Prediction - Democrats will win both Senate seats in the Georgia Run-off

[eohrnberger]

Dems winning the Senate is their worst nightmare. They want to work on the 1%’s priorities which are to block the policy platform that Democrats pretend to rep and funnel more money to the rich.

Agreed on the point you've raised.
But also, Dem's winning the Senate is their worst nightmare as their far left will demand they follow through on their promises:

• Add 2 more states - likely Democrat
• Pack SCOTUS with leftist activist judges
• Eliminate the Senate fillibuster - so 50 votes is all you need to pass ANYTHING the far left wants
• Open borders, no deportation regardless of crimes committed
• Full citizenship and voting rights for any in country illegal, as well as any who cross the border
• Full single payer healthcare coverage for any illegal or legal immigrant

Yes, these are the demands that the far left political 'allies' of the Democrats are demanding, and their voices are getting louder and louder.

In essence the far left will demand the Democrats destroy the country and turn it into Venezuela within less than a generation, perhaps even less than 10 years.
"Hurray! We've arrived at Socialist Utopia!" they will no doubt cry.
Problem is it will be the same in state Venezuela - learning from history socialism simply doesn't work.

 

[Vadinho]

This all comes down to turnout and we have Stacey Abrams on our side. My bet is she gets the voters to turn out and Republicans get fed up with Trump and stay away.

 

[Vadinho]

Agreed on the point you've raised.
But also, Dem's winning the Senate is their worst nightmare as their far left will demand they follow through on their promises:

• Add 2 more states - likely Democrat
• Pack SCOTUS with leftist activist judges
• Eliminate the Senate fillibuster - so 50 votes is all you need to pass ANYTHING the far left wants
• Open borders, no deportation regardless of crimes committed
• Full citizenship and voting rights for any in country illegal, as well as any who cross the border
• Full single payer healthcare coverage for any illegal or legal immigrant

Yes, these are the demands that the far left political 'allies' of the Democrats are demanding, and their voices are getting louder and louder.

In essence the far left will demand the Democrats destroy the country and turn it into Venezuela within less than a generation, perhaps even less than 10 years.
"Hurray! We've arrived at Socialist Utopia!" they will no doubt cry.
Problem is it will be the same in state Venezuela - learning from history socialism simply doesn't work.

No open borders, that is absurd. Path to citizenship is likely as are all the rest of your list. When we do all that, then we turn into Venezuela? Really dude? How about we compromise, we turn into Canada instead.

 

[eohrnberger]

No open borders, that is absurd. Path to citizenship is likely as are all the rest of your list. When we do all that, then we turn into Venezuela? Really dude? How about we compromise, we turn into Canada instead.

"Path to citizenship is likely as are all the rest of your list."
How about we compromise on not destroying / degrade the nation's institutions and our nation's history of being a Democratic Republic?

SCOTUS has had 9 justices for some 240 years. What is the compelling need to increase that number?
I mean beyond wanting to pack it with activist leftist judges to make leftist political agenda law when it can't be passed as legislation? (The normal order of things)
Why turn SCOTUS into the 3rd legislative body?

Why add states? Other than the likelihood that that they'd add 4 more Democrat Senators?

Why remove the Senate filibuster? The one feature which made the Senate a more deliberative consensus legislative body?

Why do the Democrats want to have 1 party rule? When 2 party has been the majority of the nation's history?

"No open borders, that is absurd."
An insecure border, an unenforced border - no deportations - is nearly the same as an open border, so close in fact that there's little difference between them.

Mexico’s Ambassador Calls For Resuming Mass Migration To The U.S.

Mexico's ambassador to the United States says it would be good to see mass migration to the U,S, again,

www.immigrationreform.com

During a November 17 virtual discussion, Mexico’s ambassador, Martha Barcena Coqui, told the pro-mass-migration National Immigration Forum (NIF) that immigration to the U.S. “has to be based on facts and realities,” which essentially means resuming mass migration, including temporary guestworker programs, and “keep[ing]open generosity towards refugees” in a post-COVID-19 world.
. . . .
While this may at first sound relatively innocuous, it’s important to remember that Mrs. Barcena Coqui is using “diplomat speak,” to press her own political agenda. Moreover, her invocation of the United Nations’ Migration Compact should be cause for concern given the threat it poses to the rights of sovereign nations to control their borders and migration policies. (Note: Mexico is a signatory, but the U.S. is not.)

