-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Hahahahaha Pelosi is threatening to impeach again to stop the SCOTUS pick 
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
-
1
- Show all
Has nothing to do with "owning" the libs lol. It has to do with listening to what they are saying they are gonna do. Why should Republicans do any different? There frankly isn't any line im not willing to cross that is legal, because I know the dems will blow right by the line when they are in power.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
So since you personally are okay with changing decades long SeNate because it is silly in your opinion, that is being principled?
So is “packing the court“ and changing the amount of SC justices for the first time in over 150 years a principled action? ( a la Ed Markey and Joe Kennedy’s statements in just the last 24 hours).
So is “packing the court“ and changing the amount of SC justices for the first time in over 150 years a principled action? ( a la Ed Markey and Joe Kennedy’s statements in just the last 24 hours).
Yes its dumb, no I dont think the number of judges needs to go up, if anything i think it should go down to 5 maybe even 3 and the senate should have to find some proof that nominees aren't suited or qualified to be a justice. See how easy it is to answer questions when you aren't tied up in knots over whether it is good for one party or another?
I do but unfortunately we aren't dealing with a willing and moral partner. The only purpose now for conservatives is to desperately keep something that resembles the republic of the United States for the next generation. Everything at this point should go to preserving what we can from those hell bent on destroying it.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
-
2
-
1
- Show all
so are you , all the blustering form april of this year about packing the court. How does that not push the had of the r's . Extremes are ever so prevalent on both sides.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-in-2016-ginsburg-senate-election-year-vacancy
Ginsburg had an opinion on that back in 2016, too. Speaking before the New York City Bar Association in October of that year, Ginsburg appeared alongside her fellow New York native Justice Sonia Sotomayor and remarked that a divided court with an even number of justices is not an ideal way to move forward even in the short term.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-in-2016-ginsburg-senate-election-year-vacancy
Ginsburg had an opinion on that back in 2016, too. Speaking before the New York City Bar Association in October of that year, Ginsburg appeared alongside her fellow New York native Justice Sonia Sotomayor and remarked that a divided court with an even number of justices is not an ideal way to move forward even in the short term.
I agree, it was wrong then, it is wrong now, the spot should be filled just like garland should have been confirmed as well. Im just here for the hypocrisy at this point, because all of you who are going to bat for a pre election confirmation were the exact ones making the case for the year long delay of garland, you are bad faith partisan actors and i will continue to call you out for it because you have no credibility to argue from on this.
Personally I think 7 or 9 is fine. That gives them plenty to hear cases even if some have to recuse themselves. What I would like to see changed is the de facto lifetime appointments. Set an age limit or a certain term length to avoid problems like what is happening now. You know when someone's appointment is up and the President at the time plans accordingly. Make the Senate have to work on confirmation once a nominee is put forth.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I don't know that it's a 100% apples to apples comparison. Scalia passed in February 2016 which was early in the primary season so neither party had an official candidate. With Ginsburg, we are close enough to the election that some people have already voted.
As to when it becomes a decision for the current President and when does it become one for the winner of the next election? Just a rough guess but I think about 90 days is fair to select, vet, and vote on a nomination. 5 years ago, I would have thought differently but the current Senate Majority leader created a new precident and well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also, to be fair, Supreme Court selections are overblown from a partisan standpoint. From a legal standpoint this represents the best of the best so in general they probably play to their nominating Presidents base a lot less than people think. Case in point, the two kinda swing vote justices right now are Roberts and Cavanaugh.
As to when it becomes a decision for the current President and when does it become one for the winner of the next election? Just a rough guess but I think about 90 days is fair to select, vet, and vote on a nomination. 5 years ago, I would have thought differently but the current Senate Majority leader created a new precident and well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also, to be fair, Supreme Court selections are overblown from a partisan standpoint. From a legal standpoint this represents the best of the best so in general they probably play to their nominating Presidents base a lot less than people think. Case in point, the two kinda swing vote justices right now are Roberts and Cavanaugh.