HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS PLAN BILL TO ADD FOUR JUSTICES TO SUPREME COURT

The senate was not allowed to vote.
Amy was rushed through
And Kennedy retired under strange circumstances

trump should have absolutely had two justices. He shouldn’t have had three. And I support measures to correct that and additional measures to make a retirement (or death) less of an issue to the overall markup of the court.

 

Three appointments by Trump and McConnell in four years. That history.

 

The vast majority of those cases ere thrown out due to lack of standing. Not based upon evidentiary record. Including the SCOTUS.

But regardless your opinion is fine but it is the opinion of 10’s of millions of Americans that their vote no longer matters. And when you steal people’s vote they tend to get upset and desperate.

 

Republicans staked the Supreme Court under Trump, so I am fine with dems doing it now, Republicans have no room to complain

 

I'm a fan of the 1st amendment. I'm a fan of the SCOTUS too. I abide by the rulings the SCOTUS hands down whether I personally agree with them or not. BLM burns flags, they stomp them, they even twerk on 'em. If they don't happen to have a US flag to desecrate they'll steal one from a patriot and destroy it. Why should you be angry about 1 and not the other? Or are you going to condemn BLMs flag burning right here and now, and prove you're not a hypocrite?

 

All legitimate appointments, and no reason to go off the rails with a crazy court packing scheme.

That's history.

 

if the "game" allows dems to do this, then it's ok.... right.... see, it works for both sides, dems are just following the rules and the rules allow it

 

republicans changed the votes to 50 from 60 for supreme court picks in order to stack the SC

republicans could do that, just like dems could do this - the rules allow it for both

 

False. There are 9 states who send mail in ballots to every registered voter whether they ask or not. Including many of the battleground states.

 

what was the reaction when the GOP changed the rules so Trump only needed 50 votes in the Senate to get his SC judges

what goes around comes around

 

I despise anyone that desecrates the flag in any way, I even get mad at my neighbors whey they leave theirs out overnight without a light on it. At the same time I will fight for the right of anyone to do so, no matter how much I hate it.

I find it odd that you choose to compare the Trump faithful that attacked the capital building with BLM. BLM normally says bad things about America while the Trumpers are supposed to be America first and all that jazz. Yet you cannot even find it in you to say a bad word about people that throw the American flag on the ground so they can put a Trump flag in its place. I do not know why, but I was actually surprised when I saw that happen, silly me I suppose.

 

What did I say that was false, I laid out exactly how I got my mail in ballot and sent it back. Are you calling me a liar?

 

Some were, not were not. There were even a couple times where the judge(s) said to the Trump team, "show me what you have:" and they said "oh, never mind".

That is because they believe anything that is told to them by their god.

 

No I’m saying that there are states which send out millions of ballots to people who didn’t request a ballot, have never voted and have no intention of voting.

What stops someone from taking their ballot and forging their signature and sending it in?

 

If only there was some preceding vote changing that opened the door to the GOP also changing the votes needed, but I guess that's all lost to...history.

 

That’s because you can’t get evidence without a signature verification recount. If the vote was manipulated by sending in fraudulent mail in ballots with forged signatures, an audit which just counts the ballots doesn’t do anything to prove the legitimacy of the vote.

The ONLY way to determine the legitimacy of the mail in vote is to do a signature verification recount. Which NONE of the states would allow anyone to do and some of the states actually destroyed the envelopes with the signatures on them.

So how exactly do you expect evidence when no one is allowed to verify that we have as many unique signatures on envelopes that match voting records as we do mail in ballots? Is there another way to verify the authenticity of those mail in ballots that you’re aware of? If so, what is it?

 

The topic is the SCOTUS. I said "desecrate" the flag, so I must resent anyone not treating it with respect, including the WH rioters. Why did you bring it up when you know libs on the SCOTUS gave them the right to do it?

 

You voted with the citizens of your state in your states elections. Don't know what state you are in but if it's not Alabama you and I don't vote together they are entirely different elections. What vote do you think is just one big national election? Can you link me to a copy of that ballot?

 

It certainly shouldn't it should make constitutional decisions. Don't ya think?

 

A fact that for weeks after the 2020 election could not be made to be understood by those on the left.

 

But we know there was no fraud in the 2020 election. Every single investigation, most of which were by trumps own people, showed you this.

 

He had what was handed to him and the Senate consented to.

 

The Senators were duly elected legitimate representatives of the people.

 

If they pull it off, fine. The difference is their plan requires a change in the law and I don't think they have the votes for that. Not a very smart plan, really.

 

Thanks for pointing me to this clause. But there seems there might be a contradiction. Here is the clause:

(The Congress shall have Power)...
To exercise EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as MAY, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And
<END SNIP>

This is obviously not the clearest explanation, for a non-lawyer, to interpret, but it seems to say that the U.S. Congress is supposed to be responsible for ALL LAWMAKING, w/in DC-- the specific wording is, " The Congress shall...exercise exclusive legislation," over the Capitol.

But doesn't the D.C. City Council have the power to make local laws?

The other possible weakness in this argument, is that the Constitution speaks of Congress exercising power over this District, "...as MAY, by Cessation by particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States..." Now, obviously, DC is the seat of our government. But anything else in that clause, such as that Congress, on the whole, shall be its sole representation, may get watered down to the weaker term. That is, it now could mean that Congress may exercise exclusive legislation...etc. In other words, it doesn't seem to completely close the door on DC residents being considered a state, or getting their own Representation.

That said, it does seem to have been the intention of the clause, that DC would be set apart. Perhaps, though, they'd not envisioned anyone but government personnel living in that 10 square mile area? But, again, even besides the, "may," the clause does NOT require the Capitol to be 10 square miles. The wording is, "NOT EXCEEDING ten Miles square..."

To follow this rabbit hole a little further down, the Capitol's borders could be narrowed in, around the principle functional offices of government, and the monuments. How much area or population this would exclude, I have not studied a map, to know. But, anything pared from D.C., it seems reasonable, the original donor states, Virginia & Maryland, would have a claim on.

To wrap up, there does not seem to be a straight-forward answer to the question. I had wondered why, if it was so cut & dried, Senator Markey, who introduced the bill today, wouldn't realize this. After my reading of the pertaining clause I think he knows that, if this ever passed Congress, it would be on a fast track to the Supreme Court, for a decision. That being the case, I rule that yours was an insightful comment.

But the word-- from MSNBC, anyway-- is that the Dems do not have a united caucus, on this question. Even if they did, this does not seem to fit the requirement that it be primarily a budgetary issue, to escape the cloture rule. What I'm thinking is that maybe some of the more centrist Democratic leaders (which, yes, includes leader Pelosi, on the House side) are just allowing those further on the left to get certain things, "out of their systems," rather than risk discontentment among its most progressive members; almost like scheduling a visit from a sultry singer, or whoever would pass for the modern-day Bob Hope-- just keeping the troops happy.