The Mexican ambassador also asserted that the United States needs to “overhaul” its immigration system, and, in particular, bring in more “refugees,” because “people are waiting” (Madam Ambassador seems to believe that the Central American migrants attempting to stream into the U.S. via Mexico are “refugees,” rather than mainly economic migrants using asylum as a magic word to get into our country). She also criticized the U.S. and its “remain in Mexico” policy – the intent of which was to stem the border crisis and asylum abuse – as a case of “outsourcing” the problem to Mexico. Interestingly, however, she pushed back against the claims that Mexico is “too dangerous” a country for Central American or Caribbean (Cuban and Haitian) asylum applicants.

So, yeah, how about we compromise on not destroying / degrade the nation's institutions and our nation's history of being a Democratic Republic?

 

[Vadinho]

"Path to citizenship is likely as are all the rest of your list."
How about we compromise on not destroying / degrade the nation's institutions and our nation's history of being a Democratic Republic?

SCOTUS has had 9 justices for some 240 years. What is the compelling need to increase that number?
I mean beyond wanting to pack it with activist leftist judges to make leftist political agenda law when it can't be passed as legislation? (The normal order of things)
Why turn SCOTUS into the 3rd legislative body?

Why add states? Other than the likelihood that that they'd add 4 more Democrat Senators?

Why remove the Senate filibuster? The one feature which made the Senate a more deliberative consensus legislative body?

Why do the Democrats want to have 1 party rule? When 2 party has been the majority of the nation's history?

"No open borders, that is absurd."
An insecure border, an unenforced border - no deportations - is nearly the same as an open border, so close in fact that there's little difference between them.



So, yeah, how about we compromise on not destroying / degrade the nation's institutions and our nation's history of being a Democratic Republic?

Scotus seats have not been set at 9 for 240 years.
The number of seats is open and can be anything we want.
Senate filibuster is not part of the constitution, it is merely a senate rule, not an ancient one either.
If you think this Senate is a deliberative body then you might be thinking of another Senate.
We want to rule same as the GOP does, problem is, we never get to.
You want to rid us of all the illegals? What will Palm Springs do then?

 

[Phys251]

View attachment 67306647

View attachment 67306643

View attachment 67306644

Never underestimate the Republicans' ability to fall in line when the chips are down. I really really want both our Senate seats, but don't underestimate just how much of a long shot they are.

 

[eohrnberger]

Scotus seats have not been set at 9 for 240 years.

Correct. 151 years. (https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution)
I remembered the wrong number. My bad.

The number of seats is open and can be anything we want.

True, but that doesn't provide any justification as to why more than 9 justices?
Especially since it has been 9 justices fro 151 years.

Senate filibuster is not part of the constitution, it is merely a senate rule, not an ancient one either.

Also true. However in place since prior to 1841 (https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm).

If you think this Senate is a deliberative body then you might be thinking of another Senate.

Has been for a long time that the House was 'raucous' and the Senate more deliberative.

We want to rule same as the GOP does, problem is, we never get to.

Have you forgotten that the Democrats held all 3 houses Obama's first 2 years?
It was the voters response to Obama's positions and policies which gave the House to the GOP.
"we never get to"
Come up with public policy proposals that the voters don't reject.
Here's a hint: The public policies we see implemented in Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, Minniapolis, New York, New York City etc. etc. aren't gonna do that.

These points are not simply 'We want to rule' or 'we want to have a chance to rule'.
These points are not simply to promote the conditions for Democratic single party rule, destroying the US Democratic Republic in the process, degrading US institutions as part and parcel of that process.

You want to rid us of all the illegals? What will Palm Springs do then?

An Illegal immigrant is someone who does not have a legal right to be in this country.
On principal, and by existing law, illegal immigrants should be deported, and go through the legal immigration process.

 

[bomberfox]

Trump isn't helping the odds of Perdue and Loeffler with all of his ranting about voter fraud.

Why would Republicans go to the polls if they think it's rigged? And the stock-trading corruption of Perdue and Loeffler is now exposed.

Still, Dems winning even one of those seats is a longshot. Both GOP Senators have been playing the racial card in TV ads and rally's.

Hell it was pretty close to Florida getting help from the KKK to call with minstral show recordings.

 

[bomberfox]

Have enough Dems “moved” to Georgia to vote?

