Watch live: Senate votes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

No suspense..

Totally EXPECTED...

 

Don't call people dumb.
Report yourself.
Soooooo much character, you can do it

 

Trump is LOW Energy...

Reading off of a prompter, he looks ready to pass out...

 

Again, the court was not supposed to be an ideological weapon. Or do you believe the founders would have been fine with sitting on a court seat — not even allowing a vote —until your side has the majority? Their writings indicate otherwise.

 

It’s aways been based on ideology, its inherent impossible to make a ruling without ideology.

Dems changed the rules, they made their bed. Wherever this goes from here, I’m down. I’m confident in my ability to thrive regardless of what happens in our country. But I will never support dems bullying Repubicans from doing what there constitutional entitled to do.

 

Maybe for partisan hacks, those people — arguably — shouldn’t be on the court.

Yes, you have announced you are “down” numerous times, what do you feel is served by regurgitation of this?

If Republicans are “constitutional entitled” to refuse to allow a vote for 8 months on a SCOTUS seat are Democrats “constitutional entitled” to add as many seats as they see fit?

 

It’s inherent in anyone, partisan or otherwise. It’s impossible to rule without it.

I will say what I want, as much as I feel it is necessary.

They were constitutionally entitled to this. If dems can scrap together to votes they can to, however it makes the court meaningless as Repubicans will hit bac twice as hard with twice as many justices when they get power, and they will eventually.

 

The constitution entitles individually elected senators to make those decisions.

Elections have consequences.
Heard that somewhere before

 

Oh I really like that one. That is biting them in the butt hard haha.

 

So you will support Democrats adding seats as constitutionally sound, yes?

 

A lot of their rulings are unanimous or near unanimous anyway. People just seldom hear about them.

 

As is your right, I asked what you felt it served.

A complete takeover of all three branches for a few years — dismantling gerrymandering, ending voter disenfranchisement, making voting easier, adding a few new states, Wyoming rule, eliminating mass voter purges — it might be a while.

 

The more controversial and watched ones are rarely unanimous

 

Getting my point across.

I doubt they will have be power to do all that but even if they do, it wont be that long, it never is. And we will hit back even harder. So I’m down.

Also voter disenfranchisement being gone will hep republicans

 

Well they wouldn't be controversial if they were LOL. Free speech/press cases are often heavily lopsided to unanimous for instance. A lot of their consensus is also in deciding what cases not to call up for the dog and pony show, which order they issue, etc.

 

Say it with me:

Madame Justice!

 

What’s wrong with having 9 Justices in SCOTUS? Do you feel, 9 Justices are not enough?

 

Probably the last major act of a GOP majority in the Senate for a generation...

Enjoy... We were watching "The Hunt for Red October"

 

I'll let you know after the ACA decision

 

Ruth was fine with it.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Opposed Extreme Proposal To Pack The Court
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/2...democrats-extreme-proposal-to-pack-the-court/
"Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time," Ginsburg told NPR in July 2019. "I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court."

 

Nine is abnormally low vs other nations.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that number but I prefer a centrist court.
Garland Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have been so, Republicans decided to stack the court though which requires realignment.

 

Whuts Obamacare has to do with number of SCOTUS justices?

You’ve lost me.

 

I am no longer responding to your regurgitations and will remove them from my response.

If Republicans will benefit from voter disenfranchisement why are they the ones that seem to always be pushing it?

 

Aye . . . and Trump will soon have four more years to appoint more replacements.

 

Did you expect a party in majority to pick justices from the minority party? How’s would that work?