|
|
09-20-2020, 03:50 PM
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 3,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretariat
Yeah, it appears that's where it is headed. Quite a few are talking about exactly this scenario.
But why settle on 6-6, why not 8-6? The Constitution does not establish how many judges should be on the supreme court which is something the founders should have established, but didn't.
If McConell and many of the Republicans who decried that Garland should not be permitted to even get a hearing because he was nominated 10 months before the election, they will sure look like hypocrites demanding a vote 45 days before an election in 2020 in this case. I expect it to happen and will most likely hurt those senators with independents in the coming election.
This is a slippery slope where the party in control can modify the court to the quantity of judges that give it a majority with far left or far right judges, but it's unfortunate because since McConell refused to allow Garland to have a hearing and lets remember Garland is a moderate.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...o-is-he-220865
My guess is they'll be contentious wrangling on the far right nominee, and Susan Collins will be concerned, but vote party over conscious, and the nominee will be confirmed.
I then think if Biden wins, and the Dems win the Senate you will see the end of the filibuster, and more importantly you'll see the quantity of judges increased significantly who will sail through Congress. My guess is Biden could then add as many as 10 new Supreme Court judges giving Dems the majority until the numbers swing the other way - if they do.
|
Just one huge problem with that. The law (statute) enacted will be challenged in court. It will make its way to the SCOTUS. Do you really think the six conservative justices are going to allow these radical judges a spot on the court? NO WAY! They will rule whatever law is being questioned unconstitutional and keep the nine member limit in tack. If you think these six are going to sit in the minority for the rest of their time on the bench and have zero say on any case you are gravely mistaken. Remember, SCOTUS has the final say, the only way around their ruling will be a constitutional amendment which will go nowhere. Sorry, it will stay at nine. YOU LOSE!
Last edited by zico20; 09-20-2020 at 03:53 PM.
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 04:00 PM
|
#47
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,835
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtb
I know but it still amazes me how these people spout off about how horrible the United States is but then keep coming back or won't leave in the first place. "The grass is always greener on the other side."
|
It's the same with PaceAdvantage.com
People who threaten or say they are leaving...never really leave...they can't.
It's just too damn awesome in both places. They can't stay away.
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 04:36 PM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MargieRose
You're confused and off on tangents.
BTW, Trump didn't receive "$400 million" from his "old money" father at birth (where do you get this stuff?). His father (why say "old man"?) loaned him money starting in about 1975. And, there weren't "dozens" (24, 36, 48...how many?) of indictments under Trump.
BBTW: You seem to lack the self awareness that you exaggerate quite often.
|
Sorry not all at once. Not a self made baby, not at all self made.
His wealth is what you complained about,..... "old money"
He just pretended he was self made
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth...rom_his_father
According to an investigation by The New York Times, Donald Trump received at least $413 million (2018 prices) from his father's business empire.[2] The Times drew upon more than 100,000 pages of tax returns and financial records from Fred Trump's businesses and interviews with former advisers and employees, finding 295 distinct streams of revenue that Fred Trump created over five decades in order to channel his wealth to his son.[
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 05:29 PM
|
#49
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,835
|
Liberals are so upset....not about Ruth dying of course...but when she died...
Such a compassionate bunch of folks....
Quote:
“F*** You Ruth Bader Ginsburg – F*** You for Not Retiring Under Obama!” – Leftists React to RBG’s Death
|
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...sharingbuttons
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 05:35 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Behind the Pine Curtain
Posts: 10,658
|
here it comes
__________________
“We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” -Joe Biden
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 06:22 PM
|
#51
|
what an easy game.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,096
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtb
I know but it still amazes me how these people spout off about how horrible the United States is but then keep coming back or won't leave in the first place. "The grass is always greener on the other side."
|
Any grass will do as long as you view it from above!!🙂🙂
__________________
Peace on earth, good will to all
GOD BLESS AMERICA
" I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact"
Winston Churchill
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 07:19 PM
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston , Tx.
Posts: 9,600
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MargieRose
You're confused and off on tangents.
|
Democrats have a patent on that. Hcap just vents his frustration on-line because in the real world outside he'd get slapped silly.
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 07:25 PM
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston , Tx.
Posts: 9,600
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
|
Her legacy will be defined in the coming months. What democrats did with SCOTUS over the years is despicable. The decisions account for where we are now.