Democrats urging voters to move to Georgia before Senate runoff election — is it fraud?

Liberals urging voters to move to Georgia to vote in the January Senate runoff elections may want to think twice — moving to Georgia for a short time just to vote is against state law.

www.foxnews.com

Dont worry theres nothing that would get me to move to Georgia

 

[bomberfox]

Public Service Users

Now white society cannot say the same % variable are true for white people, when they have 100's of years of head start and full accessibility far and above what black people have had.

When it comes to the element of Public Service Usage, the Media and the Right Wing congress always wants to point to the inner cities and black people. But reality across the spectrum of American. The highest % of public service users are white Americans.

Gov Facts:

NOW For " Numbers" which is more accurate based on the figures of 300,000,000 , because simple % is skewed because of the vast difference in group population size.

Blacks @ (13%) of a population of 300,000,000 people in U.S = 39,000,000 / 56.1 percent who live on 80 of their income from social security of 39,000,000 people = *24,960,000 people.

Whites @ (70%) of a population of 300,000,000 people in U.S. = 210,000,000 / 56 percent who live on 80 of their income from social security of 210,000,000 people = *117,600,000 people.

Hispanic @ (15%) of a population of 300,000,000 people in U.S. = 45,000,000 / 53 percent who live on 80 of their income from social security of 45,000,000 people = *23,850,000 people.

Result: *92,640,000*
MORE white people than Black people live on 80 of their income from Public Services of various sorts

Result: *93,750,000*
MORE white people than Hispanic people live on 80 of their income from Public Services of various sorts


Result: *68,790,000*
MORE white people than Hispanic & Blacks Combined live on 80 of their income from Public Services of various sorts

Right Wing Media won't tell people these truths.
They lie about it, to the same level Trump lied about the COVID-19 Pandemic.

It's long past time for white people to get off the racist ignorance and Right Wing Stupidity
America WON'T remain being predominant in numbers of white people - It is Multiracial, and Multi-Cultural and White People Can't Stop That Reality.

America has no more time for that bullshit!!!

We have a 21st Century to Build...
Racial Ignorance has seen the entire advancing world "Out Build" America 100:1 or higher
Nations are Ahead of us with how they use technology
Innovations are being made by China, Japan and Other Countries as they invest to make the best usages of Technology
China is the Industrial Production Capital of The World, and denying it won't change that fact.
Nations are moving ahead with clean energy, while right wing white people are trying to take us back to burning coal and kerosene lamps.
America is 27th in Education
We are so far off the mark of places like Nordic Regional Nations of Sweden and Denmark and Norway, in how they balance their working class income
We are astronomically behind in how Singapore has empowered their citizens economically.

​

Its especially galling when that same white america blames everyone else for those same failures in education.

 

[Vadinho]

Correct. 151 years. (https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution)
I remembered the wrong number. My bad.


True, but that doesn't provide any justification as to why more than 9 justices?
Especially since it has been 9 justices fro 151 years.


Also true. However in place since prior to 1841 (https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm).

Has been for a long time that the House was 'raucous' and the Senate more deliberative.

Have you forgotten that the Democrats held all 3 houses Obama's first 2 years?
It was the voters response to Obama's positions and policies which gave the House to the GOP.
"we never get to"
Come up with public policy proposals that the voters don't reject.
Here's a hint: The public policies we see implemented in Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, Minniapolis, New York, New York City etc. etc. aren't gonna do that.

These points are not simply 'We want to rule' or 'we want to have a chance to rule'.
These points are not simply to promote the conditions for Democratic single party rule, destroying the US Democratic Republic in the process, degrading US institutions as part and parcel of that process.


An Illegal immigrant is someone who does not have a legal right to be in this country.
On principal, and by existing law, illegal immigrants should be deported, and go through the legal immigration process.

The court has been dominated by right wing Senates and POTUSs for a long time despite their point of view being a minority view. Its time to get back to a Warren Court and since Mitch blocked Obama and then we had a retirement and a death on the court, he got three more very right wing jurists appointed. There is no way we will allow that majority turn us back, packing the courts is nothing more then what Mitch has done these last 5 years. Sorry but asking us to play cricket after being kicked in the nuts for five years is asking too much. We deserve a chance to rule, we are the majority. As for the first two years of Obama, that was not much and it really wasn't a full two years anyway. You seem to believe that we have no place in the government other then being a whipping boy for right wingers. The Senate is already stacked in your favor. The House is gerrymandered to oblivion. The Court is packed with right wingers. What more do you want? To take our votes away too?

