LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

RBG has gied.

Comshaw said:
I just read an interesting opinion piece about what the Dems should do if the Repubs force though a confirmation on a Supreme Court Justice. According to the article, the number of justices is set by laws passed by Congress and not the constitution. Apparently, over our nation's history the number has changed several times. It's been 9 since the middle of the 19th century. The author said that if the Repubs forced through confirmation and the Dems win the house and the senate, they should increase the number of justices to 11 or 13.

Interesting.

Comshaw
Click to expand...

Love to see Biden make the proposed packing of the court a campaign issue!

Which of Biden's two (or four) justices on his non-existent list of potential SCOTUS nominees do you feel will.most energize the voters to show up for Biden's third-times's-the-charm presidential bid?
 
Sean said:
Remember when he made up his own definition of "blood libel"? That was fun.
Click to expand...

lol. i missed that but as much as he lies, deflects, and flat out lies, that doesn't surprise me in the least.
 
You know what else you missed? The "COMPLETE FUCK-UP" (as you refer to typos) in the THREAD TITLE. Right up there^

By a guy, who like you, actually does use drugs.
 
you mean the one he tried to fix but it timed out before he could? and what drugs? i rarely even drink, q, your blatant projection notwithstanding.
 
RobDownSouth said:
They could also legally reduce the number of Justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to the original 7 justices. Under seniority rules, that means both Kavanaugh and the extremist nominated by Trump this week would be out of a job.
Click to expand...


There probably wouldn't be anything preventing them from reducing the size of the Court in this fashion and then saying "Oh, we made a mistake" and increasing it again with a new president picking the judges. Since, you know, changing one's mind about one's principles based on the party of the president is something we do now.

The main thing standing in their way would I guess be public opinion, but the other guys have taken the position that if you control the courts, public opinion isn't relevant. And it's paid off very well.
 
schism666 said:
holeeeee shit. he must have heard that term once, didn't understand it, and then used it improperly. so basically just a typical post from the derp.
Click to expand...

And then, as usual, doubled down. Vettebigot rushing to his rescue and completely throwing him under the bus was just icing on the cake.
 
Sean said:
And then, as usual, doubled down. Vettebigot rushing to his rescue and completely throwing him under the bus was just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

indignant piece of human garbage. both of them.
 
Comshaw said:
I just read an interesting opinion piece about what the Dems should do if the Repubs force though a confirmation on a Supreme Court Justice. According to the article, the number of justices is set by laws passed by Congress and not the constitution. Apparently, over our nation's history the number has changed several times. It's been 9 since the middle of the 19th century. The author said that if the Repubs forced through confirmation and the Dems win the house and the senate, they should increase the number of justices to 11 or 13.

Interesting.

Comshaw
Click to expand...

RobDownSouth said:
They could also legally reduce the number of Justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to the original 7 justices. Under seniority rules, that means both Kavanaugh and the extremist nominated by Trump this week would be out of a job.
Click to expand...

My guess is that’s the nuclear option Harpy was talking about.
 
jomar said:
My guess is that’s the nuclear option Harpy was talking about.
Click to expand...

The "nuclear option" harpy was referring to is doing away with the filibuster for confirmation of judges. Unfortunately, if they do it and force through confirmation and the Dems win a majority in both houses of congress there will no longer be a filibuster option. The Dems have already threatened to do away with it entirely. If they do the Repubs are going to be completely toothless and ineffectual until they can win back a majority, which may be a very long time. The Repubs are going to whine about it but it's time to quit playing the game with cooperation and bipartisanship in mind and begin to play by their rules: "Fuck 'em! We're going to get what we want no matter what we have to do!"


Comshaw
 
Last edited:
Wrong Element said:
There probably wouldn't be anything preventing them from reducing the size of the Court in this fashion and then saying "Oh, we made a mistake" and increasing it again with a new president picking the judges. Since, you know, changing one's mind about one's principles based on the party of the president is something we do now.

The main thing standing in their way would I guess be public opinion, but the other guys have taken the position that if you control the courts, public opinion isn't relevant. And it's paid off very well.
Click to expand...

Talk about projection. Progressives invented judicial activism. Progressives speak often of a "living, breathing constitution. On this board, just today, a nitwit suggested there are "legal ways around amending the constitution."

Republican efforts (with mixed success) to appoint justices and judges that with apply the actual, original intent of the constitution and the plain text of the law is the opposite of what you are describing.

This country has a center-right lean.Democrats get in office by lying about their legislative agenda. What they cannot get through the legislative process, they forum shop for a judge who will legislate from the bench.

You are, as usual, completely full of shit.
 
Conager said:
"Indignant?"

Speaking of terms being used by people that don't have any idea what they mean. You're such a an idiocracy, as you call it.
Click to expand...

feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment.
Click to expand...

q, find someone less smart than me to ankle ride. my comment about the derp is right on the money.
 
Wrong Element said:
The problem with these guys is that they assume normal people are clued into their Hannity/OANN style lingo. I have no idea what the fuck "nuclear option" means in this context. If he's referring to the elimination of the filibuster for federal judges, that's been a done deal for the entirety of the Trump administration so it's obviously not much of a threat; in fact, I am looking forward to a new president taking advantage.
Click to expand...

That was my entire point in response to your original comment and Harpy's reply.

Nuclear option???

For what???
 
Lazaran said:
That was my entire point in response to your original comment and Harpy's reply.

Nuclear option???

For what???
Click to expand...

I searched all of the normal news channels and a few skeevy ones and found that no one is talking about the "nuclear option" besides HisArpy. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SkyBubble
Trump’s (alleged) grip on the Republican Party faces 3 big tests in May
Replies
7
Views
141
eric_erosfan
eric_erosfan
B
Big Surprise, Americans Hate Both Parties
11 12 13
Replies
315
Views
4K
Noor
Noor
RobDownSouth
Markwayne Mullin makes his mark on the DHS on his first day on the job
Replies
5
Views
153
Wilson23
W
ChloeTzang
Trump has cornered himelf - and he's going stark raving mad
8 9 10
Replies
236
Views
4K
Cat
Cat
L
Iran Math
Replies
12
Views
184
SebastianHolt
S
Back
Top