• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

So confirming judges to open seats per the rules and the Constitution is now considered "court packing" by the left?

Just making sure I get the narrative straight before the Harris administration fills open judicial seats.
 
Justice Barrett and family have arrived!!!

 
Colonel Angus said:
So confirming judges to open seats per the rules and the Constitution is now considered "court packing" by the left?

Just making sure I get the narrative straight before the Harris administration fills open judicial seats.
Click to expand...

Willfully ignorant of facts. moscow mitch stopped confirming Obama appointments during the last few years of that administration leaving huge numbers of vacancies in the judicial branch. Merrick Garland was just the highest profile. Fast forward to your boys shit show of a failure of an administration and you have mitch allowing votes on almost nothing legislation wise while fast tracking young, far right judges at a rate unheard of for lifetime appointments.
 
Colonel Angus said:
So confirming judges to open seats per the rules and the Constitution is now considered "court packing" by the left?

Just making sure I get the narrative straight before the Harris administration fills open judicial seats.
Click to expand...

Slowing down judicial appointments because the POTUS is from the other party, and then speeding them up when the POTUS is in your party, is mostly certainly breaking with precedent. McConnell actually bragged about doing that on Hannity. Voting to drop the number of Senators to confirm a SC justice from 60 to 51 is most certainly breaking with precedent (and it was the GOP and McConnell that did that, the Democrats under Reid only lowered it to 51 for lower federal judges, and that was only after Senate Republicans refused to confirm many of Obama's nominees for the lower courts, leaving them empty.) Holding up Garland's nomination and then appointing a right-winger after you win the election is certainly breaking with precedent, as well as blatantly partisan for a supposedly non-partisan position. Doing a 180 on your statements about not naming a judge in an election year, then ramming through a new justice in record time during a global pandemic is certainly breaking with precedent, as well as blatantly hypocritical. So, yeah, Angus, the GOP has most definitely changed the rules for choosing Supreme Court nominees.

And for what it's worth, the Constitution says nothing about the specific size of the Supreme Court, nor does it restrict in any way expanding the Court.
 
Angus has to understand how McConnell has completely changed the game when it comes to blocking and confirming federal judges. Really no point in engaging with that dishonest mouth breathing mother fucker.

Looking forward to an 11 justice SC with term limits being the new normal this time next year.
 
BillBrasky said:
Shouldn't her entire family be in quarantine since they were maskless at a super spreader event two weeks ago?
Click to expand...

For a hoax disease? Don't see why.

Even if they have already had it its an impressive show of poor judgment to not set a good example for your fellow Americans since wearing a mask is to protect other more than ourselves.
 
deaconson said:
For a hoax disease? Don't see why.

Even if they have already had it its an impressive show of poor judgment to not set a good example for your fellow Americans since wearing a mask is to protect other more than ourselves.
Click to expand...

If I was a Democratic Senator I would project the maskless indoor pictures from that event during the hearings, including the ones with her kids, and ask her if she thought this demonstrated the judgement of a future SC justice. Then I'd ask about her cult, read some of the incriminating testimony from former members, compare it to Waco/Heaven's Gate/etc, and ask how that influences her decision making. Make the hearings about her poor judgement and questionable life decisions. Tie the GOP to her cult and her COVID behavior. Make sure to include Trump and ask her if she only acted this way during her announcement to please him.

Democrats need to start playing to win.
 
BillBrasky said:
If I was a Democratic Senator I would project the maskless indoor pictures from that event during the hearings, including the ones with her kids, and ask her if she thought this demonstrated the judgement of a future SC justice. Then I'd ask about her cult, read some of the incriminating testimony from former members, compare it to Waco/Heaven's Gate/etc, and ask how that influences her decision making. Make the hearings about her poor judgement and questionable life decisions. Tie the GOP to her cult and her COVID behavior. Make sure to include Trump and ask her if she only acted this way during her announcement to please him.

Democrats need to start playing to win.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the only thing you will be after this process is completed is disappointed.
 