 

[eohrnberger]

The court has been dominated by right wing Senates

Umm. Only with the most recent appointment of Amy Coney Barrett has the balance in SCOTUS swung +1 to the right.

and POTUSs for a long time despite their point of view being a minority view. Its time to get back to a Warren Court

Warren Court - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.[1] It has been widely recognized that the court, led by the liberal bloc, has created a major "Constitutional Revolution" in the history of United States.[2][3][4][5][6]

You want a hyper activist, hyper liberal majority SCOTUS, and anything less is not acceptable to you.
Why?
So that these liberal activist jurists to make the liberal public policy agenda law, the same liberal public policy that can't be passed as legislation as it should be.
Is there anything more tyrannical than that?

and since Mitch blocked Obama and then we had a retirement and a death on the court,

The position that Mitch held in that situation was grounded in precedent.
Obama did get his appointments, and without being Kavanaugh'd or Borked by Judicial Committee opposition, I may add. Why is it that Democrats are the ones who keep Kavanaughnig and Borking nominees? #DemcoratsBehavingBadly

he got three more very right wing jurists appointed. There is no way we will allow that majority turn us back, packing the courts is nothing more then what Mitch has done these last 5 years.

Err. No, filling vacancies isn't packing the court.

Sorry but asking us to play cricket after being kicked in the nuts for five years is asking too much.

I'm reading here 'Whaa, Whaa, I didn't get my way, so I'm going to burn the house down'.

We deserve a chance to rule, we are the majority.

Err, not so much.

The U.S. Remained Center-Right, Ideologically, in 2019

The ideological balance of the country remained center-right in 2019, with 37% of Americans, on average, identifying as conservative, 35% as moderate and 24% as liberal.

news.gallup.com

Politics January 9, 2020

Story Highlights

• Slight plurality of Americans in 2019 identified as conservative (37%)
• Moderates nearly as high, at 35%, while 24% were liberal
• Movement toward liberalism has slowed among Democrats, though still top group

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8gnxudmeq0sf7jkxyhgxaw.png[/im]

As for the first two years of Obama, that was not much and it really wasn't a full two years anyway. You seem to believe that we have no place in the government other then being a whipping boy for right wingers.

I posted this where?

The Senate is already stacked in your favor.

No, the Senate is not 'stacked in your favor'. The ending Senate was very close.

United States Senate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Majority (53)

• Republican (53)

Minority (47)

• Democratic (45)
• Independent (2)[a]

The House is gerrymandered to oblivion. The Court is packed with right wingers. What more do you want? To take our votes away too?

Propose better legislation and better public policy, you'll win more seats.

 

[Vadinho]

Umm. Only with the most recent appointment of Amy Coney Barrett has the balance in SCOTUS swung +1 to the right.




You want a hyper activist, hyper liberal majority SCOTUS, and anything less is not acceptable to you.
Why?
So that these liberal activist jurists to make the liberal public policy agenda law, the same liberal public policy that can't be passed as legislation as it should be.
Is there anything more tyrannical than that?



The position that Mitch held in that situation was grounded in precedent.
Obama did get his appointments, and without being Kavanaugh'd or Borked by Judicial Committee opposition, I may add. Why is it that Democrats are the ones who keep Kavanaughnig and Borking nominees? #DemcoratsBehavingBadly



Err. No, filling vacancies isn't packing the court.



I'm reading here 'Whaa, Whaa, I didn't get my way, so I'm going to burn the house down'.


Err, not so much.


I posted this where?

No, the Senate is not 'stacked in your favor'. The ending Senate was very close.


Propose better legislation and better public policy, you'll win more seats.

Clever but misguided retorts. The courts have been chosen by Republicans mostly for a long, long time. Some of their picks turned into moderates only because of the extremes of the Scalias and Rehnquists of the world. Yes, we do want to have power proportional to our numbers.

 

[Rudy]

Have enough Dems “moved” to Georgia to vote?

Democrats urging voters to move to Georgia before Senate runoff election — is it fraud?

Liberals urging voters to move to Georgia to vote in the January Senate runoff elections may want to think twice — moving to Georgia for a short time just to vote is against state law.

www.foxnews.com

As each one does the collective IQ of the state goes up.

