Are you for this idea like many on the left are? Of course the Democrats only want this done if they get all the power they need to accomplish this idea that FDR once tried and failed to do.
I'm just looking for your personal opinions if you're wiling to offer one. I'm sure you already know my answer but just in case you don't.... F##K NO. If you are in favor of this, tell me how it would ever be a legitimate and constitutional act.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
What would the Left do if Trump after being re-elected and having Republican control of the House and Senate decided to add 4 conservative justices to the Supreme Court?
ramage wrote: What would the Left do if Trump after being re-elected and having Republican control of the House and Senate decided to add 4 conservative justices to the Supreme Court?
We all know the answer to that one. The same thing could be said for getting rid of the fillibuster, another great idea from the left that wants to trample on the power of the minority. These people have such bad ideas that they need the courts and scumbags like Pelosi and Schumer to force those bad ideas down our throats.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
homeagain wrote: I don't believe U (collectively) have ANY legitimate ground to lament about this....one word...MERRICK.
EXPLAIN the 180 on this....U can't....
The EPITOME of hypocrisy (in epic proportion).... claiming it's fair and then reversing the claim....sorry,
it's just a political ploy in "one upsmanship"......and THAT is what is going to piss enough voters off to
FLIP THE SENATE....watch what happens.
History is against you on this one HA. Do you remember the Breyer appointment in the lame duck session?? Did you know that this has happened 10 times before where a vacancy was attempted to be filled by a president with an opposing party's Senate? 9 times it failed. 19 times it has happened with the President and the Senate of the same party. 17 of those have gone through. As Ginsberg says, he's president for 4 years, not 3 years...
There is much at stake with THIS scenario....I haven't researched the others,but I would GUESS the stakes
were not as astronomically high...THERE WILL BE BLOOD on this far reaching decision. When the SCOTUS is not relatively balanced and it tilted to the extreme.....watch what happens
homeagain wrote: I don't believe U (collectively) have ANY legitimate ground to lament about this....one word...MERRICK.
EXPLAIN the 180 on this....U can't....
#1 You ignored/deflected from the actual topic. Please try again and tell me how you feel about packing the court with more than 9 justices.
#2 As for your deflection, this situation has historic precedent. It would be more unprecedented to not vote on a new justice.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
