BigRedBuster Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Just cause you think it so, doesn’t actually make it so. Just because you keep denying it, doesn't make you correct. 3 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Just because you keep denying it, doesn't make you correct. Nope. What makes me correct is the generally accepted view of what court packing is. 2 2 Link to comment
commando Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 trump was 0-4 in supreme court cases yesterday. that has to be some sort of record. 6 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 Hidden camera footage Trump after yesterday. 5 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 31 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said: It's so strange how illogical you are when it comes to some things and how logical you are on others. I was a Republican back then and even I knew it was court packing then...and honestly, admitting it is court packing did nothing to take away from me personally. I'm not sure why you refuse to admit you're wrong when you are...we won't think any worse of you and will actually think better of you because we'll think you can look at things with logic and facts and determine the truth of a matter. So I understand correctly, court packing actually refers to when a president nominates judges to fill vacant seats and it changes the number of right leaning or left leaning judges in that District? 1 Link to comment
FrantzHardySwag Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, commando said: trump was 0-4 in supreme court cases yesterday. that has to be some sort of record. Ted Cruz was disappointed the SC isn’t hearing the Pennsylvania case. Said Americans deserve to know if the election was fair. Ted....if a court with a right leaning majority won’t take the case.....THEY'RE CONFIRMING IT WAS A FAIR ELECTION YOU DUMB MOTHERf#&%ER. 4 4 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: So I understand correctly, court packing actually refers to when a president nominates judges to fill vacant seats and it changes the number of right leaning or left leaning judges in that District? You really are having a problem with this aren't you? 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 20 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said: Ted Cruz was disappointed the SC isn’t hearing the Pennsylvania case. Said Americans deserve to know if the election was fair. Ted....if a court with a right leaning majority won’t take the case.....THEY'RE CONFIRMING IT WAS A FAIR ELECTION YOU DUMB MOTHERf#&%ER. I continue to dislike Cruz more than I dislike Trump. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 9 minutes ago, Moiraine said: I continue to dislike Cruz more than I dislike Trump. Cruz is a remora stuck to trumps a$$ 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: Breaking norms of nominating justices so politically aligned justices can be put on the court IS court packing.....even if you don't think so. Stacking is not Packing Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: You really are having a problem with this aren't you? Stacking is appointing same leaning judges for a majority. Packing is adding to the overall number, against established norms, to counteract that majority. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 4 hours ago, DevoHusker said: Stacking is appointing same leaning judges for a majority. Packing is adding to the overall number, against established norms, to counteract that majority. Honestly, who the hell cares? The goal and the way to get there are similar. The goal is to have justices favorable to your cause, and the way to get there is to break established norms that have existed for decades/centuries. That is what (may) happen in both cases. The Republicans took a justice away from the Democrats. The Democrats (maybe) want to add justices. Let’s not pretend one of these is better than the other or achieves a different goal. It was legal for the GOP to be the a$$h@!es they were, it’s legal for the DNC to be a$$h@!es to achieve the same goal. 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted December 9, 2020 Author Share Posted December 9, 2020 https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-intervene-texas-election-140944575.html Quote President Donald Trump on Wednesday vowed to intervene in a long-shot lawsuit by the state of Texas filed at the U.S. Supreme Court trying to throw out the voting results in four states he lost to President-elect Joe Biden as he seeks to undo the outcome of the election. The Republican president, writing on Twitter, said: "We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!" The lawsuit, announced on Tuesday by the Republican attorney general of Texas Ken Paxton, targeted the election battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump has falsely claimed he won re-election and has made baseless allegations of widespread voting fraud. Trump provided no details on the nature of the intervention in the case that he was promising, including whether it would be his presidential campaign or the U.S. Justice Department that would take action. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 26 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said: It's actually, NOT the president that packs the courts but Congressional approval of nominees that does or doesn't. Fasttracking nominees into the supreme court (see Trump's latest) is very similar to slow tracking nominees to the court....in that, all of them are done for political reasons. So a justice department post, which is supposed to not be political (justice is blind) is being used for political means to either allow the president to nominate and pack a court or NOT allow a president to pack a court (see obama) In both cases, politics prevented or enabled court nominees from getting their posts. Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in this case. Fast tracking is a matter of opinion. ACB was qualified, went through the process (Feinstein said it was a great process), and was confirmed. There is no set number of days for the process to take place. Historically, Judges have been approved much faster with much less technology to help the process. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 31 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said: It's actually, NOT the president that packs the courts but Congressional approval of nominees that does or doesn't. Fasttracking nominees into the supreme court (see Trump's latest) is very similar to slow tracking nominees to the court....in that, all of them are done for political reasons. So a justice department post, which is supposed to not be political (justice is blind) is being used for political means to either allow the president to nominate and pack a court or NOT allow a president to pack a court (see obama) In both cases, politics prevented or enabled court nominees from getting their posts. Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in this case. Could legislation be written that says open judicial seats must be filled within X number of days? Someone earlier referenced that changing the ideological slant of a particular court is court packing. I think that is a ridiculous statement, and is why I reference court packing as adding additional judge seats in order to change the slant of a particular court. The politics of selecting Judges based on judicial interpretation will never change. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts