Watch how the Democrats, the minority of the Senate attempted to block Judge Amy Barrett from the vote of the Senate

[OpportunityCost]

you won’t get an argument from me on that though republicans have messed with the court just as much.

Republicans haven't had a majority on the court for decades until this administration, your narrative is based on a false premise.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I realize that McConnell's smirking hypocrisy is the only justification required to pack the court.

First of all that's a stupid lie. Packing the court has a specific definition and that definition is to gain advantage by appointing more judges than its current amount. That's not what is happening, current judges are being replaced per the normal course of events.

 

[Luce]

First of all that's a stupid lie. Packing the court has a specific definition and that definition is to gain advantage by appointing more judges than its current amount. That's not what is happening, current judges are being replaced per the normal course of events.

Yes, that's what I meant. McConnall's refusal to allow Obama's nominee to even have a HEARING in 2016 "because the people need to be heard" vs "we have to rush this through right now because Trump" tells me that there is no principle in the process, so the dems should just add 4 judges or so.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, that's what I meant. McConnall's refusal to allow Obama's nominee to even have a HEARING in 2016 "because the people need to be heard" vs "we have to rush this through right now because Trump" tells me that there is no principle in the process, so the dems should just add 4 judges or so.

So you are just making up bullshit as you go. Nice to know.,

 

[Gaius46]

Republicans haven't had a majority on the court for decades until this administration, your narrative is based on a false premise.

That’s not what I’m saying. Both sides play politics with the branch of government that was supposed to be free of politics.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That’s not what I’m saying. Both sides play politics with the branch of government that was supposed to be free of politics.

Well that's utter nonsense because there has to be a majority to "play politics" with the court, and Democrats have owned the majority for decades.

What you should say is you are scared that Republicans are going to do exactly what Democrats have been doing for years.

 

[Gaius46]

Well that's utter nonsense because there has to be a majority to "play politics" with the court, and Democrats have owned the majority for decades.

What you should say is you are scared that Republicans are going to do exactly what Democrats have been doing for years.

What makes you think I’m scared? I think ACB is a good candidate and should be confirmed. I think court packing is likely the most stupid idea anyone ever came up with.


What exactly am I scared of? Other than the politicization of the court.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What makes you think I’m scared? I think ACB is a good candidate and should be confirmed. I think court packing is likely the most stupid idea anyone ever came up with.


What exactly am I scared of? Other than the politicization of the court.

Since the Democrats had been politicizing the court for a generation, I fail to see you having a point then....

 

[Gaius46]

Since the Democrats had been politicizing the court for a generation, I fail to see you having a point then....

McConnell isn’t politicizing the court?

 

[OpportunityCost]

McConnell isn’t politicizing the court?

Politicizing the court is based on court decisions. McConnell is politicizing the Senate, which is always political anyway.

 

[rickc]

I just wish they could be successful

Republicans leave the democrats little choice but to bring offset trumps activists Supreme Court justices.

 

[dcsports]

I just wish they could be successful

Republicans leave the democrats little choice but to bring offset trumps activists Supreme Court justices.

Or they could accept that the court is there to act in a judicial capacity, and accept that legislation goes through the legislative branch.

 

[CanadaJohn]

You think Republicans don't want judges to rule with their ideology? I know you're in Canada, but it's nit like it's a different planet.

Republicans want the same thing as Democrats from judges - rule based on politics.

If you consider faithful adherence to the Constitution as an ideology, I'd agree with you, but that's not generally considered to be an ideology. You have to admit that liberal/Democrats/progressive are constantly sending Hail Marys to the courts in the hope that the Supreme Court will eventually get the case and rule on some fanciful fabricated new found "right" that suits their agenda. Conservatives/Republicans have generally been fighting back against that battle for the better part of a century. You notice no Republican President or Senate has ever proposed changing the numbers on the Supreme Court in order to get rulings they want - FDR tried and now Biden and Democrats appear to consider it a good possibility. Why is that?

 

[vesper]

It doesn't matter how much butthurt the Democrats display, Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed tomorrow evening. I am going to guess Justice Thomas will perform the swearing in ceremony sometime on Tuesday.

 

[rocket88]

If you consider faithful adherence to the Constitution as an ideology, I'd agree with you, but that's not generally considered to be an ideology. You have to admit that liberal/Democrats/progressive are constantly sending Hail Marys to the courts in the hope that the Supreme Court will eventually get the case and rule on some fanciful fabricated new found "right" that suits their agenda. Conservatives/Republicans have generally been fighting back against that battle for the better part of a century. You notice no Republican President or Senate has ever proposed changing the numbers on the Supreme Court in order to get rulings they want - FDR tried and now Biden and Democrats appear to consider it a good possibility. Why is that?

I don't favor increasing the court size. It's shortsighted.

Is overturning Roe v Wade not a litmus test for Republican nominees? They want the judges to rule based on that. They want judges to rule based on the belief of a "Christian nation " do they not.

Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. As usual in politics, when you make charges of something against your opponent, you're just covering fir your guilt and hoping people are stupid enough to buy it. Apparently, that worked in this case.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I don't favor increasing the court size. It's shortsighted.

Is overturning Roe v Wade not a litmus test for Republican nominees? They want the judges to rule based on that. They want judges to rule based on the belief of a "Christian nation " do they not.

Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. As usual in politics, when you make charges of something against your opponent, you're just covering fir your guilt and hoping people are stupid enough to buy it. Apparently, that worked in this case.

Well, to be fair, most conservatives and those who are strict constitutionalists believe that Roe v. Wade was one of those fanciful, fabricated, manufactured legal rights that are found nowhere in the constitution and a desire to have it overturned would simply bring the law back in balance with the constitution. It would also leave the decision to the states, where most constitutionalists believe the power resides.

Also, to be fair, there isn't a single liberal/Democrat nominee on the court who hasn't followed a strict liberal/Democrat ideological playbook when it comes to ruling on matters before the Supreme Court. Conservatives can point to any number of conservative/Republican nominees who've been utter disappointments in that regard, the current Chief Justice being the most recent example. So either Republicans are piss poor at selecting "litmus test" candidates, compared to Democrats, or your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[dcsports]

I just wish they could be successful

Republicans leave the democrats little choice but to bring offset trumps activists Supreme Court justices.

Trump activists? I think you are confused. Say what you will about him, Trump has had a really good record of appointing well qualified judges with an interest in upholding the law. The two most 'activist judges' on the court, Kagan and Sotomayor, were appointed by the last president, and contributed to his losing the opportunity to appoint a third.

 

[Redwing]

 

[rocket88]

Well, to be fair, most conservatives and those who are strict constitutionalists believe that Roe v. Wade was one of those fanciful, fabricated, manufactured legal rights that are found nowhere in the constitution and a desire to have it overturned would simply bring the law back in balance with the constitution. It would also leave the decision to the states, where most constitutionalists believe the power resides.

Also, to be fair, there isn't a single liberal/Democrat nominee on the court who hasn't followed a strict liberal/Democrat ideological playbook when it comes to ruling on matters before the Supreme Court. Conservatives can point to any number of conservative/Republican nominees who've been utter disappointments in that regard, the current Chief Justice being the most recent example. So either Republicans are piss poor at selecting "litmus test" candidates, compared to Democrats, or your argument doesn't hold water.

Going with option 1. Republucans do a bad job at pickingv"their guy." Personally, I think any justice that doesn't get at least one vite from the other side should be disqualified. They'll figure it out soon enough.

 

[Deuce]

View attachment 67301622

R/therightcantmeme