Agreed. If they ask her if she likes beer, I think my sides will physically open.
I am genuinly more curious how you have slipped under your new boss’ radar to post during the workday. lol
1 Like
Currently on leave 
. Otherwise I’d have to leave the posts to between the hours of 7pm and 12pm GMT.
If one party has no desire to be American, then yes.
What does this even mean?
Graham has to balance two VERY strong Voting Blocks in South Carolina:
Strong, politically active African Americans (especially African American Women who are a core Democratic Demographic) and
Strong and politically active Trumpublicans.
He seems to leaning toward placating the Trumpublicans. We’ll just have to see how it all works out for him.
Hopefully not well. The guy has lost his integrity (if he ever had any).
So you won’t have a problem if the dems win the Presidency, the house and the senate and decide to expand the court to 13 and put 4 liberals on the court? Since it is all about winning,right?
1 Like
“The need for a ninth justice is undeniably clear.”
(Demanding the Senate confirm his proposed justice upon the death of Scalia – on October 19, 2016 Barack Obama) So just weeks before the election.
" President Has ‘Constitutional Duty’ to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election"
Biden, 2016
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senate Should Confirm Merrick Garland in Lame-Duck Session
“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination. There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”
Obama 2016
“That’s their job,” she told The New York Times in an interview. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
3 Likes
Meh. She was an apikoros and a completely inconsistent legal scholar.
She would pick her conclusion, based on the agenda she thought correct, then send out bright law clerks to back fill in enough gobblygook to make it look like she reasoned her way there.
It’s called “outcome based jurisprudence.” All the liberal justices do this, and about half of the conservatives.
1 Like
3-dimensional (or something like that) Chess, @magnumd.
It’s looking like the Trumpublicans are willing to roll the dice for a more immediate “win”.
The SCOTUS has already lost a lot of perceived legitimacy as non-partisan. If the Dems were to do this, the GOP would almost for sure just add more when they get power, and the SCOTUS would become a compete partisan group like the House and Senate. I am afraid of what happens after that, as the ruling party would yield even more power, and could perhaps legislate their way to becoming unbeatable, and the SCOTUS would just agree with them in most cases.
Didn’t say that. Losing a battle doesn’t mean you have no problem losing it.
That, it is, at this point in time.
Democrats have no policies indicating a desire to be American. Soviet, Cuban, Chinese, European, sure.
It seems you have just defined what the GOP wants as “American”, so that what the DEMs want is “un-American”. Wanting Euro style health care doesn’t make one un-American just because it isn’t what we currently and have long had, for example.
1 Like
If we knew the Dems wouldn’t pack the court, I’d probably trade a new justice for a Trump victory. In the long run, I think that would protect the country the most. We would have a few shitty years while all of Biden’s idiocy made it’s way to the Supreme Court, but then it would end.
Question: If the Dems pack the court, and then the Republicans gain control of Congress, how does rolling the court back to 9 seats work? Do the most recent justices just pack their bags and go home?
1 Like
I don’t think they would want to roll the numbers back, @doogie (we are all speculating here).
The “game” of “packing the Court” would just involve larger numbers to nominate.
I’m wondering if there is a mechanism for rolling it back, though. The platform of returning things to the way they were for 150 years is a lot more attractive to most people than saying we are going to increase the number of justices until we are all on the court.
No. Just moreso.
I agree. Wanting to force it upon others does.
1 Like
Plenty of examples of policy being forced on us (Americans).
Yep. All UN-American, at least at the federal level.