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

Nope you ONLY vote within your state and your vote ONLY counts within your state. Civics 101. I do not vote with your for your House Rep or your Senator or you Presidential Electors. Heck your state legislature could decide to not even have a vote for your Presidential Electors and choose them themselves and you couldn't do a thing about it to stop them other than vote them out of office while in my state I would still vote for mine.

We have a FEDERAL system of government, do you know what that means? Do you understand the STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE?

 

You continue to ignore the record. Mitch said in 2016 that the governing circumstance was that the Senate and WH were held by different parties. In 2020 he noted correctly that that circumstance was not present.

 

Both were totally bogus and never had a chance to remove Trump from office and the Dems knew that going in, there were merely to smear him. So can I rest assured you will not complain when the Reps play that dirty game?

 

The process of how Justices and Judges are appointed, I have no qualms with it if that is what you are asking. The process for expanding the court, that is in the Legislative branch not the Executive. The rules and what procedures will be used IN THE COURT what rules and cases to be heard, that is in the Judicial branch not the Executive branch.

 

Grammar 101....With....9a—used as a function word to indicate a close association in time

We all vote in a close association in time every two years. Thus I voted WITH the rest of the country as in we all voted at the same time period.

What you are saying I have never claimed, you are just making a strawman to attack. But I do not play with strawmen.

 

The Repubs played that game with Bill going by your standards of knowing they never had a chance to remove him from office.

 

Actually, I thought they had a chance. Of course I was living outside the US in the run-up to that.

 

1. Congress does have exclusive legislative power in the district, but over the years it has delegated local decision making.

2. On second look, 10 square miles is not a requirement, but a federal district for the capital is. I've long thought that if the only issue was the disenfranchisement of the citizens of DC, than either delegating state citizenship to the residents to either Maryland or Virginia, or actual territory itself, leaving whatever is required for the capital, would take care of that, but I don't think that's what this is about.

3. I don't think the disenfranchisement of the district was an oversight. The whole purpose of a district in the first place was to not have any one (or two) states with a vested interest in the federal government, as a state of "Columbia" most assuredly would be.

4. The Dems should probably hold off on DC statehood until they can pack the court, then all of these constitutional issues can simply be handwaved away. Puerto Rican statehood would be easier since that only requires votes.

 

I'm sorry, but if we can't agree to the same use of language, than it doesn't seem possible to have any real discussion. Someone claiming that the Republicans were "court packing" are just abandoning the traditional use of the word, for political purposes. Very Orwellian of you, but it also shows you can't maintain a serious discussion since you need subterfuge to hide your meaning.

 

Ehh...if they change the law it will be allowed. That's not simply a senatorial rule.

 

Asinine and ignorant in the same post. Now THAT'S talent, I tip my hat to you.

 

You're exactly right. See: Georgia

Georgias new law allows them to userp the counties election boards and "appoint" an INDIVIDUAL of their choice to make the rules and count the votes.......and that wasnt by accident

If you cannot see that they lost the last election, so they changed the rules to give them unilateral power, then you weren't paying attention.......

So you still wanna defend Georgias new law that you claim is not suppressing the vote

 

He said what I quoted him saying.
It was a direct quote.

 

Yes I agree about Roberts but this is the most egregious attack on the Judicial Branch I have ever witnesses between the House Democrats and the Democrat President deciding he will have a commission to determine the rules and procedures of the court including how they choose cases. Breyer has already come out with his statement.

I would LOVE to see the reactions of the MSM and the Democrats if he did.

 

It doesn’t matter if Democrats knew Republicans would never remove him (even though it was a bi-partisan attempt with the largest vote in the history of the US) they had a duty to act. So they did

By your metrics no president should have ever been impeached.

Like I said, if they have a legitimate reason to impeach Biden I will support it. But we both know it will just be games.

 

I don't know what that has to do with what I stated about a national vote.

 

There is really no need for personal insults. I simply called you out for your deception, and the proper response from you should be to apologize and restate and argument that wasn't dependent on changing the meaning of words.

 

So a court with 14 justices so it's "even"? That a President gets to pick his Justice but the next one he has to pick one his political opponents want? And how do you classify the judges one side on the other, by what objective measure? Trump didn't add Justices, he filled openings. And if you don't think Biden will fill any and all openings that arise with Justices he chooses because he believes they agree with him I got a bridge to sell you.

Again why is 13 better than 9 and why wouldn't 17 be better or 23 or 33 or 45 or 55?

 

13 is better than 9 because

• It is equal to the number of district federal circuit courts which set the original number at 9
• It reduces extreme partisan changes in makeup from retirement
• It will be less of a political weapon

You could certainly make the argument that a higher number is needed just by looking at what every other national court has around the world.

The entire process needs reform in my opinion. We have an extremely partisan entity feeding Republicans their candidates, presidents elected against the will of the people are making the referral and we have a senate that is no longer even attempting to appear non-partisan in their agenda.

 

Well, I disagree with your disagreement. But we won't see eye on eye on this, so as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't want to go on a long debate about this point. I see that others are debating the point with you, so, carry on.

 

You vote at the same time as the rest of the nation, every 2 years.
You do not vote in the same election as anyone outside your state.

 

Only if you change the meaning of the term -- which, of course, you have, with the hope of preying upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

Yes, that is what I have been saying.

 

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

It means to increase the size of the court to gain a majority in the court friendly to your agenda.

 

FFS

You claimed that you vote in a STATE....I showed how the Georgia law allows them to effect that vote. The republicans changed the rules to allow them to count the votes they want to count....

Keep dodging,.....