How Dems take back the supreme Court post Trump. Court packing, and FDR.

[VivaRevolution]

hello Jimmy,



the Senate didn't approve or disapprove Mr. Obama's nomination, really. they more or less acted as if it never happened.

all legal and aboveboard, i've stated that already.

your point that Mr. Obama was a lame duck, however, is irrelevant.

if he was a lame duck with Democratic control of the Senate, Mr. Garland would be sitting on the SCOTUS.

that's why i pointed out that you were making an emotional argument.



lol. admit?

i've referred to McConnell's move in only admiring terms.



yes, i agree.

if the POTUS had only nominated a judge that was philosophically in opposition to his own beliefs, he probably would have been able to appoint the judge of his choosing.

great point.

- IGIT

Should have just posted the opinion piece Gorsuch wrote where he roasts Republicans for blocking Garland, and he had nothing but praise for him.

You know I actually have more of a problem with Alito, and Roberts then I do Gorsuch.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Maybe you didn't read that whole post? In response to Waiguoren saying money doesn't equal speech I said this.

So if I want to spend all my income on political spending, is not a tax the government removing my political speech?

 

[VivaRevolution]

No one is saying you can’t be in a union just that they cant force employees to pay. How is that not a good thing

You are saying I can't have a union that can collectively bargain.

I don't expect the average Joe to understand this, but the employer is the one who requires union membership.

Now the workers threaten to go on strike, if the company doesn't require union membership, but if a employer never agrees to union membership, then no one is required to join a union.

The whole narrative is based on a lie.

 

[IGIT]

Should have just posted the opinion piece Gorsuch wrote where he roasts Republicans for blocking Garland, and he had nothing but praise for him.

hello VivaRevolution,

yeah, i remember reading about that a few years ago.

good point.

then again, it would be lost on the fellow i'm speaking to. he'd merely say that "Gorsuch's opinion doesn't matter. he's not in the Senate", and he'd be right, but he'd miss the gist of the point.

- IGIT

 

[second sight]

Scali

So if I want to spend all my income on political spending, is not a tax the government removing my political speech?

you know full well that unions are responsible for a lions share of democrats campaigns, how is that any different

Not only that they are often paid to campaign and they even protested when obama was in office

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Uhh, no.

Obama was elected. Obama was the president when the supreme Court seat was vacated.

The Republicans cheated to stop his appointment.

It is time to cheat back.

Now you're talking my language. Dems have taken this "high road" approach to all the underhanded, dirty, hateful shit the Repubs have done and its time to fight fire with fire. It may be too late though.

 

[Lead]

Go ahead, it is a zero sum game. You make 15 supreme Court justices, the next makes 31, the next 63, ect.

It will just make it so that whoever wins the presidency, wins the supreme Court as well.

So you are suggesting we cause an arms race with a key institution to the republic for political means? Nah, that's a bad idea.

Dems should capitalize on the nuclear option and hold outs like the GOP has now put in play. To expect us to just go back to the previous standard is naive at this point. The Garland decision is going to linger a very long time when it comes to the Senate and White House.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Scali

you know full well that unions are responsible for a lions share of democrats campaigns, how is that any different

Not only that they are often paid to campaign and they even protested when obama was in office

I am 100% in support of banning union campaign finance, along with everyone else's.

I am not Bull Shitting you here. It is a matter of national security. It is the single greatest threat to this country today outside HC spending, and you can't fix anything, including HC spending until we do something about lobbying and campaign finance.

 

[second sight]

You are saying I can't have a union that can collectively bargain.

I don't expect the average Joe to understand this, but the employer is the one who requires union membership.

Now the workers threaten to go on strike, if the company doesn't require union membership, but if a employer never agrees to union membership, then no one is required to join a union.

The whole narrative is based on a lie.

Going to have to disagree with employer requiring union membership. I see unions trying to get enough votes to unionize but the employers are not on board, quite the opposite

 

[second sight]

I am 100% in support of banning union campaign finance, along with everyone else's.

I am not Bull Shitting you here. It is a matter of national security. It is the single greatest threat to this country today outside HC spending, and you can't fix anything, including HC spending until we do something about lobbying and campaign finance.

Even if you are democrats (politicians) are not

 

[VivaRevolution]

So you are suggesting we cause a arms race with a key institution to the republic for political means? Nah, that's a bad idea.

Dems should capitalize on the nuclear option and hold outs like the GOP has now put in play. To expect us to just go back to the previous standard is naive at this point. The Garland decision is going to linger a very long time when it comes to the Senate and White House.

The RNC started the arms race when they blocked Garland.

I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Even if you are democrats (politicians) are not

Bernie does.

He has clearly supported a constitutional amendment that bans all campign finance.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

The RNC started the arms race when they blocked Garland.

I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

By essentially using the nuclear option the Dems created. Too funny.

 

[luckyshot]

I voted “yes” but my real answer is maybe.

I dunno.

I generally respect and value playing by the rules... but what the GOP did in stealing the SCOTUS is so far beyond the pale that I just don’t know anymore.

 

[Lead]

The RNC started the arms race when they blocked Garland.

I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

You are advocating fighting fire with grenade. Overreacting can do more damage that the original faults you see. First step would be winning the next election in 2020. That likely is going to determine 2 other justices. The reality is these judges usually get to make the call of who decides their replacement. Though I don't agree with the stance, the argument with Scalia was he didn't get to. You can argue with that but to propose we just purposely set one of the branches into a death spiral is irrational.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Now you're talking my language. Dems have taken this "high road" approach to all the underhanded, dirty, hateful shit the Repubs have done and its time to fight fire with fire. It may be too late though.

Sometimes the high road is the right response, and sometimes shit flinging is.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So if I want to spend all my income on political spending, is not a tax the government removing my political speech?

To some degree. Same as taxing firearms and ammunition is an infringement. Though hardly to the degree that prohibiting certain firearms is. Having a little less money to get your message out (due to an unrelated necessity of government) isn't in the same ballpark as being prohibited from spending any of your money on it at all.

I'm all for adding an Amendment to address campaign spending and the sources of donations. For example, out of state spending for local measures is something I'd prohibit.

 

[second sight]

Bernie does.

He has clearly supported a constitutional amendment that bans all campign finance.

Bernie made a million dollars last year and this year, he likes donor cash to

 

[VivaRevolution]

You are advocating fighting fire with grenade. Overreacting can do more damage that the original faults you see. First step would be winning the next election in 2020. That likely is going to determine 2 other justices. The reality is these judges usually get to make the call of who decides their replacement. Though I don't agree with the stance, the argument with Scalia was he didn't get to. You can argue with that but to propose we just purposely set one of the branches into a death spiral is irrational.

You have to know that if I could light a match, and set our 3 branches on fire, I would.

Not to get rid of them, but to reform them.

I actually think Trump's election was the American public collectively lighting that match.

 

[glenwo2]

I voted “yes” but my real answer is maybe.

I dunno.

I generally respect and value playing by the rules... but what the GOP did in stealing the SCOTUS is so far beyond the pale that I just don’t know anymore.

I think it was very CLEVER.

Unethical to the extreme? Yes.

But very CLEVER.

And if(or rather WHEN) Trump nominates(yeah right....might as well put him on the bench right away) Kennedy's replacement(A hardcore, dye-in-the-wool Republican), those 5-4 Decisions turn into 6-3 ones or something. lol.