 

[MSgt]

Lol. No one is moving. This is one of the more obnoxious things liberal writers do. When they lose elections (or are likely to lose elections) they make the pithy statement (soon forgotten) that somebody should move to the boonies to make things better for liberals across the country. They won't do it, mind you (why give up money, social connections, and other cultural amenities?), but somebody else should!

It's also very much a criminal offense according to Georgia state law, and exaggerated to begin with.

This is just yet another issue that is exaggerated by Republicans to try to distract from their very real documented cases of actual voter fraud. For example:

- While Republicans embellish the notion that "dead" Democrats are voting, a Republican in Pennsylvania actually got caught and charged with voter fraud for trying to vote for his dead mother.

- While Republicans embellish the idea that Democrats are going to move to Georgia in a massive wave to pervert voter turn out, Republican officials in Pennsylvania did hire workers to phone Democrats to tell them that they can turn their ballots in three days after the deadline.

See what I mean? In the meantime, with individual Republicans unable to get away with fraud, the Democratic Party is supposed to have pulled off the greatest election fraud in American history without leaving a shred of evidence. Again, they exaggerate and embellish to distract from what they actually do.

 

[Fiddytree]

It's also very much a criminal offense according to Georgia state law, and exaggerated to begin with.

This is just yet another issue that is exaggerated by Republicans to try to distract from their very real documented cases of actual voter fraud. For example:

- While Republicans embellish the notion that "dead" Democrats are voting, a Republican in Pennsylvania actually got caught and charged with voter fraud for trying to vote for his dead mother.

- While Republicans embellish the idea that Democrats are going to move to Georgia in a massive wave to pervert voter turn out, Republican officials in Pennsylvania did hire workers to phone Democrats to tell them that they can turn their ballots in three days after the deadline.

See what I mean? In the meantime, with individual Republicans unable to get away with fraud, the Democratic Party is supposed to have pulled off the greatest election fraud in American history without leaving a shred of evidence. Again, they exaggerate and embellish to distract from what they actually do.

Yeah, I agree with you. It's a ridiculous overblown concern and the idea that you temporarily move to a location for the purpose of voting, before relocating once more, is indeed criminal in Georgia.

I will stress that there really is this tired routine where a small number of liberal writers create columns or tweets stating that liberals ought to trickle into a state or few towns (which is totally legal) in a state to moderate that area's social and political outlooks, but they won't do it themselves.

 

[eohrnberger]

Clever but misguided retorts. The courts have been chosen by Republicans mostly for a long, long time. Some of their picks turned into moderates only because of the extremes of the Scalias and Rehnquists of the world. Yes, we do want to have power proportional to our numbers.

No, not 'Clever' nor 'misguided'. As you can see from the factual citations, factual based.

 

[Vadinho]

No, not 'Clever' nor 'misguided'. As you can see from the factual citations, factual based.

Conservatives have had extraordinary control of all branches of our government since 1980. The influence they had was so powerful that even a Democrat like Bill C. acted like a Republican for his entire 8 years. Hell, they even had economists throw out Keynes for Friedman, it was a greedfest to sate any Midas. Why do you ask? The Senate is a huge factor, small states have as much power as large states. Gerrymandering at the state level gave them even more power. The EC selected Bush 2 and Trump, not the people. SCOTUS picks were mostly chosen by conservatives for a long, long time. Sorry but the nation is tired of their bullshit, they can take Jesus and their warped racist bullshit to the holler where they came from, its clobbering time.

 

[MSgt]

Yeah, I agree with you. It's a ridiculous overblown concern and the idea that you temporarily move to a location for the purpose of voting, before relocating once more, is indeed criminal in Georgia.

I will stress that there really is this tired routine where a small number of liberal writers create columns or tweets stating that liberals ought to trickle into a state or few towns (which is totally legal) in a state to moderate that area's social and political outlooks, but they won't do it themselves.

This is where extremism compliments extremism.

- Some idiot on the left will write about endorsing an extreme scenario; and mainstream idiots on the right (FOX News and others) will exaggerate it into a rallying defense cry to strengthen right-wing propaganda about the left.

It is tiring; and so obvious that I have some trouble comprehending how so many conservatives attach to it.

