Vox: Trump Losing the Popular Vote Means Dems Have the Right to Pack Court

[RSF]

22 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Then the next Republican president will pack it back with 4 new justices, then the next Demi rays will pack it with 8 more, then the next Republican president will pack 16 more young conservatives in there. This is a game that cannot be won 

In 1866, when the court was at 10, Congress passed a bill that would prevent the next 3 retiring justices from being replaced.  2 retired then Congress again acted, setting the number at 9.  So the court can and has been 'un'packed before.

 

[bornontheblue]

1 minute ago, RSF said:

In 1866, when the court was at 10, Congress passed a bill that would prevent the next 3 retiring justices from being replaced.  2 retired then Congress again acted, setting the number at 9.  So the court can and has been 'un'packed before.

 

I’m not saying packing the court isn’t allowed. I’m saying you can’t win at that game. When the opposite party gets a chance they will just pack it back and undo everything the previous court did. That is a never ending game that nobody wins. 

[RSF]

and im saying packing the court isnt an unending game.

[bornontheblue]

5 minutes ago, RSF said:

and im saying packing the court isnt an unending game.

Okay, so if Biden wins and brings the court to 12, and then 4 years later a Republican wins and makes it 16 and undoes everything the prior court did, and then the next time a democrat wins he makes it 20 justices ... and then the next Republican makes it 24. Who wins that game ? Is that good fir the country ? 

[toonkee]

30 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

If the shoe fits. If you want to play dirty, don't complain when your opposition agrees to play dirty. 

This would be settled easily if everyone agrees to fill the seat after the election. Let the people decide.

I doubt that happens. So when the gop plays for keeps, a sweeping democrat election will mean those in power will play for keeps too. I personally am not happy about it, since neither party is embracing my ideological positions. But then again, people in power rarely do.

The people did decide in 2016 and 2018 and those elections have consequences. I just don't get why we need unwritten rules here. Why shouldn't Trump get to be president for 4 full years?

[NorCalCoug]

21 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Yes, you are correct. So if those are the rules of then game, then don't complain.

Seems to me you’re the one complaining here.  There is no rule against appointing a justice in an election year.  There is even historical precedent for it.  You’re just being contrarian at this point.

[NVGiant]

1 hour ago, bornontheblue said:

Then the next Republican president will pack it back with 4 new justices, then the next Demi rays will pack it with 8 more, then the next Republican president will pack 16 more young conservatives in there. This is a game that cannot be won 

Again, this is the downward spiral we’ve been in since Bork

[edluvar]

How about we give Merrick Garland a hearing? 

[bornontheblue]

1 hour ago, edluvar said:

How about we give Merrick Garland a hearing? 

No 

[Akkula]

3 hours ago, bornontheblue said:

If those are the rules of the game then why are you bitching about the president not wanting to wait, and advocating if he doesn’t you blow the whole thing up by packing it. 
 

Appointing  a justice before the election is NOT playing dirty as you implied. 

Well, neither is following the constitution.  The constitution allows a majority to add new states, never mentions a filibuster, doesn't limit SC judges etc.  In honor of Scalia, I think Democrats will just go the originalist route very soon and get back to the consitution.

[Akkula]

3 hours ago, bornontheblue said:

I’m not saying packing the court isn’t allowed. I’m saying you can’t win at that game. When the opposite party gets a chance they will just pack it back and undo everything the previous court did. That is a never ending game that nobody wins. 

You can't win the game if the insaniacs can't win the senate any longer when Puerto Rico and DC are added.  Check mate...mate.

[bornontheblue]

8 minutes ago, Akkula said:

You can't win the game if the insaniacs can't win the senate any longer when Puerto Rico and DC are added.  Check mate...mate.

Then we will exit and form our own country. We don’t have to be subject to your rule. 

[bornontheblue]

Nm

[sebasour]

4 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

Seems to me you’re the one complaining here.  There is no rule against appointing a justice in an election year.  There is even historical precedent for it.  You’re just being contrarian at this point.

Yeah just look at 2016... oh wait. 

 

 

[Rebelbacker]

2 hours ago, edluvar said:

How about we give Merrick Garland a hearing? 

Sure. I'm also all for giving him a vote. Then when he doesn't get enough votes this stupid talking point goes away.

He was never going to be confirmed in 2016 no matter what. 

[Nevada Convert]

5 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Packing the court is about legislation. If they have congress and the presidency, they have a right to pack the court. The end.

If a lame duck president and lame duck congress put a conservative in to replace RBG, it's hard to argue against it.

You lost. Just take it like an adult and stop crying. Sometimes luck just doesn’t go your way. There’s nothing you can do but hope 4 GOP Senators don’t go along with it. Garland had no chance to get confirmed, there weren’t the votes.  There was no reason to waste that kind of time. 
 

So here’s what will happen with your silly little arms race. Any time a party has a trifecta, they can make it a 9-0 court. So those are the new rules, we’ll do it. So if Trump wins and in 2022 if the GOP take back the House like they probably will, Trump will make it a 9-0 court. Nicki Haley will be too tough to beat in 2024,   she’ll likely be an 8 year president. So there you are, it’s 2032, and the Supreme Court has been 9-0 for 10 years. And even if a Dem wins in 2032, he/she/it will mostly likely not have a trifecta. So we’re at the 2034 midterms before you have a shot at owning the Supreme Court again. When was the last time you had a 5-4 majority?.......I can’t remember. Let’s just say 2014. So we would go 20 years before you could totally own the court again. Is that what you really want?