I am quite interested that the Supreme Court of America and the Senate appoints judges based on their political view. I dont understand how a reasonable, neutral, judge can get on the court and bring justice to the USA. 

7 hours ago, webfact said:

In a copy of her prepared remarks released on Sunday, Barrett said that as a judge she seeks to "reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be."

555 ...   and the Pope is catholic

Isn't the Bill of Rights a liberal, progressive document? What's wrong with progressive laws?

45 minutes ago, connda said:

Nominating and confirming a justice to the SCOTUS isn't "stacking" the court regardless of when the justice is nominated and confirmed.
However, passing legislation to alter the Constitution to allow more justices on the SCOTUS beach - is - stacking.  Altering the Constitution for partisan reasons, regardless of which side does it, is dangerous.  Once that merri-go-round starts, the Constitution will end up shredded.  Is it illegal?  Nope.  It can be done.  But... 

Regardless of what happen I personally think the US is cooked.  Politics and society are so divided and divisive that I expect the nation to collapse before the end of the decade.  There is no such thing as a "statesman" any longer.  Just viscous ideologues with their own party's agenda and no ability to meet in the middle unless it somehow personally benefits the legislators and their wealthy friends at the expense of the US population.  If no one's noticed, both parties are gutting the nation financially. 
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,  In the meantime, in-between time - we ain't got fun.

Where in the constitution does it state how many justices on the court. What in the constitution will need to be changed.

26 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I don't see the equivalence. Both sides have behaved and spoken hypocritically about SC judges being replaced in the last year of a President's term. Which has exactly zero relevance to the democrats plot to press the nuclear button and add a load of progressive judges to the 9 existing judges. That Harris and Biden repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of whether they will destroy the supreme court's credibility by stacking it with a load of new judges is mind boggling to me. That the media do not force an answer from the pair of contenders on this vital question is unforgiveable.

 

You've basically just repeated the same nonsense and dodged the question. Kinda funny coming from one droning on about others not answering questions.

 

There is no 'plot' other than in your (and other Trump supporters' posts), and talk about 'progressive' justices is again, a Trump supporters' thing. You seem to try and imply that the current justices are somehow have no allegiance with regard to such views, and that only SC justices who might be appointed by the Democrats are so aligned. That is patently false.

 

How the SC credibility will be 'destroyed' by the alleged Democrat 'plot', but unaffected by Trump's quick exist nomination, is not made clear.

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

There is no 'plot' other than in your (and other Trump supporters' posts), and talk about 'progressive' justices is again, a Trump supporters' thing. You seem to try and imply that the current justices are somehow have no allegiance with regard to such views, and that only SC justices who might be appointed by the Democrats are so aligned. That is patently false.

 If, as you say, there is no plot to stack the supreme court, both Biden and Harris would have answered the pointed and critical question when they were asked. The question is vital in terms of voters having fair and honest info to base their decision on. Both declined, knowing full well how inflammatory their refusal to answer the question would prove. Biden went one step further and said his answer would be known only after the election. 

 This is my last post on this thread. Always happy to discus events with sensible parties from any camp, but will not be trolled.

Off topic post removed

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 If, as you say, there is no plot to stack the supreme court, both Biden and Harris would have answered the pointed and critical question when they were asked. The question is vital in terms of voters having fair and honest info to base their decision on. Both declined, knowing full well how inflammatory their refusal to answer the question would prove. Biden went one step further and said his answer would be known only after the election. 

 This is my last post on this thread. Always happy to discus events with sensible parties from any camp, but will not be trolled.

 

 

 

 

 

Under the Constitution are there limits on the number of Supreme Court judges? However, should the Dems win power one presumes they will counter Supreme Court stacking by trump, who has no mandate to do so, with a balanced Bench. Once trump's gone it will be good to see common decency to be on the ascendancy in the body politic and judicial system in the USA; certainly, will not occur if trump wins a second term.

Edited October 12, 20205 yr by simple1

58 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

 This is my last post on this thread. Always happy to discus events with sensible parties from any camp, but will not be trolled.

The unmeant humor just keeps on coming, are you sure you don't want to give up your day job?

4 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Despite Barrett pledging fealty to law she comes as a nominee who being a staunch Catholic can now pop down to a Confessional and be absolved of lying through her teeth.

By someone who statistically has a 10% chance of being a kiddie fiddler.

Edited October 12, 20205 yr by Lacessit

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 If, as you say, there is no plot to stack the supreme court, both Biden and Harris would have answered the pointed and critical question when they were asked. The question is vital in terms of voters having fair and honest info to base their decision on. Both declined, knowing full well how inflammatory their refusal to answer the question would prove. Biden went one step further and said his answer would be known only after the election. 

 This is my last post on this thread. Always happy to discus events with sensible parties from any camp, but will not be trolled.

 

Do you have any clear indication that there is such a 'plot'? No. You allege there is such. Reasons for why a bogus question was not answered were provided across topics - that you ignore them and insist on your conspiracy theory explanation being the sole answer is dishonest.