 

[MaryP]

No. Trump is (surprisingly) going to campaign for the candidates. So, while the social media world may be turned off from politics, I expect ordinary Trumpy and Trumpy-lite Republicans to come home and show up in adequate force.

LOL. Trump will spend the whole time talking about himself and put in a 30 second spot at the end for the candidate. I'm kind of surprised the GOP candidates even want him there, considering the way he has slandered Georgia for voter fraud.

 

[eohrnberger]

Conservatives have had extraordinary control of all branches of our government since 1980.

This doesn't make any sense or withstand the facts, given that between 1980 and now the 3 Houses of government were rarely unified and mostly divided between the party's control.

The influence they had was so powerful that even a Democrat like Bill C. acted like a Republican for his entire 8 years.

It's the Republican's fault that President Bill Clinton acted as he did?

Hell, they even had economists throw out Keynes for Friedman, it was a greedfest to sate any Midas. Why do you ask? The Senate is a huge factor, small states have as much power as large states. Gerrymandering at the state level gave them even more power. The EC selected Bush 2 and Trump, not the people. SCOTUS picks were mostly chosen by conservatives for a long, long time. Sorry but the nation is tired of their bullshit, they can take Jesus and their warped racist bullshit to the holler where they came from, its clobbering time.

If you are looking for racists, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The Democrat party is filled with them and anti-Semites, and the politically biased media (political propaganda) constantly give them a pass. Just look at the sordid public statements from the squad and hardly a rebuff from the House leadership.

The Electoral College is a much needed balance for the election of a US president. Otherwise NYC and CA would be all that would need to bother to vote in presidential elections. Yes, even Colorado would ignored without the EC.

Tired of bullshit? Seems the working class and minorities are tired of the Democrat's paying little more than their campaigning lip service, only to be forgotten once in office until the next campaign season.

 

[MaryP]

Wild guess, but I think they might elect one Democrat. With the tone of DC becoming more moderate in the near future, Susan Collins and a few others may start stepping across the aisle again. Not winning both seats might not be quite as bad as people think?

 

[bearpoker]

"Path to citizenship is likely as are all the rest of your list."
How about we compromise on not destroying / degrade the nation's institutions and our nation's history of being a Democratic Republic?

SCOTUS has had 9 justices for some 240 years. What is the compelling need to increase that number?
I mean beyond wanting to pack it with activist leftist judges to make leftist political agenda law when it can't be passed as legislation? (The normal order of things)
Why turn SCOTUS into the 3rd legislative body?

Why add states? Other than the likelihood that that they'd add 4 more Democrat Senators?

Why remove the Senate filibuster? The one feature which made the Senate a more deliberative consensus legislative body?

Why do the Democrats want to have 1 party rule? When 2 party has been the majority of the nation's history?

"No open borders, that is absurd."
An insecure border, an unenforced border - no deportations - is nearly the same as an open border, so close in fact that there's little difference between them.



So, yeah, how about we compromise on not destroying / degrade the nation's institutions and our nation's history of being a Democratic Republic?

You might consider learning history before you pontificate on it. We have not had 9 justices for 240 years.

How and When Was the Structure of the Court Decided?

The number of justices that make up the Supreme Court was set in 1869, but that does not mean the Court's composition has been free of controversy.

www.thoughtco.com

There are nine members of the Supreme Court, and that number has gone unchanged since 1869. The number and length of the appointments are set by statute, and the U.S. Congress has the ability to change that number. In the past, changing that number was one of the tools that members of Congress used to rein in a president they didn't like.
The first judiciary act was passed in 1789 when the Supreme Court itself was set up, and it established six as the number of members. In the earliest court structure, the number of justices corresponded to the number of judicial circuits. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three circuit courts for the new United States, and each circuit would be manned by two Supreme Court judges who would ride the circuit for part of the year, and be based in the then-capital of Philadelphia the rest of the time.

 

[TurtleDude]

Never underestimate the Republicans' ability to fall in line when the chips are down. I really really want both our Senate seats, but don't underestimate just how much of a long shot they are.

if the dems get the senate and pass their punitive tax hikes and gun bans, they will get annihilated in the mid term elections just like they did with the very popular Bill Clinton in 94

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Here's Lin Wood telling Georgia Republicans NOT to vote for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue next month. "They have not earned your vote. Don't you give it to them. Why would you go back and vote in another rigged election for god's sake! Fix it! You gotta fix it!"