Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

[Perotista]

The point is not allowing a vote is not petty politics, but a dereliction of duty.

You could say that.

 

[pamak]

Majority rule, aka democracy, is not mentioned once in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Nor is the number of the Supreme Court judges mentioned.

 

[SLC]

First of all, there is NO BIDEN RULE!!!!

Second of all, Moscow Mitch didn't follow what Biden proposed:



After the election, NOT until there was another President.

When Biden ran the senate he made the rule. Rules aren't laws but Congress follows lots of rules. Mitch just followed the rule Biden first proposed.

 

[BWG]

It doesn't. Where does it say Democrats can threaten to extort SCOTUS to get rulings to go their way?

See, I can do it, too...

extort??????......:rofl......drama queen much?

Where does it say how many justices must be on the court?

 

[Chillfolks]

How many is many? Sounds like someone who isnt interested in actually governing but ruling. Every trumpist shows how deranged they are even if they have to lie about a thought experiment that was never an actual rule.

Sounds like what the Democrats are trying to do. The court is supposed to be a seperate but equal branch of government. Just because they don't like the rulings doesn't mean there is anything broken.

 

[Acadia]

extort??????......:rofl......drama queen much?

Where does it say how many justices must be on the court?

Ya might want to look up the definition of the word. Perhaps strong arm suits you better? How about malfeasance?

Where does it say that SCOTUS needs to "heal" to stay the way it is?

 

[Acadia]

Sounds like what the Democrats are trying to do. The court is supposed to be a seperate but equal branch of government. Just because they don't like the rulings doesn't mean there is anything broken.

To Democrats, it does. Now they've taken to disassembling everything that isn't working in their favor...at the moment.
Hillary lost and it's "GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!"

Kavanaugh wasn't destroyed by their witch hunt and it's "SCOTUS IS BROKEN AND WE NEED TO FIX IT!"

 

[BWG]

So the Dems pass a law that changes how the SCOTUS operates. That law gets challenged in court. It gets sent to the SCOTUS to be decided if it's constitutional. How do you think that will work out.:lol:

If they win the presidency, senate, keep the house, then make the change and put new justices on the court, I would bet they would rule it to be constitutional, because there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.

 

[bomberfox]

Sounds like what the Democrats are trying to do. The court is supposed to be a seperate but equal branch of government. Just because they don't like the rulings doesn't mean there is anything broken.

Of which you have no evidence of. Cherrypick all you want, i know the trumpist game.

 

[BWG]

When Biden ran the senate he made the rule. Rules aren't laws but Congress follows lots of rules. Mitch just followed the rule Biden first proposed.

No rules, concerning the SCOTUS were voted on, approved or put into record!!

Your last sentence is correct Biden first PROPOSED!!!!

 

[Athanasius68]

There actually are ways to deal with it. Non partisan commissions. Take the districting process completely out of the partys’ hands.

California does that.
The results have been worse.

 

[Athanasius68]

So the Dems pass a law that changes how the SCOTUS operates. That law gets challenged in court. It gets sent to the SCOTUS to be decided if it's constitutional. How do you think that will work out.:lol:

Congress is allowed to make such changes. There is nothing for the courts to decide.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Probably not a very wise idea to threaten the Supreme Court? What could
the democrats be thinking when they decided to file a crazy brief with the court?

My guess they won't take kindly to this nuttiness.

 

[SLC]

Nothing wrong with some fundamental restructuring of an institution now and again. I thought it was nice that the Dems offered them a redemptive moment or two to contemplate a self reflective decision. Why are you acting like you have an attack of the vapors? Need a chair?

Yep let's restructure the SCOTUS while Trump is still POTUS let's see how the Dems feel about that. :lol:

 

[SLC]

Congress is allowed to make such changes. There is nothing for the courts to decide.

If the law get challenged in court the final arbiter of that law is the SCOTUS. I imagine the Republicans would challenge the law and send it to the SCOTUS.

 

[btthegreat]

Yep let's restructure the SCOTUS while Trump is still POTUS let's see how the Dems feel about that. :lol:

Let Trump and McConnell start today! I know Dems like me, would love it, just as voters all across this great land would! Please lets see this bill hit the committees in 2019.

 

[pamak]

California does that.
The results have been worse.

Nonsense, and we had discussed this issue extensively in the past

 

[Chillfolks]

Of which you have no evidence of. Cherrypick all you want, i know the trumpist game.

What are you talkibg about. The democrats sent a letter saying the court was in need of healing or face repercussions if they don't, they are trying to rule over another branch of government instead of governing in their own lane.

 

[SLC]

If they win the presidency, senate, keep the house, then make the change and put new justices on the court, I would bet they would rule it to be constitutional, because there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.

The Constitution also says nothing about abortion. Its amazing how the SCOTUS can spin the law to justify their position.

 

[Athanasius68]

If the law get challenged in court the final arbiter of that law is the SCOTUS. I imagine the Republicans would challenge the law and send it to the SCOTUS.

There is no there is no basis for such a law to be challenged in the courts. If Congress wishes to increase the size of the Supreme Court, if they wish to create new courts, ect. they have the right to do so.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nonsense, and we had discussed this issue extensively in the past

Yes. And you were incorrect in the past.

 

[iguanaman]

Reminds me of FDR's threats to pack the court in order to prevent them from striking down parts of his fascist new deal. It's the same with all this talk about abolishing the electoral college. When the left can't win by the rules the solution is always to change the rules rather than concede that their ideas are just terrible.

The Supreme Court depends on the people for its legitimacy. FDR's "threats" were enough to bring it to its senses. We may need to do it again.

In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

Roosevelt announces “court-packing” plan - HISTORY

 

[weaver2]

Give me a fricken break, that is nothing more than a bull**** argument that doesn't address the real issue of Democrats wanted judicial activists on the Court. The 9 Justices worked quite well the decades when the Democrats controlled the House and the Congress. When are you going to realize that liberalism is a disease and not the foundation upon which this country was built?

I'm sure it has never occurred to you that your rank conservatives is just as disease ridden and unlike our country's foundation as liberalism. It is also quite possible that the Supreme Court was not being activist but was being Constitutional when they said the 1st amendment did not allow forced prayer in public schools; that legal abortion was more intelligent and better regulated than illegal abortion; that homosexuality was not an aberration and homosexuals had the same rights as everyone else; that affordable health insurance made sense in an advanced country; that Blacks had voting rights; and women should be paid the same as men for doing the same job and that the government could regulate gun ownership.

 

[Athanasius68]

The Supreme Court depends on the people for its legitimacy. FDR's "threats" were enough to bring it to its senses. We may need to do it again.


Roosevelt announces “court-packing” plan - HISTORY

It used to be that Trump refusing accept his losing an election was the great threat and danger to democracy and America.
Now we know the truth-- the Democrats lose and they demand all the institutions of society be revised.

 

[akyron]

Yep let's restructure the SCOTUS while Trump is still POTUS let's see how the Dems feel about that. :lol:

The results would be as predictable as they would be both outrageous and nonsensical.