Stuffing Supreme Court

So this time are you or are you not responding to me? You're all over the place.

 

You confirm you don't know what you're talking about.

 

So you don't believe Tom Daschle's own words.

 

I have been cautioned by the administrators for making remarks like that. The gentlemanly way to do it is politely show the person is how he is mistaken.

 

i’m just glad you finally admit it’s not a constitutional crisis

 

I absolutely agree with your interpretation of what Roberts did in these two cases you mention.

His calling the ACA mandate a tax makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

 

How could anybody waste the mods time by reporting nonsense like that!

 

Apparently they did not consider it a waste of time.

 

Changing the number of justices or judges requires congress to pass such a law which requires a majority vote in both houses and getting past a filibuster in the senate.

 

If that’s the case, then for D’s to carry out this threat they’d need to control presidency and both branches of congress.
Considering the mess they’ve made in the last several years, I have my doubts about that possibility in the near future.

 

None of which is far-fetched. Given that it's likely Democrats will hold the House, it just requires them to take over the Senate. And McConnell has already done away with the 60-vote filibuster in reference to the Supreme Court. So... it's not a slam-dunk, but it's possible.

The problem is that this continues the constitutional crisis the McConnell started. But if the above conditions are there, I don't see any other option for Democrats. They'll have to do it.

 

Both parties have always tried to stack the court in their favor. That is how the system works.

 

First the Constitution says nothing about cloture, so, by definition, there cannot be any constitutional crises. Second McConnell didn't start anything. The Democrats under extreme pressure from Wilson started cloture with a 2/3 vote. The Democrats dropped it to 60 votes in 1975. Then most recently Reid dropped it to a simple majority so he could get federal judges appointed without restraint. McConnell is just a bit player.

 

Correction: nobody has tried to pack the Court since FDR's failed attempt in the late 30s.

 

How silly. The constitutional crisis being the Senate majority leader's abuse of power by leaving a SC seat vacant for over 400 days in order to prevent Obama's nominee from being confirmed. A nominee, BTW, that had been praised by Repubs for his moderate positions on a number of issues. Unlike the ideologues nominated by the Orange Menace.

 

Stack and pack having different meanings in this context.

 

Can you point out the constitutional crises? Where in the Constitution does it say that the senate must vote on a nominee within a certain time period? Do you ever read and understand the Constitution?

 

Well, constitution says appointing justices is the job of the president and the senate. If senate didn’t want to take up the confirmation then what’s the problem? The things worked the way they were designed to work.
I have no doubt in my mind that if Trump was a lame duck president while they controlled the senate and if a spot opened up in Supreme Court, the Dems would do exact same thing.

 

Bingo. So why the rush to vote to confirm Ginsburg's replacement after a vacancy was left for over 400 days in 2016?

BTW, you apparently believe the founders were supposed to be able to foresee every contingency they needed to cover in writing the Constitution. The absence of such provisions meaning their intent is completely open to interpretation. Had they foreseen the kind of duplicity exhibited by McConnell you can't possibly believe they would not have added language to prevent it, can you? If so, it must be your contention the founders wanted the majority leader to have the power to leave a SC seat vacant for years.

 

Absurd. See post 144.

 

I think the framers would not have batted an eye and would have no problem with a senate not approving an appointment through whatever means. They would have said it is how they set it up. BTW, this is the opposite of what their reaction would have been to last year's impeachment.

 

The ways in which you torture logic to fit the current state of affairs, one the founders obviously did not foresee (putting the advancement of an extreme political ideology held by the minority ahead of the interests of the nation) are ludicrous.

 

You don't think the founders, hyper-patriots all, would have supported the impeachment of a prez who tried to extort a foreign leader for help in an election? Are the history books you rely on published by the Kremlin?

 

Are you talking about obama telling Putin to wait until after the election?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/

 

They most certainly did.