Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MolonLabe2009, Aug 13, 2019.

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    83,457
    Likes Received:
    23,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yep, and dems wont be cheating either, they will be following the Moscow Mitch rule
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  2. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes Received:
    3,040
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Rs under Mitch McConnell have already packed the court for political benefit, by refusing to consider Merrick Garland. What McConnell and the Senate Rs did was a disgraceful abdication of their constitutional role. Putting politics above all else.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. perdidochas

    perdidochas Advisor Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    26,450
    Likes Received:
    3,777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While I disagree with it, the Constitution says nothing about the composition of the Supreme court, so it's not criminal nor an insurrection to suggest changing the number. It's unethical to threaten the court, but ethics aren't really a thing in Washington anymore. They haven't been in quite some time.
     
    Nunya D. likes this.
  4. perdidochas

    perdidochas Advisor Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    26,450
    Likes Received:
    3,777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not cheating. They used their power. The dems would have done the same in the same situation.
     
    Nunya D. likes this.
  5. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    11,450
    Likes Received:
    2,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Act of congress changes the number. Simple majority from both houses and a signature from the president is all it takes.
     
    Libby and Bowerbird like this.
  6. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    10,971
    Likes Received:
    3,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't Congress on recess currently?
     
  7. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    7,886
    Likes Received:
    3,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's called the Biden Rule. I believe no SCOTUS candidate has been voted on in a POTUS election year for something like 80 years. In a 1992 speech by Biden, he argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  8. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    20,783
    Likes Received:
    10,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like a Great Plan.

    Hopefully, in 2020, The Dems Retain the House, Win Back The Senate and Presidency--THEN, Eliminate the filibuster and pack the Court...

    Win/Win/Win/Win all the way around.

    What's not to love? :salute:
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    28,092
    Likes Received:
    10,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keep dreaming.
     
    the breeze likes this.
  10. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes Received:
    3,040
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you name any other SCOTUS nominee that was BLOCKED from being confirmed during an election year? It's one thing to say none has been confirmed. That could be just a matter of timing. Garland was blocked. And McConnell has now said he would go ahead and confirm a SCOTUS pick in an election year if Trump had the chance to make the pick.

    So entirely political. Disgraceful.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  11. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    28,092
    Likes Received:
    10,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Republicans didn't cheat. Stop making crap up.
     
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    83,457
    Likes Received:
    23,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes they most certainly did

    they changed the rules for sc picks, but don't worry, dems will return the favor
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    bx4 likes this.
  13. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    15,575
    Likes Received:
    2,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe post the whole quote and the context?

    But y'know, never let a spin go unspun. Also, this was part of them introducing a constitutional amendment. Y'know, the very opposite of what Fox was suggesting they were going to do.
     
    mdrobster and bx4 like this.
  14. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,583
    Likes Received:
    2,176
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what are you saying? That it is evil when Republicans play politics, but it is righteous when the democrats do it?
     
  15. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    28,092
    Likes Received:
    10,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Democrats cheated first.

    In 2013, the Democrats triggered the Nuclear option which changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.

    Then the Republicans expanded the Democrat initiated Nuclear option to also include higher court confirmations.

    Now you're pissed and want the Democrats to double down on what they started???

    LMFAO!

    Put the blame where it began and it began with the Democrats!!!!!!
     
    Blaster3 likes this.
  16. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    28,092
    Likes Received:
    10,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does "before the public demands it be" change anything?

    That's not a fricking factual statement. That's his fricking opinion.

    He thinks the American people are on his side and there is no evidence that that is true.
     
  17. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    2,514
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yep, and the poll was of lib progs (biased to fit the agenda)
     
  18. Libby

    Libby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,526
    Likes Received:
    8,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Thank you for the answer.

    So then, couldn't Trump address it proactively? Or better yet, they could pass a law preventing either side from doing such a thing? Maybe a law saying that any changes to the number couldn't go into effect until the next President, so no sitting President could ever try packing the court?

    I think it's pretty common knowledge on here that I'm an Independent. I hate today's extreme partisanship and the politicization of every damn thing, but the Supreme Court especially should not be politicized, which is exactly what this talk from the Democrats seems to be encouraging.

    I would think action from congress to prevent politicization and packing of the court would have appeal from people on both sides, and would be especially appealing to moderate middle-of-the-road folks like myself.

    I would think only the most extreme of extremists would come out fighting to politicize and pack the court. Even Biden and Ginsberg are opposed.

    In contrast, I think the reasonable people can see the Pandora's Box it would open, to so flagrantly pack the court for politicization.
     
    PrincipleInvestment and Blaster3 like this.
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    83,457
    Likes Received:
    23,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am saying republicans stole the SC by changing the rules, and the dems will take it back by changing the rules - fair is fair
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    83,457
    Likes Received:
    23,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    democrats did not steal the SC, that is all on Republicans

    yes, it was wrong of dems to change the rules for regular court picks, but republicans also benefited from that rule change too, I condemned dems at that time too

    stealing the SC is the worst thing republicans could of done as now no one trusts the SC

    now the SC will belong to the party in power going forward
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  21. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    28,092
    Likes Received:
    10,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Republicans didn't steal a SC seat.

    It was within their power to refuse to confirm a seat in Obama's last year.
     
    Blaster3 and Mrlucky like this.
  22. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,708
    Likes Received:
    960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "To keep politics out of the court, we are going to pack it with activist leftists"
     
    Libby and Blaster3 like this.
  23. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    10,914
    Likes Received:
    3,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you think they were going to lie down after what y’all pulled with Obama, the retaliation is coming and it’s going to set dangerous precedent. The gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, court packing, ignoring of norms and ethics... all have started a disastrous chain reaction.

    Did you really think your “team” would have control forever? Jesus so short sighted.

    And you people do not understand the meaning of the word coup if you think what was done was one.
     
  24. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    10,914
    Likes Received:
    3,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And it’s within the power of congress to elect as many SCOTUS justices as they see fit. Yet here y’all are, whining.
    Just because they can do something doesn’t mean they should, but y’all were laughing and applauding the last event.

    Ever heard the saying “what goes around comes around”?
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  25. Mrlucky

    Mrlucky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's how they did it. The unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

    The Democratic senators' brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an "industrial-strength influence campaign" to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

    If the court still decides to hear the case, a ruling against New York City could prevent other cities and states from passing similar gun control laws.

    Their threats were pretty lame but could be seen as attempted extortion. They flat out told SCOTUS not to hear the case or else. This case is already underway so it could be argued that the senators were tampering. I'm sure the defense will object. It will be interesting to see what the circuit court does.

    Court packing is not a popular topic with SCOTUS. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also spoken out against court-packing, telling NPR in July, "Nine seems to be a good number." They see Justice Roberts as weak though and one who will cave to their demands. This time it might just piss him off instead.

    If nothing becomes of this I will be surprised.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    Blaster3 likes this.

Share This Page