Expanding The Supreme Court

[onlinebiker]

If Biden wins the election - should they expand the number of Justices so Biden can appoint new justices more favorable to his agenda?

Yes? Really want to set that precidence?

[Brian37]

Nice try, it is like blaming the fireman for what the arsonist did.

MITCH started this bullshit.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, the precedence is exactly the point.   Precedence for our side to always use the greatest Conceivable ruthlessness to a ruin and destroy the works of the forces that animates the Republican Party, and ruin their operatives and supporters 

The republicans are setting the  precedence for winner taking all.   So taking all, not just that to which we seem entitled, from the republicans must be our overriding goal in dealing with them if we are to have anything Left in the end.

The republicans brought guns and knives to every negotiating table.  You better not rely on preaching negotiating etiquette to them If you want to emerge alive from the “negotiation”.

If you don’t want a single party state, then the Republican Party must be destroyed.    You don’t let a malignant and aggressive cancer stay in you and hope to coach it to play nice for good health.

[Brian37]

Yes, the precedence is exactly the point.   If it is going to be winner takes all, then let this be a no holds barred battle until one side, or the country, is irretrievably dead, because the if that side wins, the country needs to be killed anyway.

I would hope nobody wants that. But again, someone punches you in the face, knowing process doesn't have to be that way, and even after punching you, the go back on the standard they set. 

MITCH is the asshole who refused to give Garland a hearing. Now you have the SAME GOP going back on the standard they set.

What should anyone expect? 

I don't see what choice Dems have? If "play by the rules" is their standard, and they don't follow the rules they set, then what kind of reaction should they expect?

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, the precedence is exactly the point.   If it is going to be winner takes all, then let this be a no holds barred battle until one side, or the country, is irretrievably dead, because the if that side wins, the country needs to be killed anyway.

I would hope nobody wants that. But again, someone punches you in the face, knowing process doesn't have to be that way, and even after punching you, the go back on the standard they set. 

MITCH is the asshole who refused to give Garland a hearing. Now you have the SAME GOP going back on the standard they set.

What should anyone expect? 

I don't see what choice Dems have? If "play by the rules" is their standard, and they don't follow the rules they set, then what kind of reaction should they expect?

If you hope no one wants that, then it will Most certainly come By the hands of the other side because they certainly don’t mind having it and using it. 

You better want it and take it in your hands and prepare to use it.

[Brian37]

I would hope nobody wants that. But again, someone punches you in the face, knowing process doesn't have to be that way, and even after punching you, the go back on the standard they set. 

MITCH is the asshole who refused to give Garland a hearing. Now you have the SAME GOP going back on the standard they set.

What should anyone expect? 

I don't see what choice Dems have? If "play by the rules" is their standard, and they don't follow the rules they set, then what kind of reaction should they expect?

If you hope no one wants that, then it will Most certainly come By the hands of the other side because they certainly don’t mind having it and using it. 

You better want it and take it in your hands and prepare to use it.

"Turn the other cheek" is utopian. It is a good goal for sure. But at some points in history, when the other side isn't going to play by the rules, it is hard to refrain. 

I would love nothing more than for Mitch and the GOP to hold off on appointing a SCOTUS now, based on their own standards. But they are not going to do that.

All I am asking, is how do we respond? Because they have proven they are not going to play by the rules.

[Anomalocaris]

If you hope no one wants that, then it will Most certainly come By the hands of the other side because they certainly don’t mind having it and using it. 

You better want it and take it in your hands and prepare to use it.

"Turn the other cheek" is utopian. It is a good goal for sure. But at some points in history, when the other side isn't going to play by the rules, it is hard to refrain. 

I would love nothing more than for Mitch and the GOP to hold off on appointing a SCOTUS now, based on their own standards. But they are not going to do that.

All I am asking, is how do we respond? Because they have proven they are not going to play by the rules.

If there are only two players and one side doesn;t play by the rules, and there are no referees. then you must tear up the rule book and go for brokes.

Showing the statute against murder to someone who has tried to murder you on several previous occasions will not lengthen your life. 

Add 2 more new justices to supreme court For each one the Republicans seated since 2016, to ensure the three stolen by the republicans are totally nullified and the outcome of their stealing 3 seats is a nightmare for their cause.

Or, unseat all three and replace them.

Or, Merge court of appeals, or even district courts with the Supreme Court and make every sitting justice on these courts also a justice of the Supreme Court. 

What is clear is if the theft of the 3 is allowed to stand, and trump is unimpeached and convicted, this is the end of multiparty democracy in the US and beginning of the banana republic with lots of nuclear weapons. 

The objective is not to merely make crime not pay.  If Crime merely doesn’t usually pay then there is nothing lost in keep committing crimes For the off chance.  The objective is to make the criminal pay a price they can never afford so the incentive to play for the odds goes away.

You may say but what happens next when republicans....  the other goal is make sure there is not next time for the republicans. 

If you want a sustainable multi party system, you need to find a way to kill the coalition behind Republican Party so others less malevolent Alternatives can have room to grow, and you want to eliminate incentive for another coalition after the republicans To resort to similar tricks in the future.

It is also perfectly fine if the Democratic Party is also destroyed in the process so long as more than one party not worse then democrats emerge from the wreckage.     What this country will not survive, and what is not fine by every ideal with which we’ve sold ourselves to the world And our own people these past 2 centuries, is the survival of the current Republican Party.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes, the precedence is exactly the point.   Precedence for our side to always use the greatest Conceivable ruthlessness to a ruin and destroy the works of the forces that animates the Republican Party, and ruin their operatives and supporters 

The republicans are setting the  precedence for winner taking all.   So taking all, not just that to which we seem entitled, from the republicans must be our overriding goal in dealing with them if we are to have anything Left in the end.

The republicans brought guns and knives to every negotiating table.  You better not rely on preaching negotiating etiquette to them If you want to emerge alive from the “negotiation”.

If you don’t want a single party state, then the Republican Party must be destroyed.    You don’t let a malignant and aggressive cancer stay in you and hope to coach it to play nice for good health.

‘Precedent’.

Boru

[chimp3]

Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment.

[Anomalocaris]

Luckily, it is not easy to amend or repeal a Constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendment is not involved.