Why you should fear Trump's pick for Supreme Court Judge

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Certainly not you, you're nothing more than a fuckhead.

I am not the one calling for restrictions to first ammendment rights.

That's all on you.

I'm not applying to your proposed post of Inquistioner....

I wasn’t aware that holding public office is a first amendment right. This would be covered by Article VI, not the bill of rights.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

I am not the one calling for restrictions to first ammendment rights.

That's all on you.

I'm not applying to your proposed post of Inquistioner....

I wasn’t aware that holding public office is a first amendment right. This would be covered by Article VI, not the bill of rights.

Boru

Restriction on RELIGION.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I wasn’t aware that holding public office is a first amendment right. This would be covered by Article VI, not the bill of rights.

Boru

Restriction on RELIGION.

It’s wouldn’t be a restriction on religion. The amendment says that Congress can’t establish a religion or keep you from practicing a religion. So, unless your religion requires you to seek and hold public office, the amendment doesn’t apply.

It’s moot, though, because Article VI says that no religious test will be a qualifier for office. This means that you can’t prohibit an atheist or a radical fundamentalist from holding an elected or appointed government position, Divinity’s proposal to keep religious loonies out of government won’t fly.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

In other words - you approve of what Trump has done - stack the deck as it were...

Punishing the Republicans for trying to cheat isn't stacking. Thou i don't agree with it adding more judges to balance the number and prevent ideological domination is better .

You just want to stack it YOUR way....

Nope he put it in terms of punishment not policy

---

Restriction on RELIGION.

No it freaking isn't . The amendment says can't establish or deny the practice of religion . Neither of those things are happening, And i go further to say the question of whether one can be an impartial and non partisan judge can be asked in the context of religion without being about personnel practice of religion. This is not a religious test but a test of professional integrity .

[Mermaid]

And there's not a fucking thing I can do about it.
This government does not serve us. They do not work for us.

[Rank Stranger]

I can't speak for others, but yeah- I have no problem with the Dems packing the court and impeaching judges so long as it's all legal and above-board. Republicans have proven time and again that they'll respect *only* those norms that work in their favor. Otherwise they run roughshod over every norm, courtesy, gentleman's agreement, etc. so long as their packed court will rubber-stamp it.

Why should I care if the Left does the same?

Luckily for our American Fascists though... the Democrats are utterly inept. They don't even understand what aggression is, let alone how to use it. I think they're a penned and domesticated loyal opposition. Paid to participate in the dog & pony show... and fail on command.

[Mister Agenda]

If Dems take the oval office, senate, and keep the house, there should be no expansion of the SC unless the majority of Americans want it. If the conservative court acts egregiously, the public will turn against them and support adding justices. Even then, it shouldn't be enough new seats to make liberal justices a majority, just enough for parity. If the court can manage not to piss off the public, congress shouldn't add seats. They SHOULD add PR as a state, though.

[Mermaid]

It's time that our government works for us as it was intended. Right now it's working against us.

[Ranjr]

If Roe v Wade is overturned, what carrot will Republicans use to lead evangelicals to the polls?  Best tread carefully here.  They need abortion to get votes.

[Anomalocaris]

If Dems take the oval office, senate, and keep the house, there should be no expansion of the SC unless the majority of Americans want it. If the conservative court acts egregiously, the public will turn against them and support adding justices. Even then, it shouldn't be enough new seats to make liberal justices a majority, just enough for parity. If the court can manage not to piss off the public, congress shouldn't add seats. They SHOULD add PR as a state, though.

Did majority of Americans wanted the GOP to steal a Supreme Court seat?

Turning the other cheek simply means both of your cheek bones will be broken.    By the time the public turns against the GOP, there would be no recognizable United States left.