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

DC was granted home rule by Congress, but Congress retains the right to review all DC laws and has the power to overturn any as it sees fit.

 

And Biden may have what congress hands to him and the senate consents to.

Since that is all that matters you should be applauding the process? No?

 

And they are now as well. Isn’t this FUN!

 

Having the right to do something does not make it a good thing to do.

 

Nope, I vote with the whole nation every 2 years. We all do it at at the same time, which is one of the meanings of "with".

 

What makes you say that? He was just confirmed to the DoJ with 70 votes, that is, lots of Republicans had no problem confirming him.

 

He would have easily been confirmed, which is why Mitch would not let a vote happen.

 

Of course. Mitch doesn't move without knowing how his caucus will vote.

 

As opposed to Republicans who did in fact pack the court from 2016-2020.
Any other president in history would have received one nomination under the same circumstances and would have required a 60-40 vote margin. Instead one was taken from Obama and another from Biden under previous precedents and the vote required dropped to 50-50.
Go cry "no fair" somewhere else.

 

So how do you verify the signatures were valid without a signature verification recount?

 

Uhhh no. Packing the court specifically refers to adding seats to the court. Not putting people on it.

Furthermore you can’t have it both ways. Either he should have gotten Obama’s judge and Biden got the other. Or Obama got one and trump got the other two. At the very least he should have gotten 2

 

Sure right after we add another 12 justices after you guys add 4. I’ll be applauding all the way.

 

You mean like this...

https://wgxa.tv/news/beyond-the-pod...o-voter-fraud-discovered-with-signature-audit

The signature match in Cobb County uncovered "no fraudulent absentee ballots" and the SOS says Cobb County's elections office had a 99.99 percent accuracy rate when it came to performing correct signature verification policies.

 

That's absolutely true, but the question is why is it legal to burn a flag? You can't just light stuff on fire. I can't even burn dry leaves in my own backyard, let alone burn 'em in a public space. Why did liberals on the SCOTUS make the US flag the single exception to arson laws? The 1st amendment protects speech and assembly. (R)s have tried to enact laws that ban flag burning, but they just can't get liberal judges to change their minds. Looking at the way they "interpreted" the 1st amendment, why would anybody trust a SCOTUS packed with liberals to interpret anything else?

 

Uhhh no. I said a full verification audit. Not an audit of less than 15,000 votes in one county. Especially given the fact that 500 of those were ones they had ALREADY reviewed.

again. The ONLY way to determine the legitimacy of the vote is to verify you have as many unique envelopes with unique signatures as you do mail in ballots. A sample size of 10% conducted by the SAME office who is accused of allowing the fraud in the first place doesn’t show anything. That’s like letting the cops investigate Chauvin and coming out and saying nothing to see here guys and believing them wholesale with no evidence.

 

I agree with SCOTUS that it should be protected symbolic speech. I do not have to agree with something to think it should be allowed. I do not agree with the kneeling by sports people, but I will fight all day long for their right to do so.

You bring up an interesting point about the fire. Has any city ever tried to use "no fires allowed" laws to stop flag burning? SCOTUS never ruled on such things.

 

There is no need for such things. If you understood statistics you would understand why a small sample can speak for the whole population.

But I knew this would be your answer. And if they did that you would then find something else to say needs to be done to determine the legitimacy of the vote. Lets face it, it was never about the legitimacy of the vote, it was about putting Trump back in the White House, which is why only a handful of states were targeted by you all.

 

Of course it is. I’m fully aware of how statistics work. I’m also aware that using statistics you can show it’s impossible to drown in a pond and inevitable to drown in a spoon full of water. I’m also fully aware that the same people accused of allowing the fraud to take place being able to CHOOSE which ballots they check in their “sample” and then declaring it clean while providing absolutely zero access to the envelopes is patently absurd.

If trump had cheated and stolen the election and won and the vote seemed shady and the state government which allowed his fraud to take place was in charge of being the ones conducting a sample audit where they chose the ballots to be looked at... would you trust it on its face? Or would you demand an independent full audit?

 

Trump LOST (Fair and Square).
It is MOOT Point.
Onto 2024.

Anyway, this thread is about the S.Court.

Unfounded Election Conspiracies can always be discussed in the appropriate section:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/conspiracy-theories.63/

Anyway, back on topic, there seems to be quite a bit of unnecessary discussion of this issue.

The plan is DOA in the Senate, and increasing the number of Justices has ZERO Chance of actually happening.

 

Actually, what the Republicans did is in fact packing the court, use a dictionary.

Second, no seat was ever left empty nearly a year and some were filled during a president's final year and no seat was ever filled days before an election, especially that fast, but some had been left vacant until after the election. So no, your argument fails.

Mitch McConnell did in fact pack the court.

 

It’s not about trump. It’s about the democrats stealing elections fraudulently like they did with the presidency and then again in Georgia with two senate races and have every intention of cheating again in the midterms. Maybe you don’t care that tens of millions of people feel their votes were stolen and their vote no longer matters. But as I said in another thread, when you steal people’s vote, they tend to become angry and desperate.

 

Here’s a dictionary. You can borrow mine. You need to use it more than I do:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/court-packing

 

Actually you cannot use statistics to prove anything or show anything to be impossible.

How do you know Trump did not cheat and still lose? Why is it only the states that he lost were ever questioned? If this whole thing was about election integrity why only focus on states one candidate lost?

The people you are accusing of cheating and lying were all seen as staunch Trump supporters prior to the election. They had nothing to gain by lying.

 

LOL you can't really have it both ways. Radical leftists want that court packed so bad they don't care what gets destroyed in the process, or what part of the constitution gets destroyed afterwards. Not hard to tell who's camp you're in.

 

What are you even talking about? I cannot think something is wrong yet still legal? You do understand there is a difference between the two, right?

You radical rightist do not give any more of a **** about the constitution than the radical leftist.

You partisans are all the same, matters not which side you sold your soul to.