that don't resemble the banter of a child that was given a Twitter account and told to go troll.  

 

Same question for you.  

 

What do you think this *commission* lol found that 4 more judges are necessary?  What went wrong the last 50 years that made 9 judges insufficient?

 

Desegregation?

Gay marriage?

Abortion?

Obamacare?  

 

Total failure I guess.  

[Backintheday544]

3 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Why didn't Republicans think of this brilliant idea in 2017???  Cement conservative rule for decades.   

 

 

So we can assume you're for packing the court.  

 

Explain why this is necessary.  

  

 

 

Also, packing the Court will have consequences.  As will a lot of the boneheaded things the *progressives* would do.   

Sure! I’ll play!

 

Republicans are idiots. Look at former speaker Boehner call them out the past week on how dumb they were. It’s why I wasn’t too worried about a Trump presidency, they tossed dumbasses in positions of power and nothing got done.

 

Why is it necessary? McConnell changed the the rules after Garland. He showed at the end of the Trump era he will change them again. So F’it. If one party won’t play by historical precedent then don’t follow it anymore.

 

If Republicans want to change it they can do better and win elections.

 

To hit your last one, name one liberal Supreme Court decision you disagree with

[Big Blitz]

^^^

 

The only answer to this is Dems don't *control* the Court.  

 

A party only interested in power has no business having it.  

 

This all ends with Secession and dissolution of the United States due to liberal fast tracking to Maoism and half the country fully armed just waiting for them to officially go off the rails.

 

Covid

Liberals embracing their inner Mao.

 

That's what did it.

 

Oh and Trump tweets.  Can't forget what an **s that guy was.  

1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:

Sure! I’ll play!

 

Republicans are idiots. Look at former speaker Boehner call them out the past week on how dumb they were. It’s why I wasn’t too worried about a Trump presidency, they tossed dumbasses in positions of power and nothing got done.

 

Why is it necessary? McConnell changed the the rules after Garland. He showed at the end of the Trump era he will change them again. So F’it. If one party won’t play by historical precedent then don’t follow it anymore.

 

If Republicans want to change it they can do better and win elections.

 

To hit your last one, name one liberal Supreme Court decision you disagree with

 

 

Roe

 

ACA 

 

Obergefell

[Backintheday544]

3 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

^^^

 

The only answer to this is Dems don't *control* the Court.  

 

A party only interested in power has no business having it.  

 

This all ends with Secession and dissolution of the United States due to liberal fast tracking to Maoism and half the country fully armed just waiting for them to officially go off the rails.

 

Covid

Liberals embracing their inner Mao.

 

That's what did it.

 

Oh and Trump tweets.  Can't forget what an **s that guy was.  

 

 

Roe

 

ACA 

 

Obergefell

Roe Isolde and the parties aren’t the same.

 

ACA had conservatives cross over to support it and we will see that happen again with Cali  vs Texas. I think Kavanaugh will also support ACA.

Obergefell also wasn’t a liberal court it had a conservative swing.

[Big Blitz]

4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

If Republicans want to change it they can do better and win elections.

 

 

 

Expand it to 20?  

 

Or lower the number to 5?  

 

Historical precedent.  They supposedly have been tarnished because RBG couldn't retire in the last year of the Obama Error. 

 

Good job.  That's their fault.  

 

Of course it's her right to stay.  She also said Court packing is. ....not smart.  

[Backintheday544]

Just now, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Expand it to 20?  

 

Or lower the number to 5?  

 

Historical precedent.  They supposedly have been tarnished because RBG couldn't retire in the last year of the Obama Error. 

 

Good job.  That's their fault.  

 

Of course it's her right to stay.  She also said Court packing is. ....not smart.  

Lol Mitch would have come up with some odd rule that he wouldn’t stick to 4 years later if RGB retired in Obama’s last year.

[Big Blitz]

Speaking of precedent, you can also thank Harry Reid for breaking it by ending the filibuster on SCOTUS appointments.  

 

Because Rs were doing the same thing to lower court appointments that Ds have also done.  

 

Thank Harry.  

1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said:

Lol Mitch would have come up with some odd rule that he wouldn’t stick to 4 years later if RGB retired in Obama’s last year.

 

And Dems would have done the same.  

 

And dam well would have filled RBGs seat.  

 

So that's the precedent.  Win the Senate.  You control the appointment process.  Ds didn't have it when Obama was POTUS. 

