The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27

Lie…

first of, obama doesn’t get to decide who supreme court justice is unilaterally, senate has a say. The senate was republican. Elections have consequences.

not even going to address the radical OP, what a disgrace. The lust for power from the left is disgusting. They are willing to drastically change things just to benefit themselves, not country. Shameful

 

McConnell was vindicated when Garland threatened to send the full weight of the DOJ after parents who complained to school boards when their kids were being taught to be racists in school.
McConnell was vindicated when Garland turned the FBI into the Gestapo.

Fascists aren't centrists. They are radical leftists who can't tolerate people who hold different perspectives.

 

same justices who have gone against trump on many rulings… he himself has criticized them

This has all become so disgraceful. There shouldn’t be notion of liberal or conservative justices, just justices who uphold rule of law and honor constitution. Seems when liberals talk about ‘liberal’ justices, they mean anti-constitutuionalists. What is a liberal justice?

 

Reminds me of the old IT saw: With 9 good programmers you can get a good program written. With 50 good programmers you can stomp grapes and make some wine.

 

Complete BS. Your entire post can be translated into: "Keep adding political activists to the bench until I get what I want!"

 

Obviously, you didn't bother reading the article.

 

It's why Obama nominated him, because he believed the sane republicans, if there are any left, would have supported him.

 

Speaking of insanity, your post makes no sense at all.

 

I heard you out and see it as an attempt to increase the level of political activism on the bench. I strongly disagree.

 

republicans said they denied Obama his pick as it was an election year
but then with Trump, they let him pick during an election year

rules mean nothing to republicans

 

those making death threats and threats of violence

 

If there wasn't the reality of liberal and conservative justices, why have each side fought so hard to get 'their' nominees in?

 

Since the American people voted the republican senate and republican president in, their voice was heard when Trump and republican senate appointed justices.

When Obama nominated Garland, the senate represented republican voice and obama democrat, i'm ok with a standoff here.

but not sure what you are complaining about. The so called 'conservative justices have voted against hardcore conservatives in multiple occasions... As long as the justices respect the law and abide by constitution, what are you worrying about? The 3 justices Trump and senate appointed seem to have made liberals happy on many occasions... and trump angry. What we should care about is whether they are abiding by constitution and respecting rule of law, that's all..not whether they go awry and side with a party by veering off the path the constitution and rule of law have paved. No-one should be thinking about these justices as liberal or conservative, just constitutionalists and fair.

 

republicans changed the rules to 50 votes for SC justices for Trump

the people did not give republicans 60 votes, they changed the rules

 

Again, senate had republican majority, representing American voices, just as obama did.

Btw. Trump has the worst success rate of any president at supreme court, you leftists are just lost... just say things without knowing anything. Just talk..

 

One place you could start is how in a manner most-Göbbels-like Liberals have altered the meaning of "court-packing" as it was originally used during the FDR Administration.

I have to laugh at the absurd claim by one poster that not considering Obama's pick is court packing.

There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate must act immediately post-haste on anything that requires its advice and consent.

And note that 100 years ago, Obama's pick would not have been confirmed, because it's unlikely the Senate would have convened to do so.

Yeah, I get that Congress lives on Capitol Hill 24/7 but it wasn't always that way, and it doesn't need to be that way now. I would also suggest the only reason why they are is because they create more useless work for them to do.

 

Why not 127? Or even 1270?

 

And let’s assume hypothetically for a moment that the 2 justices every other year resulted in say 18 conservatives and 9 liberals at the end of the exercise.

Would you still be okay with that?

 

Same here. I saw no point in reading a long post about a title I consider to be nonsense.

 

delete

 

I meant for 'hear me out' to read the article, but at least all of the post.

Did you, or did you not, read the entire post? Article?

 

Which post?

 

You made an assumption about the content.

You assumed wrong.

 

From your OP:

Title of the thread: "The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27"

No assumption was made by him.

 

The one I quoted which got you to "Which post?