Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Here’s your hope hit: You only need to flip two.

Flip two? Two what? Two slits to the wrist to bleed out? Or are you smoking crack and think Jeff Flake is gonna protect a SCOTUS seat for liberals and then liberals are gonna win back the senate?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

declining to have hearings for a year is completely different than adding justices to the court. 

How? Both are ways to get more power to the side doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other fucking hilarious news, Dems (including Silly Schumer) are already claiming that Trump should 'wait until after the election' to appoint a new justice.

They can't even get AtM'd with dignity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its completely different. The public outrage would be deafening if the Democrats tried to seat additional justices. Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

If Kennedy wanted his seat filled by a liberal, he could have retired under Obama. Same for Ginsburg. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Its completely different. The public outrage would be deafening if the Democrats tried to seat additional justices. Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

If Kennedy wanted his seat filled by a liberal, he could have retired under Obama. Same for Ginsburg. 

 

It is no different. Republicans stole a supreme court seat, court packing is just playing the same game Republicans are already playing.

 

We will need to do it fast. first order of business before the next democrat controlled senate with a democrat president is the president nominates nine SC justices for nine new seats on the SC. The senate immediately confirms them all. no hearings, just immediate direct action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

declining to have hearings for a year is completely different than adding justices to the court. 

No, it is absolutely not. It was their Consitutational duty and they said screw it to get an advantage.

There is no Consitutational limit on the number of Justices and they have varied before. Sure it can set up it's own issue but so did refusing to allow Garland a fair procrss.

Once you want to game the system you cannot complain about its consequences. 

I do not think it will happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

If Kennedy wanted his seat filled by a liberal, he could have retired under Obama. Same for Ginsburg. 

 

Ah yes because that worked out perfectly with replacing Scalia's seat! Moron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lokisnow said:

which is why we will do it fast. first order of business before the next democrat controlled senate with a democrat president is the president nominates nine SC justices for nine new seats on the SC. The senate immediately confirms them all. no hearings, just immediate direct action.

The American people would never stand for this. Most folks are moderates, and what you described is more than extremely fringe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Frog Eater said:

The American people would never stand for this. Most folks are moderates, and what you described is more than extremely fringe. 

What the senate did with Merrick Garland's appointment was extremely fringe and yet whatever outrage that existed was not enough to prevent Trump's election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frog Eater said:

The American people would never stand for this. Most folks are moderates, and what you described is more than extremely fringe. 

Most people wouldn't care, just like most people didn't care about Garland. The right-wing noise machine will scream bloody murder. But they scream bloody murder no matter what a Democrat does, and then turn right around and cheer when a Republican does the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Flip two? Two what? Two slits to the wrist to bleed out? Or are you smoking crack and think Jeff Flake is gonna protect a SCOTUS seat for liberals and then liberals are gonna win back the senate?

 

Flake, Collins, Murkowski and McCain. Call your senators Jace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Flake, Collins, Murkowski and McCain. Call your senators Jace.

Doubtful McCain will ever make another vote from the Senate floor. And then there were three...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Flake, Collins, Murkowski and McCain. Call your senators Jace.

Jesus, you really are smoking crack.

Never touched the stuff, myself. I was never wealthy enough for a coke habit and heroin was a no-go. Opiods (pills, don't be trashy), man. That's the way to go. Just make everything nice and fluid, like you're under water. It's real quiet down there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Doubtful McCain will ever make another vote from the Senate floor. And then there were three...

That makes the dynamic 50-49. And then there was one.  

As Fez said, Murkowski and Collins likely won’t vote for someone who is opposed to Roe v. Wade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Oh don't be so short-sighted. This is also the end of rights for women, minorities and the LGBT community. Have your abortions now I guess.

Kennedy has managed to secure himself one hell of a legacy here. A list of horrific decisions this week and then letting Trump appoint his successor.

 

The only play for the Democrats now is to pack the courts. They've either got the balls to do it or they may as well stop pretending they are a political entity within the US.

How do the Democrats pack the Courts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

That makes the dynamic 50-49. And then there was one.  

As Fez said, Murkowski and Collins likely won’t vote for someone who is opposed to Roe v. Wade.

They already have several times before.  Why would this time be different? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

The American people would never stand for this. Most folks are moderates, and what you described is more than extremely fringe. 

It'll be through the news cycle within a month and then would be the status quo.  It was a fringe position to deny a SC seat to a sitting President, as it had never been done before.  Increasing the # on the bench has precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, now you're trying to talk yourself into Collins and Murkowski? The dumbos who were lied at to their faces on the tax bill then sat down like good girls and let the men govern? 

Listen, we were on the wrong side of history. Let it in, just let the despair thread its way through your chest for a while. Don't try to fight, that just leads to silly fantasies, just relax and let it in.

If you have to cry, nobody's watching. It's ok. I ain't gonna lie to you. It still hurts, when the hits come, but they just kind of slide off once you let it all go. You can even have a little bit of fun sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...