Originally posted by Robtard
I just emailed the offices of Pelosi, Schumer, Biden and Harris. Telling them that when the Dems take full control, they need to grow some balls, preferably big hairy balls and when doing what needs to be done, to refer to it as the McConnell/Trump protocols so Republicans can't complain.If you ever hear some Democrat(s) saying they're just doing the McConnell/Trump protocols, it might have come from me 🙂
I see that working out well kinda like the fillibuster.
No, he's right. The ability to expand the courts is absolute.
They simply have never done it, because as soon as one side meddles with the status quo, the other side will do it when its their turn. Filling a vacant seat/denying a nomination when you have the numbers, and packing the courts any time your side has control are two entirely different things.
Originally posted by cdtm
No, he's right. The ability to expand the courts is absolute.They simply have never done it, because as soon as one side meddles with the status quo, the other side will do it when its their turn. Filling a vacant seat/denying a nomination when you have the numbers, and packing the courts any time your side has control are two entirely different things.
That is not correct. The SC has been expanded before, it just hasn't happen in modern times.
"During the Civil War, the court was increased to 10 justices to ensure a pro-Union majority on the bench" -snip
If it's okay for Republicans to do it, it's okay for Democrats to do it.
Originally posted by Robtard
That is not correct. The SC has been expanded before, it just hasn't happen in modern times."During the Civil War, the court was increased to 10 justices to ensure a pro-Union majority on the bench" -snip
If it's okay for Republicans to do it, it's okay for Democrats to do it.
Dang. That sounds like classic GOP corruption (this is definitely a pun as they were literally classic Republicans).
Originally posted by cdtm
No, he's right. The ability to expand the courts is absolute.They simply have never done it, because as soon as one side meddles with the status quo, the other side will do it when its their turn. Filling a vacant seat/denying a nomination when you have the numbers, and packing the courts any time your side has control are two entirely different things.
They’ve done it before. Changing it from 6 to 9 but that was a long time ago. FDR wanted to do it to help get his agenda passed but couldn’t.
Originally posted by Robtard
That is not correct. The SC has been expanded before, it just hasn't happen in modern times."During the Civil War, the court was increased to 10 justices to ensure a pro-Union majority on the bench" -snip
If it's okay for Republicans to do it, it's okay for Democrats to do it.
You know what else, those filthy republicans were the first to impose an income tax too by signing the revenue act in 1861!
Originally posted by BackFire
They’ve done it before. Changing it from 6 to 9 but that was a long time ago. FDR wanted to do it to help get his agenda passed but couldn’t.
Because one judge changed his mind at the 11th hour.
Suggesting they really didn't want any more changing things up.
Look at it this way: If it was a Democrat majority, and Republicans openly talked about changing up the status quo to give themselves an advantage, would we be condoning it?
Originally posted by cdtm
Because one judge changed his mind at the 11th hour.Suggesting they really didn't want any more changing things up.
Look at it this way: If it was a Democrat majority, and Republicans openly talked about changing up the status quo to give themselves an advantage, would we be condoning it?
Well most people don’t condone it. It’s not a popular idea among the general public. But neither was replacing RBG before the election.
Originally posted by cdtm
Because one judge changed his mind at the 11th hour.Suggesting they really didn't want any more changing things up.
Look at it this way: If it was a Democrat majority, and Republicans openly talked about changing up the status quo to give themselves an advantage, would we be condoning it?
Rob and his buddies would call the Republicans fascists and would support any "protests" the far-left would organize.
Originally posted by Silent MasterI mean technically this talk is happening because the Republicans chose to employ whatever rules they wanted at the time to get what they desired. Using whatever justification they could to make their use of power okay.
Rob and his buddies would call the Republicans fascists and would support any "protests" the far-left would organize.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean technically this talk is happening because the Republicans chose to employ whatever rules they wanted at the time to get what they desired. Using whatever justification they could to make their use of power okay.
That's kind of how the game is played, though. I doubt one would find an example of the Dems having an option that gives them political advantage, and going "Nuh uh, one step too far. We want to play fair."
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean technically this talk is happening because the Republicans chose to employ whatever rules they wanted at the time to get what they desired. Using whatever justification they could to make their use of power okay.
You mean, in response to the democrats doing everything they could to block a legit nomination?
Originally posted by Surtur
The best part is people in government(democrats) have been acting like they are breaking some rules. They even act like republicans are the ones court packing.I realize this has been a rough few weeks for them though.
Hilariously they didn't break any rules for the appointments and they aren't the ones talking about packing the courts, seems like some ppl have this twisted.
Now congress should start to actually legislate rather then use judicial activism to drive their agenda.