 

They used their check at political risk.  Great political risk.  

 

But you didn't go to Wisconsin. 

[transplantbillsfan]

I don't think it will happen, but it's not like it would be unconstitutional if they did.

 

After McConnell's flagrant obstructionism and hypocrisy I would like to see it happen. I just don't think the Democrats can unify well enough to get it done.

[B-Man]

 

The Democrats’ bill to expand the Supreme Court is unlikely to succeed. While it would likely pass the House of Representatives, the bill is almost certain to fail in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has repeatedly pledged to oppose abolishing the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.

 

 

This Democratic effort seems particularly noteworthy given Biden’s recent order. Do Nadler and Markey really want to cast a vote of no confidence in Biden’s Supreme Court commission?

 

 

At the very least, this bill reveals just how desperate Democrats are to gain back control of the Court in order to weaponize it for their agenda.

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Why didn't Republicans think of this brilliant idea in 2017???  Cement conservative rule for decades.   

 

 

So we can assume you're for packing the court.  

 

Explain why this is necessary.  

  

 

 

Also, packing the Court will have consequences.  As will a lot of the boneheaded things the *progressives* would do.   

Funny - the GQP didn’t mind packing the court 8 days before an election.

 

Karmas a bich

[Big Blitz]

Just now, BillStime said:

Funny - the GQP didn’t mind packing the court 8 days before an election.

 

Karmas a bich

 

 

You meant filling a vacancy.  I'll correct you.  

 

And Ds would have done the same.

 

And you spelled Kamala wrong.  

[Big Blitz]

15 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

The Democrats’ bill to expand the Supreme Court is unlikely to succeed. While it would likely pass the House of Representatives, the bill is almost certain to fail in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has repeatedly pledged to oppose abolishing the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.

 

 

This Democratic effort seems particularly noteworthy given Biden’s recent order. Do Nadler and Markey really want to cast a vote of no confidence in Biden’s Supreme Court commission?

 

 

At the very least, this bill reveals just how desperate Democrats are to gain back control of the Court in order to weaponize it for their agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

I still think they are merely signaling to libs "hey we're trying." 

 

Remember before the election Biden was totally clear with the public:

 

 

 

 

 

Find me ONE Trump commitment he didn't stick to or give his position on.  Give me ONE where he flipped on something significant.  Biden has 10 in the first 2 months.  

 

You can't.  You always knew where the serial liar (per the 80,000 *fact checked* lies) stood on the issue.  

 

I don't care what he said to the belligerent press.   You KNEW what he was going to do and where he stood.  

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Big Blitz

[BillStime]

22 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

You meant filling a vacancy.  I'll correct you.  

 

And Ds would have done the same.

 

And you spelled Kamala wrong.  

 

No, karma is a bich or this thread wouldn't exist.

 

Funny, you don't like the prospects of Dems filling the Court... but you didn't mind it when Georgia created a special election board controlled by appointees of the Republican state legislature to take over bipartisan county election boards with the power to decertify votes and voter eligibility.

 

Karma is a bich... lmao

[Backintheday544]

7 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Speaking of precedent, you can also thank Harry Reid for breaking it by ending the filibuster on SCOTUS appointments.  

 

Because Rs were doing the same thing to lower court appointments that Ds have also done.  

 

Thank Harry.  

 

And Dems would have done the same.  

 

And dam well would have filled RBGs seat.  

 

So that's the precedent.  Win the Senate.  You control the appointment process.  Ds didn't have it when Obama was POTUS. 

 

They used their check at political risk.  Great political risk.  

 

But you didn't go to Wisconsin. 

“Speaking of precedent, you can also thank Harry Reid for breaking it by ending the filibuster on SCOTUS appointments.“ - that’s a lie. McConnel ended SCOTUS filibuster.

 

Dems won the Senate they control the appointment process now let them appoint how they want to.

 

 

[sherpa]

Simply a horrible idea.

Little did Hugo Chavez know that his Venezuelan playbook would be snapped up by US Democrats.

Maybe we should approve a commission to study a two president proposal.

[Backintheday544]

7 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I still think they are merely signaling to libs "hey we're trying." 

 

Remember before the election Biden was totally clear with the public:

 

 

 

 

 

Find me ONE Trump commitment he didn't stick to or give his position on.  Give me ONE where he flipped on something significant.  Biden has 10 in the first 2 months.  

 

You can't.  You always knew where the serial liar (per the 80,000 *fact checked* lies) stood on the issue.  

 

I don't care what he said to the belligerent press.   You KNEW what he was going to do and where he stood.  

 

there were a ton. His healthcare promises for one didn’t match up with the legislation he backed. He flip flopped on ways to citizenship for immigrants a ton. Intervention in Syria. Mexico paying for the wall.

 

Trump in Golf: "I love golf, but if I were in the White House? I don't think I'd ever see Turnberry again, I don't think I'd ever see Doral again," he said in New Hampshire ahead of their primary. "I'd just want to stay in the White House and work my ass off and make great deals."

 

 

[oldmanfan]

I doubt this goes through, but both sides are guilty of playing politics with the court.  Ted Kennedy started the entire issue with confirmation hearings with Bork, and they've gotten to the point of being ridiculous at this point.  McConnell invented his nonsense with the Garland confirmation and lack thereof.  The politicians have turned the third branch of government, the branch that theoretically should be free from political crap, into just that. 

[Doc]

Reportedly it needs 60 Senate votes to pass. It has even less of a chance than it did before.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Doc

[aristocrat]

Supposed to have checks and balances. This is not that

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I doubt this goes through, but both sides are guilty of playing politics with the court.  Ted Kennedy started the entire issue with confirmation hearings with Bork, and they've gotten to the point of being ridiculous at this point.  McConnell invented his nonsense with the Garland confirmation and lack thereof.  The politicians have turned the third branch of government, the branch that theoretically should be free from political crap, into just that. 

And Americans support it.  
 

The architect of the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh was rewarded with the Vice Presidency.   Chances are quite high she’ll finish out Biden’s term as his deterioration accelerates, and while it’s hard to know where Biden stands on any given day on anything, we know where she stands.  
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/us/politics/how-does-court-packing-work.html

 

This should surprise no one, and what follows will be ugly indeed. 
 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

 

8 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Sure! I’ll play!

 

Republicans are idiots. Look at former speaker Boehner call them out the past week on how dumb they were. It’s why I wasn’t too worried about a Trump presidency, they tossed dumbasses in positions of power and nothing got done.

 

Why is it necessary? McConnell changed the the rules after Garland. He showed at the end of the Trump era he will change them again. So F’it. If one party won’t play by historical precedent then don’t follow it anymore.

 

If Republicans want to change it they can do better and win elections.

 

To hit your last one, name one liberal Supreme Court decision you disagree with

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[SoCal Deek]

10 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Shouldn’t you change the topic title to because they’re winners? They won the House, Senate and White House. As @SoCal Deekloves to say, elections have consequences.

 

So yea: 

Democrats to unveil plan to pack SCOTUS because they're winners

 

seems to be more appropriate 

Nice! Thanks for the mention! However, I really can’t take the credit. I’m only quoting The Oracle: Obama.

[Backintheday544]

32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

2010 was a 5-4 conservative majority and Citizen United wasn’t the liberal judges taking over and controlling. I think Alito wrote the opinion.

[Unforgiven]

Like they always projecting, they can't win without cheating.

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

“Speaking of precedent, you can also thank Harry Reid for breaking it by ending the filibuster on SCOTUS appointments.“ - that’s a lie. McConnel ended SCOTUS filibuster.

 

Dems won the Senate they control the appointment process now let them appoint how they want to.

 

 

 

 

My mistake Harry I did mean ended the filibuster on lower court appointments because he's an idiot.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

2010 was a 5-4 conservative majority and Citizen United wasn’t the liberal judges taking over and controlling. I think Alito wrote the opinion.

Hey, I didn't have my morning coffee yet and I'll admit it when I got my facts mixed up!  But I hate the ruling regardless.

 

And looks like the proposal here is to add 4 justices.  But as it requires 60 Senate "yes" votes it doesn't appear to have chance of passing.. 

