posted by QuakerOats
Complete lack of manners, sportsmanship, and respect. Among the worst we have to offer.
Lol, definitely sounding like a mindless bot when, as an R, you can actually say this with President Twitter's regular rampages showing that "complete lack of manners, sportsmanship and respect" is a fundamental cornerstone of his day-to-day routine.
Holy fuck just agree on a stimulus package already
posted by friendfromlowryHoly fuck just agree on a stimulus package already
Not until after the elect
Why are we scared democrats will pack the court and couldn’t give a fuck less about Republicans blocking the court until it’s their turn and walking back on their reasoning to do so?
posted by kizer permanenteWhy are we scared democrats will pack the court and couldn’t give a fuck less about Republicans blocking the court until it’s their turn and walking back on their reasoning to do so?
1. Not voting on a nomination to SCOTUS is perfectly legal. We may not like it but it’s legal.
2. It is the law of the land that there are 9 SCOTUS justices. So by definition “packing the court” is against the law. Of course they just have to make a “new” law and hope it passes constitutionality checks in the courts.
So one is legal the other is not. Hope this helps.
posted by jmog1. Not voting on a nomination to SCOTUS is perfectly legal. We may not like it but it’s legal.
2. It is the law of the land that there are 9 SCOTUS justices. So by definition “packing the court” is against the law. Of course they just have to make a “new” law and hope it passes constitutionality checks in the courts.
So one is legal the other is not. Hope this helps.
Lol it was rhetorical bud obviously this site leans righter than the rain. It’s not a mystery why democrats are bad and Republicans are good here.
posted by kizer permanenteLol it was rhetorical bud obviously this site leans righter than the rain. It’s not a mystery why democrats are bad and Republicans are good here.
"What's worse, they are setting precedent to have the republicans follow suit. Bloody hell."
You just wanted to snark. It's ok, we all do it.
As far as supreme court justices go, the dems were salty over Garland and paid it back in spades to Kavannaugh. Loosely speaking, that made things even. But that wasn't good enough by a long shot, was it?
You don't have to be right wing to be able to acknowledge what they have done since. Not any of it is good.
Further, I just saw Tulsi Gabbard, yesterday, saying that out of the democrat majority House, only 4 people have signed the bipartisan bill that addresses ballot harvesting.
Republicans, Democrats & Independents, consider this fact:
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 9, 2020
Many Members of Congress speak out against voter harvesting. Only four have signed onto our bipartisan bill to end voter harvesting. If you want to protect our democracy, tell your rep to walk the talk. Support HR8285
The dems are a bigger problem right now than the republicans. But go off.
So I just saw an article about a big Trump sign next to a highway in California. There were complaints about it being a possible fire hazard and the highway state patrol deemed it a traffic hazard because people were slowing down to take pictures and so the state went onto the property and took it down.
I actually think that the traffic hazard reason has more validity to it. I guess I see the situations as having to prioritize what is the most immediate danger, and that makes me lean towards somebody causing a wreck because they wanted a good photo.
On the other hand, I can also see some dipshit burning it (or trying to) and sparking off a brush fire.
posted by jmog1. Not voting on a nomination to SCOTUS is perfectly legal. We may not like it but it’s legal.
2. It is the law of the land that there are 9 SCOTUS justices. So by definition “packing the court” is against the law. Of course they just have to make a “new” law and hope it passes constitutionality checks in the courts.
So one is legal the other is not. Hope this helps.
Cite me the passage in the Constitution where it sets the number of justices? It is simply set by Congress. Congress can thus pass a new law and expand it if they want and the courts would have zero reason to strike it down.
Congress could also get creative and start to reform or set new standards on how justices are appointed and confirmed if they wanted to. Mayor Pete had a few interesting ideas, but I've also seen where they can say each President can nominate 1 or 2 every four years.
I think all options are on the table and we could use this time to actually reform our broken nominating process.
posted by friendfromlowryHoly fuck just agree on a stimulus package already
The Senate does not want to budge nor do they think they can get it in before the election.
I find that hilarious because now they really care about price tag and budget deficit when for four years only Rand Paul has cared.
I am going to equally find it hilarious when in 2021 Republicans will find their fiscal spines against any D agenda.
I mean it kind of does look like they care more about the Supreme Court seat than the relief efforts. You wonder why the Rs are probably going to lose the Senate....
posted by ptown_trojans_1Cite me the passage in the Constitution where it sets the number of justices? It is simply set by Congress. Congress can thus pass a new law and expand it if they want and the courts would have zero reason to strike it down.
Congress could also get creative and start to reform or set new standards on how justices are appointed and confirmed if they wanted to. Mayor Pete had a few interesting ideas, but I've also seen where they can say each President can nominate 1 or 2 every four years.
