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

It is funny to watch them contort themselves after watching how they acted the last four years.

Party leaders have all said it would never be allowed a vote and Biden has even come out against it previously.

 

Yet there are 12 pages of pearl clutching by people over it.

 

They don’t have the votes. Nor will the party leaders allow it. It doesn’t matter what rules they are operating under as long as it is constitutional. Republicans ignored every rule they didn’t like over Mitch’s time in congress, why are you expecting that to be the metric by which congress operates?

If Democrats had any balls they would play just as dirty as Republicans have, but they won’t as they at least care about optics and know they will lose seats if they act like the right does.

 

EVERYBODY KNEW that the Dems Didn't have the Votes (and that the entire idea was a Complete Non-Starter).

Everybody (even Stevie Wonder) saw that one.

 

You might want to change your news feed, this is bogus. More scare tactics from your "alternate facts" media.

 

lol, the dems too operate within the rules, this is a silly thing to say

 

How can you demonstrate a need when we aren’t allowed to check the envelopes with signatures?

Also, they supposedly checked these millions of signatures within the time frame of a week or so. And give the election is over the time frame isn’t relevant. We can take 4 years to do it if need be.
Furthermore the authenticity of the vote is more than enough reason to do so.

 

I'm under no obligation to defend the Democrats since I'm not one. I'm an independent moderate/centrist. But you can't really make the hypocrisy argument on this, after Mitch's HUGE hypocrisy regarding the Garland/Barrett nominations. The Democrats are far from having the monopoly of hypocrisy.

 

We do check the signatures.

no, you can’t take 4 years to do it. Certification is mandated by law. And without any evidence to suggest massive fraud, we won’t be doing this silly and redundant stalling of the voting process.

 

I do think that Biden is a moderate. To get elected he had to pay lipservice to liberal ideals. So he acts now in a way that looks like he's trying to fulfill promises but he doesn't really want to fulfill them. So he does something he knows won't really succeed, then is content when it fails. Two recent examples: issued a moratorium on deportations as promised but probably knew it wouldn't stand in court, and then when it didn't, acted tough on the border, negotiating with Mexico and two Central American nations, troops buildup in their borders to stop the flow of migrants, and also said he will patch/rebuild some sections of the wall. So he's not the open borders radical that people depicted him to be during the campaign. Now, this. He establishes a committee to look into packing the Court, but probably because he already know from Pelosi and Schumer that the votes weren't there so this is just a symbolic move to appease his left-wing voters - "guys, I tried, but it didn't happen" as we know very well that Biden is against packing the court.

I don't believe for a second that Biden is a puppet of the far left like the radical right likes to depict him. If you look at his cabinet, there are no far leftists. There were talks of putting Bernie there, Beto O'Rourke, etc., but then nope. It's a very moderate cabinet, overall. Remember, Biden's candidacy and the way the party rallied behind him, had the specific intent of stopping Bernie Sander's rise to victory. So I fail to see how you try and then succeed to stop the far left, but then you're called a puppet of the far left.

 

I sincerely hope that these delusional, 'woke' Democrats are STOOPID enough to try to cram this "court-packing" bullshit down our throats! THIS, if nothing else, will show everyone else what a scheming, conniving, pack of America-hating radicals they really are!

The great liberal Democrat demi-god, Frankie Roosevelt, tried to pull this same stunt over 80 years ago, and it blew up in his face! I must admit that I'm just wicked enough to hope that Joe Biden is stupid enough to try to drive this "court-packing" thing -- and then have it blow up in HIS face, too....

 

No it's true and they all stood before the SCOTUS and made the announcement along with the getting rid of the filibuster so they could get this passed.

 

Sorry, but Mitch scrupulously adhered to all the rules, including the one Harry Reid pushed through over Mitch's objections and his warning of unintended consequences.

 

It works just fine when the courts do their job and make their legal decisions based upon it.

 

Washington Post carried the same story.

 

Dems want to change the law. Mitch didn't. That's the difference.

 

I disagree. Mitch adhered strictly to what he had said previously and what he had warned the Dems would be the consequence of their own actions. The "McConnell hypocrisy" argument cannot be made on the basis of anything Mitch said or did.

 

And adding 5348 justices to the court would also be in the confines of the law. Do you have a point?

You are just trying to use one metric as being “ok” even thought he refused to even allow a vote for a year on one justice and then rammed through another all in the guise of “letting the people decide”

There is not independent justification for what has been done. And trying to do so makes it clear the person arguing so isn’t independent

 

Let's look at some historical discussion on the issue

What did the leader of the House Judiciary Committed Edward Cox think about FDR's attempt

[Court-packing would] enable[e] him, through willing appointees, to change the meaning of our basic laws and our whole system of government, asks for something which no man in all this world ought to enjoy. The recommendation constitutes the most terrible threat to constitutional government that has arisen in the entire history of the country.

And in the Senate the judicicary committee report stated

[Court-packing is a] declaration that when the Court stands in the way of a legislative enactment, the Congress may reverse the ruling by enlarging the Court. When such a principle is adopted, our constitutional system is overthrown!

[Court packing is] a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.

Let us now set a salutary precedent that will never be violated. Let us of the Seventy-fifth Congress, in words that will never be disregarded by any succeeding Congress, declare that we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court, a Court that will dare to announce its honest opinions in what it believes to be the defense of the liberties of the people, than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact.

And let's not forget that was one of if not the most PROGRESSIVE Congress in our history.

And of course Justice Ginsburg

Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court. . . . If anything would make the court look partisan it would be that — one side saying, “When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.”

And just last week Justice Breyer

The court’s authority is based on “a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics,” Breyer said, adding that “structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.” “If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches,”

I have yet to see anyone on the left quote a current or former Justice who supports the idea or even any reputable legal scholars. And I would note the leftwing sharks are now out for Breyers head demanding he be removed from the bench because he disagrees with them.

Quotes above courtesy of
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...ough Friday 2021-04-15&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

 

The number of justices cannot be changed without changing the law.
Mitch was quite clear in both the Garland and Barrett cases. In the former, no confirmation in the last year of a Presidential term when the Senate majority and the WH are held by different parties. In the latter, the Senate and WH were held by the same party.

 

Really?
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Would you like quotes from others?
“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”


Spare us the lies.

 

Wait a minute you criticize Republicans when they act a fifth as dirty as the Democrats and then demand the Democrats act even more dirty? If the Republicans take back the House if they start impeachment against Biden surely you will not object will you, even if they make up stuff to do it and ONLY do to smear him with an impeachment.

 

The first quote was from 2016 and was exactly in line with what Mitch had said.
The second quote is from the inconsequential Lindsey Graham.
You simply can't make your case because you are arguing against the historical record.

 

The impeachment was legitimate.
If Republicans have a legitimate reason to impeach Biden I will support it

And Republicans have been smearing Biden since he announced his candidacy. The threats of impeachment started around the same time.

We know by now that everything Republicans accuse others of doing is because they either wish they would have thought of it first and are looking at how to do it worse or that is what they were planning on doing.

 

So the people should have a voice in 2016 but not in 2020 — strange how that works isn’t it.