RBG Has Died

[fingerbang]

The democrats don't get what they want because they didn't win the election.

[valade16]

The democrats don't get what they want because they didn't win the election.

Correct. And if the Democrats win this election they’ll get to do what they want. Something tells me you will no longer like using that logic however.

[ewing]

The democrats don't get what they want because they didn't win the election.

why didn’t Garland get a hearing/vote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SiteWolf]

It's more than an FU though, it is to be able to make actual changes they feel are needed for the country (in theory at least). We are long past the idea of working together with Trumpism I think many would argue for multiple reasons (the hypocrisy shown from many senators on this topic as an example but it's one of hundreds, we know it's play to win).

The idea is moreso if they are going to play dirty to get what they want done then we will have to play dirty to get the changes we want done in return.

I wouldn't say I support it necessarily especially depending on the extremes that would be needed but we have gotten to the point many would argue the ends justify the means. Especially when the means involve acting in a similar manner to "the other side" essentially (creating an even playing field for the two sports teams we have).

That assumes everything SCOTUS has done with the current balance is bad for the country and everything SCOTUS would do if the balance shifted would be good for the country.......when all it's doing is further politicizing every damn decision made, making a clean sweep of government branches following tribalism more than good of the country.

[Sluggo1]

why didn’t Garland get a hearing/vote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The repubs controlled the Senate.

But he shoukd have gotten a hearing.

[Sluggo1]

Actually setting an 18 year limit on SC appointments is the compromise solution to end the partisan fights over the SC.

Expanding the court if they win the Presidency and Senate is the F-you to Republicans option (of which I hope they do).

If they do this, and I have no problem with it, it's a fairly good idea and somewhat of a compromise, but it should be grandfathered in and only apply to new appointments or those that have not yet served for 18 years.

I don't know how many judges have been there for 18 years or more but it would cause issues for several to have to leave all at once.

Let the oldtimers stay until they want to retire and the 18 year rule will work itself out.

[GGGGG-Men]

If either side expands the court, I really do like the idea that there should be a massive expansion to create multiple benches and increase the caseload they can take on. They reject most of the cases that get to them and the power they have in case law shouldn’t be so limited.

And yeah we need term limits across the board. House, Senate, SCOTUS, Appeals Circuit, etc

[GGGGG-Men]

The democrats don't get what they want because they didn't win the election.

Funny because they won the WH in 2012 and still didn’t get what they wanted.

[SpecialFNK]

You're even more gullible than I thought if you believe that.

why is this hard for you to believe.

I knew there would be people trying to say this isn't real.

[Scoots]

why didn’t Garland get a hearing/vote?

I think the point is that the people chose not to populate the Senate with more Dems than Reps, so in that way the people chose that outcome.

[Crovash]

The democrats don't get what they want because they didn't win the election.

Ewing absolutely owned you, and this is your rebuttal?

[Scoots]

Funny because they won the WH in 2012 and still didn’t get what they wanted.

Turns out it takes the WH and the Senate.

[SiteWolf]

Turns out it takes the WH and the Senate.

which raises the question....why does the House seem to have such little actual power?

[Scoots]

which raises the question....why does the House seem to have such little actual power?

The House is the only body that can write laws.

[valade16]

I think the point is that the people chose not to populate the Senate with more Dems than Reps, so in that way the people chose that outcome.

OK. So if the people choose a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate the people chose the outcome if they expand the court.

It's the same logic.