The 28th Amendment to "reform" the SCOTUS

weren't Trump's three judges Conservative????????

why did they have to be Conservative?

 

I agree with most of what you said, but I think "highly" qualified is a bit of an overstatement. She's been a judge for two years. We'll see. I don't think sitting on a bench is necessarily a huge requirement; just a solid understanding of the constitution and our nation's history.

We'll see. I'm not crazy about the choice, but I'm also not angered by the choice.

Gorsuch is the best choice he's made, IMO.

 

I sure did.

 

Limiting the court to 9 with the amendment would be a good thing.

 

Conservative only means maximize freedom. Liberal is a tenet of Democrats and they are always authoritarians. Witness Joe Biden demand all wear masks.

 

9 and they keep the same court building as well. At one time the Court met in the Capitol Building. I saw it myself.

 

Conservative Supreme Court justices in the past have turned liberal after they got on the court. Warren, Souter, even Roberts and O' Connor in some ways to name just a few.

I bet you that one cannot name a single liberal justice that turned conservative.

 

Do I get three gueses?

 

There is no "must" about it. A couple of issues like abortion and gay marriage is making people think the conservatives are running roughshod over the liberals. In truth, they agree in most cases. Gorsuch vited to uphold LGBTQ rights under title 7. Scalia wrote the opinion defending your right to burn the flag.

Don't be myopic

 

such as?
Please list those abuses, we are waiting with anticipation.

 

sorry but I'm going for 6 with legislation loosely structured as follows.
6 new justices
No justices can be removed, added or replaced with the exception of the Chief Justice until
The total number of active sitting justices drops below 9 through attrition.

Republicans would not be able to add new justices or force justices out without holding the house, Senate, and Presidency
This law would first need to be repealed
Then a new law passed

 

So your plan is to be a dictator..

 

They would just pass another law, Congress cannot pass a law restricting a future Congress and you cannot pass a law usurping the Constitution as in forcing a justice out.

 

Depends on what's in the law.
If it conflicts with the current law the current law would have to be repealed
They could pass age limits, force periodic confirmation votes, but could not, for example, appoint a new justice to replace one retiring. To do so would be in violation of current law.

 

like Trump

 

Didn't know Trump forced me to buy a private product

 

Classic 14th Amendment violation that no court would ever uphold. You're singling out Republicans for unfair treatment.

 

The law applies to everyone. So much for your claim.

 

I replied based on what you posted.

But it doesn't matter. You cannot pass laws that restrict what future congresses can or cannot do.

 

actually the Founding Fathers did in 1789.

they required you to buy a gun.

 

Did it come with fries?

 

That is utterly ridiculous. There is no constitutional requirement whatsoever to own a firearm and you know it.

 

Bill maher told him, so it must be true

 

I have to laugh when I read stuff like this. The left were determined to not allow an ideologue on the court, and yet when it's their turn to seat a nominee, this is always their expectation. Always an ideologue. It's actually laughable.

 

Here's the thing liberals never get. They want to pack the court. But when you point out to them that a second term president Trump could, ya know, also pack the court, they get all squeamish, and it's "unconstitutional" or abuse of power, or some other bs. So, liberals, it's your idea, is it just for you folks though? Because, it sure seems that you're all in favor of packing courts these days.