[Tiberius]

Lincoln expanded the number of justices 

 

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/10/13/packing-the-court-lincoln-and-his-republicans-remade-the-supreme-court-to-fit-their-agenda/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=cacac186e8150265d681238d2a9288ef6bab0c36-1618493815-0-AQyw1usZC4TqFs7G2MiunBAGiln5J203WAkaCYTiwVF3Qr5lM6rYHl_GLYI6lKhwI2O-gzxhGn-SAVx0w4ZJp_Wo_2O_aflYNSQ7M4QC-xL7liaHAhGAvmA4-rmL28s_XJcse99nc8Eorepl5mCRVnDYG-bqw3PpokC2DaVIkGnsMucEkGQA3qyYwE0OvdKpdDgPRbDocpTwTOr6dckwJD5TSwpV2mdKCsrc4GoNy-fm9VeJcr-1A6cYOc5heAw-imRaKlWv3cwnVzusKJjQ8whZWl-h3Mt2EhsP5sJhUfnmfY8cNzpUVTpJvjSune6MTDrEr8fo1mEg5g7owgyhkWPUiQybDkr6ROwIn7Z_onqi0cC1qpiALeyMiHC69VESFhrdrhyc_0RPAoreJGk_-AALnF-FMyX-uI3GK3cTcW400fydUc_y37Z4EzTPnnA07b5lpK2oKARdjQHlyiQg6u2bqEqnVUPmcYvcvXfZjdQkUfDfaf-8AO7C--z9eOaDlNGcu__uybgs6dUg9MeviPWJWMNjNWluTZdODVxk4Tg6k2RaP6yqP2dfNdCzDM42qw

[Big Blitz]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Lincoln expanded the number of justices 

 

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/10/13/packing-the-court-lincoln-and-his-republicans-remade-the-supreme-court-to-fit-their-agenda/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=cacac186e8150265d681238d2a9288ef6bab0c36-1618493815-0-AQyw1usZC4TqFs7G2MiunBAGiln5J203WAkaCYTiwVF3Qr5lM6rYHl_GLYI6lKhwI2O-gzxhGn-SAVx0w4ZJp_Wo_2O_aflYNSQ7M4QC-xL7liaHAhGAvmA4-rmL28s_XJcse99nc8Eorepl5mCRVnDYG-bqw3PpokC2DaVIkGnsMucEkGQA3qyYwE0OvdKpdDgPRbDocpTwTOr6dckwJD5TSwpV2mdKCsrc4GoNy-fm9VeJcr-1A6cYOc5heAw-imRaKlWv3cwnVzusKJjQ8whZWl-h3Mt2EhsP5sJhUfnmfY8cNzpUVTpJvjSune6MTDrEr8fo1mEg5g7owgyhkWPUiQybDkr6ROwIn7Z_onqi0cC1qpiALeyMiHC69VESFhrdrhyc_0RPAoreJGk_-AALnF-FMyX-uI3GK3cTcW400fydUc_y37Z4EzTPnnA07b5lpK2oKARdjQHlyiQg6u2bqEqnVUPmcYvcvXfZjdQkUfDfaf-8AO7C--z9eOaDlNGcu__uybgs6dUg9MeviPWJWMNjNWluTZdODVxk4Tg6k2RaP6yqP2dfNdCzDM42qw

 

 

Yes in response to the SCOTUS ruling that Black people are property.  

 

The Republicans tried to right this Democrat Party view by every means necessary.  

 

 

There has been zero grounds for even considering this since.   

 

Just that Democrats want power.  

[Tiberius]

Just now, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Yes in response to the SCOTUS ruling that Black people are property.  

 

The Republicans tried to right this Democrat Party view by every means necessary.  

 

 

There has been zero grounds for even considering this since.   

 

Just that Democrats want power.  

Heck ya, can't let that radical rabble of a Republican mob rule take power back. 

[Doc]

39 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Hey, I didn't have my morning coffee yet and I'll admit it when I got my facts mixed up!  But I hate the ruling regardless.

 

And looks like the proposal here is to add 4 justices.  But as it requires 60 Senate "yes" votes it doesn't appear to have chance of passing.. 

 

It has zero chance of passing.  Which makes me wonder what the political play is here?

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It has zero chance of passing.  Which makes me wonder what the political play is here?

 

Agreed. Biden is following through on a campaign promise. The Dems know they don't have the votes to expand the court but maybe - just maybe - term limits could be an option?  Probably not as there is a 6-3 conservative majority on the court (even though the GQP won the popular vote for POTUS once in the last eight elections and have represented a majority of Americans in the Senate just once in the last 40 years).

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Agreed. Biden is following through on a campaign promise. The Dems know they don't have the votes to expand the court but maybe - just maybe - term limits could be an option?  Probably not as there is a 6-3 conservative majority on the court (even though the GQP won the popular vote for POTUS once in the last eight elections and have represented a majority of Americans in the Senate just once in the last 40 years).

The thing is, it wasn’t a campaign promise. Every time he was asked about it he refused to answer.