 

So now you care about transparency? Seriously? I mean, after so many posts arguing why Trump should not be transparent, should not answer questions, should not be investigated? Hardly a credible position coming from yourself.

 

You were not being 'trolled', it's called a discussion. You simply cannot defend your absurd, contrived point of view, that's all.

Republican supporters would have to be the most unbalanced, bias people I have come across. They only want to play their game when somebody else plays the same tactics and underhanded tricks they scream out. There is no rule on the number of judges on the supreme court, so the Dems can and are within their right to increase the number to put balance back on the bench. The Republicans are currently stacking the bench with their favoured biased judges. The fact Biden has not declared his hand on this issue is because he doesn't want all the republican wingers distracting from the litany of Trump stuff ups and lies. 

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

Where in the constitution does it state how many justices on the court. What in the constitution will need to be changed.

I stand corrected. Congress and the Senate can change the number, i.e., whichever party controls both the House and the Senate can control the number of justices on the SCOTUS.  If that happens then it will be the Repulican's turn to be having a conniption fit just as the Democrats are having a conniption fit over what the Republicans are well within their rights to do by confirming justice Barret.  And if the Democrats pick up the Senate, I have no doubt they will add justices to the bench as that would be well within their rights to do also.

It's all a game.  Life's not fair kids.  Everyone should get over it - Democrats and Republicans.  Although they won't - more riots as a partisan politics means to an end?  Probably.  And the average American becomes the loser.

Edited October 12, 20205 yr by connda

8 hours ago, Dave0206 said:

American voters will show how they wish this to go or are voters not to be trusted on such an important issue?

Quite possibly not - after all, last time round, they were not trusted to elect the President were they?

The "Electoral College" did that, ignoring the simple fact that the "losing candidate" actually got some 3 million votes more than "the winner". 

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

I am quite interested that the Supreme Court of America and the Senate appoints judges based on their political view. I dont understand how a reasonable, neutral, judge can get on the court and bring justice to the USA. 

I would suggest that, given the recent appointments, they cant.

 

The court is being prepared to pass judgement in two areas - the winner of a most probably disputed election, and also perhaps, in due course, the guilt or otherwise of Mr Trump in a variety of tax and fraud charges which appear to be lining up. 

 

Maybe it is becoming the ultimate example of a "payroll vote"?

4 hours ago, Paul Henry said:

Republican supporters would have to be the most unbalanced, bias people I have come across. They only want to play their game when somebody else plays the same tactics and underhanded tricks they scream out.

Trust me.  Both Republican and Democratic supporters turn into triggered, snivelling, automatons and melt down pretty much on cue.  You can see that just by reading this thread and any threads like it that touch on partisan politics, although I'll admit that the Democratic faithful outnumber the Republican faithful in Thailand. 

First question:

 

What other pledges and oaths has the nominee taken?

8 minutes ago, connda said:

Trust me.  Both Republican and Democratic supporters turn into triggered, snivelling, automatons and melt down pretty much on cue.  You can see that just by reading this thread and any threads like it that touch on partisan politics, although I'll admit that the Democratic faithful outnumber the Republican faithful in Thailand. 

The ‘Democrat faithful’ our number the ‘Republican Faithful’ in the US too.

6 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 If, as you say, there is no plot to stack the supreme court, both Biden and Harris would have answered the pointed and critical question when they were asked. The question is vital in terms of voters having fair and honest info to base their decision on. Both declined, knowing full well how inflammatory their refusal to answer the question would prove. Biden went one step further and said his answer would be known only after the election. 

 This is my last post on this thread. Always happy to discus events with sensible parties from any camp, but will not be trolled.

There’s is absolutely no question on the matter of ‘stacking the Supreme Court’, the Republicans are doing precisely that in plain view.

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

First question:

 

What other pledges and oaths has the nominee taken?

Omg!  Maybe she's a .... Jesuit operative!  "Egads!"

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s is absolutely no question on the matter of ‘stacking the Supreme Court’, the Republicans are doing precisely that in plain view.

"Stacking the court?"  They're replacing a deceased member of the bench.  Back to reality.

Replacing:  1 to 1.  One goes, one is replaced.
Stacking:   Adding additional justices.

The Republicans are not "stacking."  They're replacing a justice which is within their rights to do and Democrats and the left are having a melt-down.  And guess what.  Shy of producing some emasculated shill who claims that he was gang raped by Justice Barrett and her sorority sisters while attending Notre Dame - justice Barrett is going to be confirmed. 
 

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ‘Democrat faithful’ our number the ‘Republican Faithful’ in the US too.

That they do.

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

"Trump wanted new judges that follow the law?" Of all the unconsciously humorous statements you have made on various threads, this one sits on Mount Olympus.