DeacsPop said:
Seems to me the only thing you will be after this process is completed is disappointed.
Click to expand...

Nah, I know that the flaccid Democratic leadership doesn't have the stones to do this. Which is why they continue to let McConnell and the other GOP snakes walk all over them.
 
Deacpops "isn't voting" but he's thrilled with the gop court packing.
 
Highland Deac said:
Slowing down judicial appointments because the POTUS is from the other party, and then speeding them up when the POTUS is in your party, is mostly certainly breaking with precedent. McConnell actually bragged about doing that on Hannity. Voting to drop the number of Senators to confirm a SC justice from 60 to 51 is most certainly breaking with precedent (and it was the GOP and McConnell that did that, the Democrats under Reid only lowered it to 51 for lower federal judges, and that was only after Senate Republicans refused to confirm many of Obama's nominees for the lower courts, leaving them empty.) Holding up Garland's nomination and then appointing a right-winger after you win the election is certainly breaking with precedent, as well as blatantly partisan for a supposedly non-partisan position. Doing a 180 on your statements about not naming a judge in an election year, then ramming through a new justice in record time during a global pandemic is certainly breaking with precedent, as well as blatantly hypocritical. So, yeah, Angus, the GOP has most definitely changed the rules for choosing Supreme Court nominees.

And for what it's worth, the Constitution says nothing about the specific size of the Supreme Court, nor does it restrict in any way expanding the Court.
Click to expand...

In response to your first paragraph, feel free to send a thank-you card to your former senator from the great state of Nevada:

 
They shouldn't bother with her religion. They should make it clear that she's being brought in to gut ACA, end abortion, and hand Trump the election.

I still like the idea of letting Kamala prosecute the case against Trump to Barrett.
 
LOL, Angus. You obviously didn't read the part about the GOP and McConnell being the ones who changed the number of votes needed to appoint a SC justice from 60 to 51, not the Democrats. Your side did that, not Reid, and the SC is a much bigger deal than lower federal courts. As for the Article of the Constitution you're referencing, you are aware that there are numerous precedents that both parties had agreed to generations ago on how and what type of justices would be appointed to the federal courts? What party has spent the last twelve years tearing down all of those precedents and changing both the age, types of justices, and methods by which justices and judges are chosen, and then publicly bragging about the changes they have made, like McConnell? Oh, why the hell am I typing this, you don't actually read or care about anything anyone else writes anyway.
 
Last edited:
Hawley and Sasse doing a 4th grade school of rock lecture on civics and religious liberty is peak 2020 GOP. Imagine their reaction to a Muslim, or Atheist, or Scientologist SCOTUS nominee.

This kooky lady is in a legit cult, but as long as its a Christian cult, it cannot be questioned even though this nutbar has openly stated that graduates of Notre Dame Law School, should see their upcoming legal careers "as but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God." Republicans are the worst.
 
When ACB is confirmed and Democrats + Biden take back the White House and Senate:

1. Expand the court to 11
2. Confirm 2 young jurists to the court (lifetime appointment) with Appeals Court experience
3. Pass a law restricting SCOTUS appointments to an 18 year term (11 existing justices grandfathered in for lifetime) with an effort to enshrine this through a constitutional amendment related to Congress' ability to expand/reduce the size of the court (very difficult for the latter part but worth a try from everyone involved).

This leaves the conservatives with a one justice majority, balances out the last two appointments (Kavanaugh and ACB) which were "constitutionally permissible and legal" yet entirely political with a response that is "constitutionally permissible and legal" yet also entirely political, and also addresses an institutional gap where Congress has the ability to constantly change the size of the Supreme Court and play politics with the confirmation timing associated with the random temporal nature of deaths (by removing lifetime appointments).

We've relied on good faith actors far too much without addressing obvious constitutional and structural issues and we're staring down the barrel of the last four years of no good faith actors whatsoever from one major party. It's time to stop relying on any conservatives to do what is right rather than politically beneficial or expedient. That ship has sailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top