I think all options are on the table and we could use this time to actually reform our broken nominating process.
Quote the part of my post that said the number was in the Constitution? I said it was the law of the land and hasn’t been altered in 150 years.
So, once again you messed up, I didn’t say it was in the constitution.
They also can’t change how the nomination is done or alter the number a President can nominate without a Constitutional Amendment (good luck getting that passed by 38 states.
The fact that you are somewhat defending packing the court is rather telling on your supposed “middle of the road” political beliefs.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Cite me the passage in the Constitution where it sets the number of justices? It is simply set by Congress. Congress can thus pass a new law and expand it if they want and the courts would have zero reason to strike it down.
Congress could also get creative and start to reform or set new standards on how justices are appointed and confirmed if they wanted to. Mayor Pete had a few interesting ideas, but I've also seen where they can say each President can nominate 1 or 2 every four years.
I think all options are on the table and we could use this time to actually reform our broken nominating process.
What's broken about it other than your side losing?
posted by queencitybuckeyeWhat's broken about it other than your side losing?
I mean... I’m not really sure it’s “his side”. The US is not a conservative country. Why should they have conservative Judges? The only reason we have Republicans in office is gerrymandered districts and the electoral college. And poor states who vote against their self interest bc muh fetus.
posted by kizer permanenteI mean... I’m not really sure it’s “his side”. The US is not a conservative country. Why should they have conservative Judges? The only reason we have Republicans in office is gerrymandered districts and the electoral college. And poor states who vote against their self interest bc muh fetus.
posted by iclfan2
Yes?
It’s not. In almost any way. And it’s a shame we need the Supreme Court to defend normal people from religious ideologies tbh
posted by kizer permanenteYes?
It’s not. In almost any way. And it’s a shame we need the Supreme Court to defend normal people from religious ideologies tbh
Gerrymandering does not effect the presidency or the Senate. Half your paragraph was wrong. Killing babies is such a small part of everything, it’s still crazy the left pushes it. Even if Barrett agrees against it, it just ends up with states right, which is what conservatives care about anyway. Also, you don’t have to be religious to not accept killing babies. (And I barely care about that subject)
On policy Americans poll left of center. They believe in social blankets. They believe gay people are in fact people. They believe women should have control of their body. There’s been 1 *conservative in the last 28 years to actually win popular vote vs 6 left of center candidates. Which would reflect why Americans poll left of center. To think a majority of Americans are conservative or right of center is intellectually dishonest.
posted by iclfan2Nah it’s literally the south’s reason for voting conservative. You’re lying to yourself if it’s not a key component to why people vote how they do.Gerrymandering does not effect the presidency or the Senate. Half your paragraph was wrong. Killing babies is such a small part of everything, it’s still crazy the left pushes it. Even if Barrett agrees against it, it just ends up with states right, which is what conservatives care about anyway. Also, you don’t have to be religious to not accept killing babies. (And I barely care about that subject)
posted by iclfan2Nope... the electoral college effects the presidency and gerrymandering affects the House.Gerrymandering does not effect the presidency or the Senate. Half your paragraph was wrong. Killing babies is such a small part of everything, it’s still crazy the left pushes it. Even if Barrett agrees against it, it just ends up with states right, which is what conservatives care about anyway. Also, you don’t have to be religious to not accept killing babies. (And I barely care about that subject)
posted by kizer permanenteI mean... I’m not really sure it’s “his side”. The US is not a conservative country. Why should they have conservative Judges? The only reason we have Republicans in office is gerrymandered districts and the electoral college. And poor states who vote against their self interest bc muh fetus.
So much horseshit in one post. It’s amazing you could fit that much in such a short post, congratulations on that.
posted by kizer permanenteYes?
It’s not. In almost any way. And it’s a shame we need the Supreme Court to defend normal people from religious ideologies tbh
This post and the one above it kind of shows you failed your HS government/civics class.
posted by kizer permanenteOn policy Americans poll left of center. They believe in social blankets. They believe gay people are in fact people. They believe women should have control of their body. There’s been 1 *conservative in the last 28 years to actually win popular vote vs 6 left of center candidates. Which would reflect why Americans poll left of center. To think a majority of Americans are conservative or right of center is intellectually dishonest.
Congratulations on becoming the antithesis of QO on this board, someone who spews non-sense, just in your case from the left.
posted by jmogThis post and the one above it kind of shows you failed your HS government/civics class.
Lol ok. See this is you.. I don’t agree with you so you’re dumb. I have no reason to show I’m right. Just you’re dumb. Why are you so dumb.
You’re like a 7 year old.
posted by jmogCongratulations on becoming the antithesis of QO on this board, someone who spews non-sense, just in your case from the left.
So refute me. Oh that’s right. All you do is say everyone is dumb and you’re right.