Packing the Court

Mr. Deez said:
They screwed that up badly. Personally, I wasn't particularly friendly to Kavanaugh. His record suggested that he'd be slightly to the right of his predecessor but not a conservative firebrand like Scalia, and that was the best they were going to do. It probably cost them the Senate in '18.
Click to expand...
And conservatives got the Barrett in 2020 to replace Ginsburg. Left thinks as retardedly as Aggies.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not sure I'm ready to brag. We threw away both houses of Congress and the presidency basically for nothing.
Click to expand...
I don’t wish it, but if a Dem senator with a GOP governor dies between now and July 1 (Montana, GA, WV, NH, etc), all of Biden’s plans go in the toilet.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Name one recent President to whom this description does not apply.
Click to expand...
If you can't see a vast chasm in Donald Trump's self adoration and deceit as compared to that of George Herbert Walker Bush... then we probably don't share enough reality to have meaningful discussion.
 
Crockett,

I am a conservative, have to vote Republican in spite of the party's stupidity, have never liked Trump although I voted for him, but you post is the funniest damn thing I've read on this board in 20+ years.

I wish you had really known George HW Bush. Yes he was better than any Democrat to run for that office since Harry Truman, but that's akin to saying you would prefer Jennifer Anniston to any of the women on the 600 pound fat show.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
The same could mostly be said of Trump's efforts to retain the presidency. I agree that the Court isn't likely to get packed, but it's because of weak leadership and lack of votes. (Basically Joe Manchin and Kirstyn Sinema aren't total partisan hacks, and that's the biggest reason it's not happening.) It's not because the party has too much character to do it. Keep in mind that the legislation isn't coming from the crackpot wing. It's coming from the party leadership.

I don't think the leadership actually thinks it will succeed in packing the court. I think the point is political intimidation - as it was under FDR. The message is "hand down left-wing opinions, or we'll pack the Court." It worked for FDR. ("The switch in time that saved nine.") I think it'll work with John Roberts. Had they not slandered and fabricated a ******** sexual assault allegation against him, it might have worked on Brett Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to speak I’ll of manchin or synema. They want to keep their seats. They know they’re in tough states.
 
OUBubba said:
I don’t want to speak I’ll of manchin or synema. They want to keep their seats. They know they’re in tough states.
Click to expand...

They are, but I actually think they have some integrity. I could be wrong. They could both be hacks who just don't want to lose their seats, but they seem fairly honorable even beyond this issue, which is a very low bar.
 
Mr. Deez said:
They are, but I actually think they have some integrity. I could be wrong. They could both be hacks who just don't want to lose their seats, but they seem fairly honorable even beyond this issue, which is a very low bar.
Click to expand...
Not saying that they're not also principled. I just think that they know that their seat is somewhat tenuous.
 
OUBubba said:
Not saying that they're not also principled. I just think that they know that their seat is somewhat tenuous.
Click to expand...

It is true that, unlike most of their colleagues, they consistently have to worry about the general election, which of course can make a difference. Honestly, Sinema has surprised me. Like most Democrats in purple-ish states, she ran as a nonpartisan moderate, but unlike most, she actually has shown evidence of it after the election. It's surprising in part, because she used to be a bit of a nut and pretty hard Left, but she was pretty young back then. She has clearly grown up and become a statesman (or whatever non-gendered term we'd use). She's also kinda busty, so she has that going for her as well.

In my view, most of the advocates for court packing are the unprincipled ones. Why? Because they know how dangerous it is, and some have commented on it. However, they fear a primary challenge.
 
OUBubba said:
If you like that kind of thing.... and, I do.

Are the same people who held open the Scalia seat also unprincipled?
Click to expand...
Dems didn’t have the votes. Votes are the ultimate principle. How many times does the political truth have to be repeated before you get it?
 
mchammer said:
Dems didn’t have the votes. Votes are the ultimate principle. How many times does the political truth have to be repeated before you get it?
Click to expand...
The most cynical of responses. That's the kind of response that someone explaining away the removal of the filibuster would provide - Pubs didn't have the votes.
 
Bork, Thomas & Kavanaugh...

Garland delay...

There is no honor or rules in play. It's ruthless and apparently it's up to the American people to insist that things be done the right way; i.e. The Constitutional Way. But what is that? The Constitution does not stipulate the number of judges to be on the court. We've had nine since 1869.

The court is supposed to be above politics but it's now about as political as it gets, given the personal attacks and attempts to rig the advise and consent process and now the stacking of the court. It's nothing but political and it's hard to imagine anyone thinking otherwise.
 
OUBubba said:
If you like that kind of thing.... and, I do.
Click to expand...

She is by far the hottest woman in the Senate, and it's a blowout.

OUBubba said:
Are the same people who held open the Scalia seat also unprincipled?
Click to expand...

They aren't unprincipled for keeping the seat open, but they are unprincipled for keeping it open and then not keeping the Ginsburg seat open. And to be clear, nobody has a right to a seat on the Court. The real infraction wasn't not giving the seat to Garland. It was denying him the process (a hearing and a vote) while giving it to Barrett. Either both should have gotten the process, or neither should have.

Having said that, you're comparing a shoplifter with a murderer. They're both wrong, but one has done something much more damaging.

And of course, the fundamental flaw is that the Court is far more political and far less academic than it should be. If the Court itself had enough character to follow the law as it's written, it wouldn't matter that much which side got an appointment or how many justices were on the Court. It didn't used to matter anywhere near as much.
 
It was very principled. The principle is maximizing the power of the party and of the federal government. Rs and Ds consistently work to implement that principle.
 
SabreHorn said:
You just described 95%+ of Congress
Click to expand...

No, there's a difference. 95 percent of Congress is a disgrace, but the "******* disgrace" label is special.

th-923421106.jpg
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Was anybody in the media ballsy enough to inquire why they didn't propose such a thing when Ruth Gator Binsburg was still sitting on the bench?
Click to expand...

LOL, yea. Those labeled ******* disgrace would be really surprised when a SC of size 13 ends up mostly stacked by future R presidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top