Perhaps you have forgotten the hypocrisy of Republicans who wanted the appointment of judges postponed until the 2016 election was over, and are trying to rush Barrett through despite their pious mouthings at the time.

Why is it Republicans can stack the Supreme Court, but that's not permissible for Democrats? Ever heard of a double standard?

Stacking the court

 

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

"Trump wanted new judges that follow the law?" Of all the unconsciously humorous statements you have made on various threads, this one sits on Mount Olympus.

Perhaps you have forgotten the hypocrisy of Republicans who wanted the appointment of judges postponed until the 2016 election was over, and are trying to rush Barrett through despite their pious mouthings at the time.

Why is it Republicans can stack the Supreme Court, but that's not permissible for Democrats? Ever heard of a double standard?

 

Edited October 12, 20205 yr by bluehippie
omitted

9 hours ago, connda said:

Nominating and confirming a justice to the SCOTUS isn't "stacking" the court regardless of when the justice is nominated and confirmed.
However, passing legislation to alter the Constitution to allow more justices on the SCOTUS beach - is - stacking.  Altering the Constitution for partisan reasons, regardless of which side does it, is dangerous.  Once that merri-go-round starts, the Constitution will end up shredded.  Is it illegal?  Nope.  It can be done.  But... 

Regardless of what happen I personally think the US is cooked.  Politics and society are so divided and divisive that I expect the nation to collapse before the end of the decade.  There is no such thing as a "statesman" any longer.  Just viscous ideologues with their own party's agenda and no ability to meet in the middle unless it somehow personally benefits the legislators and their wealthy friends at the expense of the US population.  If no one's noticed, both parties are gutting the nation financially. 
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,  In the meantime, in-between time - we ain't got fun.

 

9 hours ago, connda said:

Nominating and confirming a justice to the SCOTUS isn't "stacking" the court regardless of when the justice is nominated and confirmed.
However, passing legislation to alter the Constitution to allow more justices on the SCOTUS beach - is - stacking.  A

Stacking is actually is a reference to efforts by the President and their political party to ensure the US Supreme Court is filled with a majority of justices possessing similar ideologies to their own with the intent that these ideologies will influence pivotal court decisions.

Packing is what Roosevelt attempted with a bill to reform and increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

Now, the Dems accuse the GOP senate is trying to "stack the court" with ACB, but Dems are accused of plotting to "pack the court" if they win the election by increasing the total justice's seats from the current nine to whatever number.

Edited October 12, 20205 yr by bluehippie

On 10/12/2020 at 10:33 AM, webfact said:

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on Sunday that Barrett should, if confirmed, step aside from the case, which is scheduled to be argued at the court on Nov. 10.

 

"She doesn't come unbiased and that's why she should recuse herself," he said.

It's good to see that Chuck has a dream, even if it's not going to happen.

11 hours ago, connda said:

"Stacking the court?"  They're replacing a deceased member of the bench.  Back to reality.

Replacing:  1 to 1.  One goes, one is replaced.
Stacking:   Adding additional justices.

The Republicans are not "stacking."  They're replacing a justice which is within their rights to do and Democrats and the left are having a melt-down.  And guess what.  Shy of producing some emasculated shill who claims that he was gang raped by Justice Barrett and her sorority sisters while attending Notre Dame - justice Barrett is going to be confirmed. 
 

I wonder how the Dems can say with a straight face that the justice should not be confirmed till after the election?

I very much doubt the Dems would do that if the situation were reversed.

 

Well done to Biden though. He came out and said that she should not be attacked on her religious beliefs. That was statesmanlike.

A handmaid on the supreme court. Great.

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

A handmaid on the supreme court. Great.

"The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale, explained

They’re not actually connected. But the story spread anyway."

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale-supreme-court

What the Dems should do after the sick joke has been voted out and the Senate firmly in Dem hands:

 

1. Expand the court to 12 justices

2. Nominate and confirm 3 super-liberal 30-somethings. Let's say AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

2. Send an F.U. card to Mitch.

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

What the Dems should do after the sick joke has been voted out and the Senate firmly in Dem hands:

 

1. Expand the court to 12 justices

2. Nominate and confirm 3 super-liberal 30-somethings. Let's say AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

2. Send an F.U. card to Mitch.

Great idea, and one I am sure Harris/Biden are looking at. I appreciate your honesty in voicing what the democrats are secretly planning - a real shame the democrat leaders said the voters don't deserve to know their plans-

 

"Former Vice President Joe Biden said Friday during an interview with KTNV, a local ABC affiliate in Las Vegas, that voters “don’t deserve” to know his stance on expanding the Supreme Court"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/10/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-to-know-stance-on-court-packing/#ec34b0b7aac1

 

 The one problem is your new improved supreme court will have zero legitimacy. The court worked well with 9 justices for the last what 150 years, since the time the internal combustion engine was invented. So serious conflicts will not be resolved by the courts, which leads to the last resort for settling grievances. And i am not convinced the left will be liking it when that happens.