Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP

Agreed. I would not. The Conservatives can then move it back to normal upon their return to power. That is why we vote my friend.

Noyankee wrote:

Agreed. I would not. The Conservatives can then move it back to normal upon their return to power. That is why we vote my friend.

There will be no conservative return to power without a redefinition of the party.

We see. Thats not the important issue. Parties come and parties go. Conservatism is a philosophy, not a party. I meant to say Republicans because that is the party currently supporting that viewpoint. Increasing the courts only brings awareness and importance to the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It’s one branch.

boaster wrote:

Noyankee wrote:

Agreed. I would not. The Conservatives can then move it back to normal upon their return to power. That is why we vote my friend.

There will be no conservative return to power without a redefinition of the party.

Sure. After the losses in 2008 and 2012 they redefined the party to be even more conservative. They are pretty far off to the right currently but there is still room to move over some more.

And at some point people will get annoyed enough by the right and left extremists that one party will pivot back to the central where most americans are but it might take a while....

Uncle Pervert:

You do realize that two of your three claims would require more than just control of both chambers plus the White House, or did you miss the one day they taught you civics in school?

Changing the constitution requires 2/3 vote in both houses PLUS ratification by 3/4 of the states. So your gun and religion ideas are simply ridiculous, which for a liberal such as you, probably don't seem ridiculous.

Hot Pot Beefpork wrote:

Uncle Pervert:

You do realize that two of your three claims would require more than just control of both chambers plus the White House, or did you miss the one day they taught you civics in school?

Changing the constitution requires 2/3 vote in both houses PLUS ratification by 3/4 of the states. So your gun and religion ideas are simply ridiculous, which for a liberal such as you, probably don't seem ridiculous.

None of them require changing the constituion

a) number of justices is not set in it

b) tax law isn't set in it. Taxing them like any other business doesn't put a constraint on the practice of religion. Taxing specific religions would be a violation but you sure as heck can tax them all. Heck just making contributions not tax deductible would cripple most of them...

c) And the 2nd admendment doesn't say anything about you carrying a rifle around. I am sure we will keep it legal when you are part of the organized state militia and just ban it the rest of the time. Just like we do with machine guns. Heck this isn't even a liberial position. St. Ronnie was a big fan of gun control and was the guy who banned open carry in CA. Probably because blacks had the guns:)

Amazing how little knowledge conservatives have of the consitution. You would think they never read the document but that is impossible right? Nobody gets out of 7th grade without reading it...

Nothing illegal about expanding the number on the bench.

Nothing illegal about making Puerto Rico and Washington DC States.

Both will be pushed if this raw might makes right action moves forward.

The Republicans who say this is legal and no one cares about the ethics and norms are in denial. Trump supporters have gotten away with this idea that no one cares about all the stuff he does but this will break the damn.

boaster wrote:

BLtheKid wrote:

Uh, no - Democraps have been threatening to pack the court for around a year now, not to mention getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college. As if the Democraps wouldn't be putting up a nominee if they had control. Democraps are getting very close to the line and they had better not step over it.

All we ever hear from the right is “if Democrats has the chance, they would do the same”... but we never see the left so these things. Republicans strike first all the time.

Going to the Democrap playbook of accusing the other side of doing what you yourself are doing...Harry Reid opened the door by lowering the threshold to approve judges to 50 votes, despite being warned he would rue the day...but more to the point was in 1992 the Democraps refused to put Bush Sr's nominee up for a vote - Garland was payback for that, which amazingly I haven't seen mentioned anywhere.

Riiiight, the Democraps have been manufacturing one crisis after another (while their own misdoings have barely been examined, which was likely part of why they went on the offensive) for Trump's entire term and it's the Republicans crossing the lines...and see my previous post about 1992 and 2016 being payback for that...the last time a party that held both the White House and the Senate and they didn't put forth a nominee was in the 1880's...

I have no problem with the court expanding but if so, we can let each side add one more nominee. If Dems somehow did get the power, I doubt the country will let them add additional judges. The left - and the globalists funding them - still win because they'll get the Civil War and will temporarily cause the country great harm as is their goal. But, most of them will regret it in the end.

DIRECT QUOTE FROM BIDEN IN 1992 (spoiler - he argues for exactly what McConnell did in 2016)

"As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Quite the plot twist. Biden gave McConnell the idea to block Garland in 2016. The democrats once again are the bigger hypocrites.

"Biden's comments since Scalia's death directly contradict his earlier stance. In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio's Cathy Wurzer on February 18, Biden mocked the idea of waiting until after the election to appoint a nominee: "To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, 'God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we're not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half.'""

17 republicans that were seated in 2016 and seated now argued ago at filling the seat.

15 of 17 have switched their positions.

Collins and Murkowski have kept their position.

Almost the entire party is hypocritical. Republicans have no morals.

Yup. Everything else is just noise. As usual, the Dems did whatever they now complain about first and then whine and threaten when the Republicans respond in kind. And look at the mistreatment of Supreme Court candidates (Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh) - I guess it's a coincidence that they're all Republicans.

The country needs to rise up and crush these far leftists in this election before this goes any further. And then, when their frustration grows to unignorable sedition, start sending them off to Guantanamo Bay where they belong.

boaster wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/what-every-republican-senator-has-said-about-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-an-election-year

17 republicans that were seated in 2016 and seated now argued ago at filling the seat.

15 of 17 have switched their positions.

Collins and Murkowski have kept their position.

Almost the entire party is hypocritical. Republicans have no morals.

Please learn critical thinking. Nominees don't get approved by the opposing Senate during an election year (only 1 of 10 in our nation's history). The bigger problem going forward is maybe it won't be possible for any nominee to ever get through at any time if the White House and Senate are not held by the same party.

Simple question. May be a dumb question but I have to ask.

It sounds like this has been a big deal many times in the past. Why haven’t they taken all the grey area out of it and voted in a law that both parties agree on?

Idk. Maybe if the person dies before June 1st the current prez fills it. After June first and the election winner fills it.

Sorry if this is a dumb question. Just seems like both parties are turds when the ball is in their court.

No one should be surprised the Republicans have no principles. They gave up their integrity when they have backed Trump for the past 3 years. This is it for them. They are not interested in legislation. It has been all about the courts.

They don't plan to put forward legislation to replace ACA. They are looking for the courts to outlaw it.

They don't want to put in the work to win the hearts and minds to get where most people will agree on a ban on abortion and then legislate against abortion. They want the courts to deal with it regardless of what majority believe.

This is their legacy. They want the Supreme Court to be conservative. They will likely lose Senate seats. The courts are the most important thing. It will give them justification for their backing of Trump.

Yeah it is definitely the democrats fault that trump keeps nominating criminals and that those people keep committing crimes. Which democrat asked trump to ask a foreign power to meddle in the US election? Which one Asked Ben Carson to violate the law on squander tax payer money? Which one encourage Michael Cohen to commit tax fraud when paying off porn stars? Which one made Trump disclose classified Documents to the russians? Which one caused Scott Pruitt to violate the zillion laws he did? And so on. Why the heck are republicans so weak minded that democrats keep forcing them to do all these illegal acts?

The country is democrat (in the party) and has been for a couple decades now. Most of them would be fine with the choice. Don't let the overrepresentation of rural areas in our government confuse you about what people want.

old dog wrote:

They don't want to put in the work to win the hearts and minds to get where most people will agree on a ban on abortion and then legislate against abortion. They want the courts to deal with it regardless of what majority believe.

You realize you CAN'T legislate against abortion unless a certain activist ruling from 1973 is overturned. The great majority of Americans are already against late term abortion but Democrats have done exactly what you accuse Republicans of doing, using the courts to override the will of the people. So your argument is invalid.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

After the losses in 2008 and 2012 they redefined the party to be even more conservative. They are pretty far off to the right currently but there is still room to move over some more.

No, they didn't become more conservative after 2012. They became more authoritarian.

There is nothing conservative about being shameless power grubber with no conscience or decency. There is nothing conservative about weakening the Western Alliance and cozying up with the dictators. There is nothing conservative about being anti-trade, anti-foreign investment and anti-immigration. There is nothing conservative about abandoning fiscal discipline. There is nothing conservative about justifying sexual assault and harassment.

Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave. If he were alive today, he would have to switch back to being a Democrat, because he would not recognize the party he once led.