52-48

A question for esteemed posters on the left. Do you think Biden and Schumer will end the filibuster and pack the courts, assuming the Democrats come out on top November 3? And how big a role do you think the Barrett confirmation will play in their decision? In other words, would they end the filibuster and pack the courts regardless of whether Republicans had filled the vacancy?

A question for esteemed posters on the left. Do you think Biden and Schumer will end the filibuster and pack the courts, assuming the Democrats come out on top November 3? And how big a role do you think the Barrett confirmation will play in their decision? In other words, would they end the filibuster and pack the courts regardless of whether Republicans had filled the vacancy? Originally Posted by Tiny

I think they will try to pack the court just in spite. No real reasons other than spite, rebalancing and they can. They would get much joy in shoving this up McConnel's ass.

I do agree with UC, Justices do not make law. This isn't a big win for Trump, though he will try to play it like he changed the world with it. Only bad thing is Graham and McConnell are in Republican strong hold so they will probably not get voted out. Anything is possible though. Some states are flipping.

If the dims pack the court. They will see major consequences in 2 years and especially in 4! Nine Justices is a perfect number.

I think they will try to pack the court just in spite. No real reasons other than spite, rebalancing and they can. They would get much joy in shoving this up McConnel's ass.

I do agree with UC, Justices do not make law. This isn't a big win for Trump, though he will try to play it like he changed the world with it. Only bad thing is Graham and McConnell are in Republican strong hold so they will probably not get voted out. Anything is possible though. Some states are flipping. Originally Posted by royamcr

No, he just appointed a decent judge to fill the spot. The Democrats are nothing but vindictive little babies that just want to disrupt this administration. If their was more Liberals on the Supreme Court than Conservatives they wouldn't even think about packing the court.

To all my liberal "friends": Imagine I am Winston Churchill flashing only half of a "V-for-victory" sign!

If you are too young for that image to register: Imagone l.ong-hair hippy flashing half of a Peace Sign.

Well OK . . .now lets convivence Justice Thomas to retire so DJT can nominate another forty-something Scalia/Thomas/Barret clone, and extend the conservative court thirty years along into the 2050s.

McConnel and the current Senate could get that done before Christmas.

You are correct. The people spoke, back in November 2016. They elected President Donald Trump to serve four full years as President and carry out the Constitutional Duties that he has sworn to uphold. Originally Posted by Jackie S

True. One of the few things Trump has said recently that is correct is "Elections have consequences".

No, he just appointed a decent judge to fill the spot. The Democrats are nothing but vindictive little babies that just want to disrupt this administration. If their was more Liberals on the Supreme Court than Conservatives they wouldn't even think about packing the court. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Amen - Schumer has already promised to make the republicans "Pay for this'!
Vindictive controlling bastards who show their entitlement and incompetence at every turn.
Just the party of welfare, spending, , and marxist control of the people.

DONE DEAL < DPST clowns can cry and have temper tantrums now

Care to expand on your thesis? Can you give us 3 examples of "Constitutonal duties" he did not uphold?


New rule. If you are going to make comments like this, explain your reasoning or STFU. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Lets see;

He murdered Americans overseas, without trial or due process, with drone strikes.
He used the IRS against political enemies.
He used the Justice department to monitor reporters.
He spied on a presidential campaign.
He lied repeatedly to the American people about his health care plan....wait!

Did you say Obama? Trump? Oops! My mistake.

Amen - Schumer has already promised to make the republicans "Pay for this'!
Vindictive controlling bastards who show their entitlement and incompetence at every turn.
Just the party of welfare, spending, , and marxist control of the people. Originally Posted by oeb11

Oh don't even get me started on Schumer. That guy is nothing but trouble along with that twat Adam Schiff. It's just infuriating to listen these two idiots lie.

ed markey, senator from the once great state of massachusetts (back around the time of the shot heard 'round the world)

accuses the words and meanings of the constitution to be racist, sexist and homophobic

why doesn't he just move with bruce springsteen and wtf to mozambique?

Just seating a Justice doesn't mean anything. Will have to see in the future how she operates. Just recently a Republican court ruled against something Trump wanted and that was funny as fuck. The court he partially built just fucked him royally. Biden can expand the court to 11 and there may not be anything anyone can do about it and that will be fucking hilarious. Can't wait to see McConnel's turtle head after that one. It will be like all liberals fucking him in the ass at once.

I wasn't against Barrett all, she seemed fine and Trump was within his rights to sit this justice. However Republicunts showed America that whatever they say has no weight. Most are spineless pieces of shit that don't give a fuck about the future of America. Originally Posted by royamcr

Barrett was a foregone conclusion.

The only thing people need to realize about conservative justices, is that they will only interpret existing law.
They will either make the dancing lawyer jokers explain which law applies, agree with one of the lawyers, or not. They will not allow ridiculous interpretations. They may toss an unconstitutional law, but they will not rewrite law.
The concept of ridiculous interpretations of law is a Dim concoction. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

So you think conservatives justices will only ''interpret'' existing law. Oh and they may toss existing laws they interpret unconstitutional.

Do you realize what a sanctimonious , partisan , clueless hack you sound. Jesus the other sides thinks they too are right.

why so much hate from the left

maybe because the root of their hate is conflict

and maybe the root of their conflict is psychological manipulation and a lack of perception and a mindset that is closed

and maybe the root of their mindset is they lack the desire for truth and substance and choose instead to be lead by false idioms and a false sense of victimhood

and maybe their lack of truth and substance exists because the false truth they accept is intangible and unrealistic

and maybe it is intangible and unrealistic because its purpose is to create a false aspiration and manipulate

and maybe the false aspiration conflicts with reality because it actually doesnt exist


and maybe there is confusion and frustration because its lack of existence leads to disruption and destruction

and maybe there is disruption and destruction because of misguided beliefs

and maybe because of misguided beliefs there is a lack of acceptance of reality

and because their beliefs lack reality the left accepts hate as their answer

and hate only divides and hurts you and those around you and is an endless circle

and maybe the root of their hate is conflict ...... and so on

and in the end hate will devour you and the left will leave you behind and move on to the next person !

I liked McConnell's line yesterday

where he quoted Obama, the thoughtless and immature

Obama, the thoughtless and immature, mcconnell said wanted to appoint justices who had empathy

woe be to those for whom Obama's justices hold no empathy

whatever happened to the idea of "and justice for all" with the left?

justice, the equal application of the law

and the law? a firm considered unchanging understanding one can have reliance upon, until such law is lawfully changed by lawmakers, not the judiciary