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

What are you claiming I have made up and be specific.

However the state legislature decides they will be within each state. Ever read the Constitution?

What does that have to do with anything.

What does that have to do with anything?

No I'm being constitutionally correct. YOU have never vote for a President. You have only voted for state electors who represent your STATE in the Electoral College and you ONLY do so by being allowed to do so by your state legislature. You have NEVER voted in a national vote.

Who the STATE will vote for.

Says the man in the mirror.

 

Great... more policy making by private conversation by Moscow Mitch...

However you want to fail to spin this, any discussion of SCOTUS balancing goes back to that fateful decision, as we all knew it would...

 

ROFL you don't think both sides of leadership in both houses don't confer with the whips and members as to how to proceed on issues...............geeezzzzz

 

I don't think you have a point. Such a "private conversation" is the essence of Senate business, or the business of any legislature.

 

FFS.....what part of: The States determine who the electors are BASED on the popular vote in the state. Each states representation is BASED on the vote of the people of that state.

Whats does BINDING the electors have to do with anything ? JFC

Have a nice day...........

 

Moscow Mitch made up a brand new rule on the spot.

What he should have done, if he truly had the votes to deny Garland the job (and he almost certainly did) was to have the hearing, then hold the vote and down he goes... What's the problem with that??

He didn't want his caucus to have to publicly make that decision (***** move which continued to the day Schumer took over), so he didn't... and here we are with the D's having to mitigate that damage...

 

McConnell didn't make up the Biden Rule.

But the delicious irony in all this is that the clown who made up the Biden Rule was part of the administration that got to choke on his rule. Another great Demokrat idea that blew up in their faces, like Harry Reid's bright idea to nuke the filibuster for federal judicial appointees. Oops!

McConnell did exactly what he should have done - he put the decision before the American people and y'all lost.

Dems have no one to blame but themselves and their insatiable lust for power for their scheme to pack the Supreme Court.

But lets be fair - Dems and their epic faceplant in 2016 aren't entirely responsible for their court-packing scheme and all the lame-assed excuses they're trying to make for it. They have the hubris of Her Holiness Ruth Bader Ginsburg to thank for this, as well. Had she retired when the ANSWERnik in Chief was still in office a Leftist justice would have taken her place, but despite all her health issues she decided to stay on the court, and that blew up in the Left's face just like the Biden Rule, nuking the filibuster and the 2016 presidential election.

 

It was not a new rule.
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court ... - PolitiFact
https://www.politifact.com › article › mar › context-bid...

Mar 17, 2016 — "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic ...

 

Dems really struggle with their history on this just like the nuclear rule that Harry Reid created and now they whine that it's used. It's hilarious.

 

EPIC fail... I mean, this is the Hindenburg of fails...

But thanks for posting that hypothetical after the real scenario occurred... gave me a great laugh this AM...

Republicans - Lying to America since... Well, it's hard to pinpoint the exact date, but I'll go with 1994....

 

Sorry, but you can't just wave your arms and shout to turn a false claim into something true. The tasty irony in all this is that the Democrats themselves created the weapons with which Mitch so thoroughly defeated them. Not only that, but he had warned them in advance that what went around would come around. I suspect that a good bit of Democrats' anger derives from their secret understanding that they largely did this to themselves. Your post is a case in point.

 

THE NEW LEFTY LINE IS THAT THEIR VILE ATTACK ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURT IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE IDEOLOGICAL ALLIES IS THE OPPOSITE OF “COURT PACKING” BECAUSE REASONS: Biden’s court packing committee contains an army of profs open to altering Supreme Court.

 

Only because the state legislatures allow the citizens to vote on their states ELECTORS it is NOT a requirement by the Constitution. And each of those elections are unique and separate to themselves. And each panel of Electors votes on behalf of the STATE. It is the STATES selecting the President. There has NEVER been a national vote on any matter in the history of the country. Even the creation and ratification of the Constitution was by the STATES not the people.

 

And who votes in the “states”.........go ahead.....tell us WHO votes in states.....

 

IF the legislature says that state will have an election, the voter but only if the state legislature says that their STATE will use that method the choose them. That is not a point I am arguing. Who doesn't vote in the Electoral College which selects the President? When have you ever voted in a national election?

 

I can only post from mom's house and am always very pressed for time, so this reply is about 12 pages late.
The first time I read about an active attempt to add to the court was in the 80s when they suggested just one more seat. The liberals still held a majority, so the single additional vote would be for a good practical reason. It didn't happen.
11 would make sense, more now than before, but which President could the people trust? we couldn't trust Clinton with his constant scandals and impeachment.
We couldn't trust pea brain W.. Remember when Schumer threatened to kill Stevens if he retire before 2009?
We couldn't trust Obama for obvious reasons.
We certainly can't trust Trump.
Is Biden so perfect that we can trust him with 4 or even 2? He might be, but the only reason they pick 13 is to get the liberal side to a majority. It would also allow new categories of human to join the court, the type so horrifying they might never get in onme at a time.

 

So your saying that in states, the voter has no legal right to a vote or to have their vote counted ?

 

A legal right to vote for the state electors? Only if the state legislature grants them such a vote else the state legislature could choose them or they could tell the governor to do so our in any such manner they choose. Read the Constitution. The STATES elect the President, always have.

 

Jebus on a stick man. You have no clue on how the states choose electors, the laws that govern who and how they vote in each state etc.

Have a nice day

 

I know exactly how EACH state does it INDIVIDUALLY in order to choose the ELECTORS who will vote for the STATE. The STATES elect the President. You have never voted in a national presidential election or ANY national election. You only vote in YOUR state and you only do so by the good graces of your state legislature.

YOU have no clue how it works as shown by you question

Show me the part of the Constitution that grants you the right to vote for the President.

 

It looks like the Democrats want a Civil War... this kind of crap is exactly how you start one.