Trump's SCOTUS

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 25278
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:35 am

C-Mag wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:33 am
A few lefties have admitted RBG fucked up because of selfishness.

RBG wanted to be in the pic of her swearing in the first woman POTUS. A pic that would be seen by after school kid for a century. That got them in this mess. So Fuck Em.

Trump said he will nominate Friday or Saturday. I'm betting on Friday.
He loves doing things right after market close - 4-5pm Friday.
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

apeman
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 am

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by apeman » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:40 am

my good friend married an AWFL. he is a goon

she came to him my friend, near tears, to lament the passing St. RGB

he did not know who ginsberg was, and his wife caused an enormous fight and stormed out

the moral of this story is that RGB kinda looked like a scrotum

nmoore63
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by nmoore63 » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:49 pm

The No Nominating a SCOTUS during an election year is largely a made up scandal.

Wouldn't have happened had Hillary and RBG not had so much hubris and divine coronation to want to the first ever female president to replace a female scotus with another female.

As to court packing... theoretically as long as you have simple majority in both houses and the presidency.... you could add as many justices as you want. 9 not being a constitutional decree.

To that end, I do think it would not be prudent for trump to add a scotus in dec after losing an election. I think that would offer the Blue Team too much cover. Court packing is civil war.

But prior, its a made up scandal.

User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 28305
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by C-Mag » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:09 pm

nmoore63 wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:49 pm
The No Nominating a SCOTUS during an election year is largely a made up scandal.

Wouldn't have happened had Hillary and RBG not had so much hubris and divine coronation to want to the first ever female president to replace a female scotus with another female.

As to court packing... theoretically as long as you have simple majority in both houses and the presidency.... you could add as many justices as you want. 9 not being a constitutional decree.

To that end, I do think it would not be prudent for trump to add a scotus in dec after losing an election. I think that would offer the Blue Team too much cover. Court packing is civil war.

But prior, its a made up scandal.
But Nick, it was her dying wish.

Her last words.

The humanity
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience

User avatar
TheOneX
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:16 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by TheOneX » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:16 pm

nmoore63 wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:49 pm
The No Nominating a SCOTUS during an election year is largely a made up scandal.

Wouldn't have happened had Hillary and RBG not had so much hubris and divine coronation to want to the first ever female president to replace a female scotus with another female.

As to court packing... theoretically as long as you have simple majority in both houses and the presidency.... you could add as many justices as you want. 9 not being a constitutional decree.

To that end, I do think it would not be prudent for trump to add a scotus in dec after losing an election. I think that would offer the Blue Team too much cover. Court packing is civil war.

But prior, its a made up scandal.
Yeah, I would support a constitutional amendment to limit the size of the Supreme Court. I feel like being able to make it any arbitrary number depending on the whims of the people currently in power is not the best idea.

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by pineapplemike » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:28 pm

a neo-prudent compromise would be to hold off on the nomination in exchange for a 9-justice cap legislation

doesnt instill much confidence in the incumbent to fastpass a nominee in 6 weeks before an election, but this is war, i get it

nmoore63
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by nmoore63 » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:50 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:28 pm
a neo-prudent compromise would be to hold off on the nomination in exchange for a 9-justice cap legislation

doesnt instill much confidence in the incumbent to fastpass a nominee in 6 weeks before an election, but this is war, i get it
obama and Ginsberg thought it ok.

nmoore63
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by nmoore63 » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:51 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:28 pm
a neo-prudent compromise would be to hold off on the nomination in exchange for a 9-justice cap legislation
No compromises are possible.

nmoore63
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by nmoore63 » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:53 pm

TheOneX wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:16 pm
nmoore63 wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:49 pm
The No Nominating a SCOTUS during an election year is largely a made up scandal.

Wouldn't have happened had Hillary and RBG not had so much hubris and divine coronation to want to the first ever female president to replace a female scotus with another female.

As to court packing... theoretically as long as you have simple majority in both houses and the presidency.... you could add as many justices as you want. 9 not being a constitutional decree.

To that end, I do think it would not be prudent for trump to add a scotus in dec after losing an election. I think that would offer the Blue Team too much cover. Court packing is civil war.

But prior, its a made up scandal.
Yeah, I would support a constitutional amendment to limit the size of the Supreme Court. I feel like being able to make it any arbitrary number depending on the whims of the people currently in power is not the best idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiNEUsP1gOE

Yeah being able to appoint the an arbitrary number of arbiters at any time could theoretically make anything constitutional.

User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 28305
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by C-Mag » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:33 pm

Trump should fire first on court packing.

Say he's considering taking the Democrats advice and Nominating 7 new justices. Just to see their reaction and show the absurdity of it.
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience