Democrats to introduce bill to pack the Supreme Court - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15169613
B0ycey wrote:What the fuck you talking about? Trump elected a justice before an election when Obama wasn't able to. That is by definition "Doing something" for their advantage FYI by twisting and bending things unfairly to their advantage - my claim. Besides, I am not asking for the Democrats to pack the court and neither is Pelosi. As long as the SCOTUS remain impartial and stay out of specific contentious affairs I see things not changing given the ramifications by doing so. Also the talk of packing the court was during a time when there was serious worries on the impartiality of the SCOTUS and I suspect Trump was even expecting 'favors' to be returned when he was trying to coup d'etat the ratification of the election result. That is not the case today and I am not reading much on this within the news now. In other words, it seems a non story now.

Comrade Boyce: Two wrongs do not make a right.
#15169616
Julian658 wrote:
It is not about the Constitution in this case, but the extreme left of the party wants to change the rules. Your nit picking changes nothing.



You were wrong.

You are now pretending you weren't wrong by creating fantasy rules.

The Right is already extreme to the point of threatening the Republic. That would simply restore balance.

In any case, Dems are too gutless to do it. We don't have anyone as corrupt and ruthless as McConnell. Hell, Dems ought to be roasting him over an open fire over his involvement with Russians.

What will happen is the extreme Right will create an extreme Left. They will have a party. You won't like it.
#15169617
late wrote:You were wrong.

You are now pretending you weren't wrong by creating fantasy rules.

The Right is already extreme to the point of threatening the Republic. That would simply restore balance.

In any case, Dems are too gutless to do it. We don't have anyone as corrupt and ruthless as McConnell. Hell, Dems ought to be roasting him over an open fire over his involvement with Russians.

What will happen is the extreme Right will create an extreme Left. They will have a party. You won't like it.

I worry about the extreme left and right late. But, honestly, the extreme left is more dangerous because they think they are pragmatists. I wish you guys were not that tribal.
#15169619
late wrote:You were wrong.

You are now pretending you weren't wrong by creating fantasy rules.

The Right is already extreme to the point of threatening the Republic. That would simply restore balance.

In any case, Dems are too gutless to do it. We don't have anyone as corrupt and ruthless as McConnell. Hell, Dems ought to be roasting him over an open fire over his involvement with Russians.

What will happen is the extreme Right will create an extreme Left. They will have a party. You won't like it.


Threatening with what? You need power to threaten.
#15169622
Goranhammer wrote:
Actually I think he makes a valid point. After all, look at boycey's response. He's basically saying "if Democrats do it, it's fine because Republicans would do it", even though they haven't. When Trump first took office, Republicans had the Executive and both the Legislative bodies on lock. They could've packed in then, to a level that Democrats would never get SCOTUS control again. Ever.

They didn't do it.

Wow, b0ycey suuuuuure was right about Republicans "bending things to their advantage". I mean, just wow.

Look at the hypocrites in this thread pretty much encouraging the Democrats to broker a complete monopoly on all three bodies so that "checks and balances" are pretty much gone and they have carte blanche to usher in things I don't even want to imagine.

The more they chirp, the more I worry about America...and, frankly, about the intelligence of the country as represented by some people here.


Whether it's valid or not, my statement stands. :lol: :D
#15169660
The US has not had ideologically distinct parties for very long. So to some extent the new dynamics are still emerging. It should not be surprised that the emergence of ideologically distinct parties leads to a huge increase in partisanship. I think the wisdom of Trump's post election tactics is only now becoming apparent. The Republicans owe him a deep debt. The supreme court judges just couldn't give Trump a second term, but the fact that they didn't is now taken as proof that the court is impartial and that Democrats should be grateful.

The new Supreme court should be able give a lot of help to Republicans to increase their prospects in all the other three branches. This will probably pass under the radar of most voters.

The reason for not trying to pack the supreme court at the moment is that the Democrats do not currently have a hard majority. This is also why there is not such great advantage to getting rid of the filibuster at the moment.
#15169662
Rich wrote:The US has not had ideologically distinct parties for very long. So to some extent the new dynamics are still emerging. It should not be surprised that the emergence of ideologically distinct parties leads to a huge increase in partisanship. I think the wisdom of Trump's post election tactics is only now becoming apparent. The Republicans owe him a deep debt. The supreme court judges just couldn't give Trump a second term, but the fact that they didn't is now taken as proof that the court is impartial and that Democrats should be grateful.


I do not disagree, but there is also the problem of ideology that is defined by skin color. A black person that dares to be conservative is a traitor. At the same time the hicks in the country side are near 100% for the Republicans.

The left cleverly labels anyone that is not a Northern European as POC looking to add more votes according to skin color. They are trying to form a coalition and have successfully labeled American East Asians as victims to bring in more votes. I never imagined that a Korean was a POC. The other source of votes are the illegal immigrants, but we will not go there. In any event this is all about power. Who cares about the nation!

The right is destined to fall behind as they cannot add more voters. They made some gains with midle class and above Latin Americans and some black men. However, the letter two groups will be despised by their own tribe members.



The new Supreme court should be able give a lot of help to Republicans to increase their prospects in all the other three branches. This will probably pass under the radar of most voters.

The reason for not trying to pack the supreme court at the moment is that the Democrats do not currently have a hard majority. This is also why there is not such great advantage to getting rid of the filibuster at the moment.


I get the issue of judges, but in my observations judges nominated by Republicans tend to be less partisan in their decisions. Some of these judges have become the salvation of the left.
#15169688
Julian658 wrote:... I get the issue of judges, but in my observations judges nominated by Republicans tend to be less partisan in their decisions. Some of these judges have become the salvation of the left.

Could you provide some examples where Republican judges of the Supreme Court voted against policies in their party's electoral platform. Thanks.
#15169700
Julian658 wrote:Most judges appointed by Republicans tend to vote according to the constitution.
What a load of horseshit. :lol:


The Democrats are finally playing by the same rules that the Republicans have been and every whining pussy is up in arms about it! :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15169715
Suchard wrote:Could you provide some examples where Republican judges of the Supreme Court voted against policies in their party's electoral platform. Thanks.

In just the past month, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch sided twice with the court's liberal justices in landmark cases. First, he declared that employment discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender workers was based on their sex and therefore illegal. Then he determined that the eastern half of Oklahoma remains Native American territory.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 437009002/

But Kavanaugh has aligned himself most closely with Chief Justice John Roberts, who sits in the ideological center of the court and whom Trump criticizes as often as he lauds his two nominees. Kavanaugh agreed with Roberts on 93% of cases in the most recent term and 92% in the 2018-19 term.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]