Last edited by Marshall Bennett; 09-20-2020 at 07:27 PM.
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 08:19 PM
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,890
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula_2002
Any grass will do as long as you view it from above!!🙂🙂
|
Exactly! That's why I let my grass grow long.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 08:52 PM
|
#55
|
what an easy game.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,096
|
How I define a proper liberal? RBG
How would define a proper conservative?
__________________
Peace on earth, good will to all
GOD BLESS AMERICA
" I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact"
Winston Churchill
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 09:20 PM
|
#56
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Behind the Pine Curtain
Posts: 10,658
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula_2002
How I define a proper liberal? RBG
How would define a proper conservative?
|
Her 'soon to be replacement'
__________________
“We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” -Joe Biden
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 09:56 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2020
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,087
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal
STRONGLY reconsidering it as we speak.
A lot more sanity there.
|
This means you support Justin Trudeau and his numerous appearances in black face?
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 09:57 PM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2020
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,087
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett
Democrats have a patent on that. Hcap just vents his frustration on-line because in the real world outside he'd get slapped silly.
|
It's more like, in the real world, he will get laughed at, then ignored.
|
|
|
09-20-2020, 10:04 PM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2020
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,087
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Sorry not all at once. Not a self made baby, not at all self made.
His wealth is what you complained about,..... "old money"
He just pretended he was self made
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth...rom_his_father
According to an investigation by The New York Times, Donald Trump received at least $413 million (2018 prices) from his father's business empire.[2] The Times drew upon more than 100,000 pages of tax returns and financial records from Fred Trump's businesses and interviews with former advisers and employees, finding 295 distinct streams of revenue that Fred Trump created over five decades in order to channel his wealth to his son.[
|
I remember in 2015 Democrats kept saying that Trump isn't as rich as he claims to be. I heard that 1,000 times at least. And now they are saying he's rich only because his father gave him all the money -- money hidden from that watchful eyes of the IRS, of course.
|
|
|
09-21-2020, 12:08 AM
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: America
Posts: 6,955
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20
Just one huge problem with that. The law (statute) enacted will be challenged in court. It will make its way to the SCOTUS. Do you really think the six conservative justices are going to allow these radical judges a spot on the court? NO WAY! They will rule whatever law is being questioned unconstitutional and keep the nine member limit in tack. If you think these six are going to sit in the minority for the rest of their time on the bench and have zero say on any case you are gravely mistaken. Remember, SCOTUS has the final say, the only way around their ruling will be a constitutional amendment which will go nowhere. Sorry, it will stay at nine. YOU LOSE!
|
I'm not into trying to win. I'm just telling you that the number on the court has been changed previously by Congress. There is precedent for this on the Court, and I expect this to occur if the Republicans in the Senate confirm a SCOTUS member under one party 45 days before an election, while previously declaring no SCOTUS member should be confirmed in an election year, in fact declaring that the will of the people in the upcoming vote should be honored, or don't you trust the will of the people voting?
With the amount of hypocritical declarations by Republican Congressmen in 2016 about NOT bringing a nominee during an election year, it's set an additional precedent by McConnell, and his cohorts. It was fun to watch the laughable attempts of these hypocrites like Graham, Cotton, Rubio, and McConnell try to spin their way out of their own 2016 comments. They looked like idiots on the talk shows today.
"The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first Supreme Court, with six Justices.
Since 1789, Congress changed the maximum number of Justices on the Court several times.
In 1801, President John Adams and a lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five Justices. Jefferson and his Republicans soon repealed that act, putting the Court back to six Justices. And in 1807, Jefferson and Congress added a seventh Justice when it added a seventh federal court circuit.
I n early 1837, President Andrew Jackson (Trump's favorite President) was able to add two additional Justices after Congress again expanded the number of federal circuit court districts.
Under different circumstances, Congress created a 10th circuit in 1863 during the Civil War, and it briefly had a 10th Supreme Court Justice.
However, Congress after the war passed legislation in 1866 to r educe the Court to seven Justices.
That only lasted until 1869, when a new Judiciary Act sponsored by Senator Lyman Trumbull set the number back to nine Justices, with six Justices required at a sitting to form a quorum.
President Ulysses S. Grant eventually signed that legislation and nominated William Strong and Joseph Bradley to the newly restored seats."
Get ready for a new Judiciary Act.
Last edited by Secretariat; 09-21-2020 at 12:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|