|
Expanding The Supreme Court
|
 (September 26, 2020 at 11:19 am)Brian37 Wrote: Nice try, it is like blaming the fireman for what the arsonist did. WTF are you blathering about? The number of justices on the court has been 9 since 1869. I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about - so I guess that means we are in agreement - as apparently you don't know what you're talking about either.   (September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:(September 26, 2020 at 12:29 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment. Hmm, I stand corrected.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
 RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
September 26, 2020 at 5:04 pm
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2020 at 5:07 pm by Rev. Rye.)
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png) I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.  (September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:(September 26, 2020 at 12:29 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment. Um actually that is what an "amendment" is. It is the literal ability to change the Constitution. Chimp is right, while not impossible, it is damned hard to do so.  RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
September 26, 2020 at 5:27 pm
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2020 at 5:32 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(September 26, 2020 at 5:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Constitutional amendment is not involved. The actual point being made is that you don’t NEED an amendment to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t specify how many there should be. Anomalocaris is perfectly correct. The number of justices is determined by statute, not by amendments. Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
 Quote:WTF are you blathering about?He started this bullshit by rewriting the rules about appointing judges during an election year thus denying Obama the ability to appoint a judge . This is a clear attempt to stack the court . And whether 1969 or 1856 there is a precedent and the Republicans are clearly games so the left need a counter .
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse! ![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843) “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM (September 26, 2020 at 5:31 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:Quote:WTF are you blathering about?He started this bullshit by rewriting the rules about appointing judges during an election year thus denying Obama the ability to appoint a judge . This is a clear attempt to stack the court . And whether 1969 or 1856 there is a precedent and the Republicans are clearly games so the left need a counter . I’m not sure that was ever a ‘rule’. A cynical, hypocritical dick move of epic proportions, but not a rule change. Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
RE: Expanding The Supreme Court
September 26, 2020 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2020 at 5:40 pm by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:If Biden wins the election - should they expand the number of Justices so Biden can appoint new justices more favorable to his agenda?It has nothing to do with his agenda. It has everything to do with countering the Republican agenda to stack the court with unqualified partisan lunatics. Quote:Yes? Really want to set that precedence?It's that or let the Republicans set precedent . (September 26, 2020 at 5:35 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:According to them it was(September 26, 2020 at 5:31 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: He started this bullshit by rewriting the rules about appointing judges during an election year thus denying Obama the ability to appoint a judge . This is a clear attempt to stack the court . And whether 1969 or 1856 there is a precedent and the Republicans are clearly games so the left need a counter .
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse! “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
