SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Kennedy retiring
Page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Kennedy retiring Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
This comment about sums it all up for the Dems.

“What immigrants?”



 
Posts: 4756 | Registered: July 06, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of olfuzzy
posted Hide Post
I don't know what to say about this idea.


Leftists upset that President Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court in a conservative direction are increasingly embracing a radical plan to expand the number of seats on the court once Democrats retake Congress and the White House.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement gives Trump the chance to nominate a second conservative to the court before he’s halfway through his first term in office.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 85 and 79-years-old, respectively, so it’s not unforeseeable that Trump could get to fill two more seats before he leaves the White House, potentially guaranteeing a conservative majority on the court for decades to come.

Now some liberals argue Democrats should simply expand the number of court seats — and then immediately fill the new ones with left-wing jurists — as soon as they take back control of Congress and the White House.


The Constitution doesn’t require a set number of seats on the court and leaves that power to Congress, which hasn’t altered the size of the Supreme Court since last setting it at nine in 1869.

“Democrats have no choice but to implement structural reforms to the judiciary if they hope to prevent decades of rule by the alt-right in America,” HuffPost reporter Zach Carter claimed in a Thursday article.

“At a minimum, that will mean expanding the Supreme Court bench to 11 justices under the next Democratic president. Other reforms, including term limits to remove aging conservatives, may well be appropriate.”


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...-pack-supreme-court/
 
Posts: 5181 | Location: 20 miles north of hell | Registered: November 07, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
That is how leftists operate: if you can't win under the current structure, change the rules.
 
Posts: 10640 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
I don't know what to say about this idea.


Leftists upset that President Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court in a conservative direction are increasingly embracing a radical plan to expand the number of seats on the court once Democrats retake Congress and the White House.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement gives Trump the chance to nominate a second conservative to the court before he’s halfway through his first term in office.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 85 and 79-years-old, respectively, so it’s not unforeseeable that Trump could get to fill two more seats before he leaves the White House, potentially guaranteeing a conservative majority on the court for decades to come.

Now some liberals argue Democrats should simply expand the number of court seats — and then immediately fill the new ones with left-wing jurists — as soon as they take back control of Congress and the White House.


The Constitution doesn’t require a set number of seats on the court and leaves that power to Congress, which hasn’t altered the size of the Supreme Court since last setting it at nine in 1869.

“Democrats have no choice but to implement structural reforms to the judiciary if they hope to prevent decades of rule by the alt-right in America,” HuffPost reporter Zach Carter claimed in a Thursday article.

“At a minimum, that will mean expanding the Supreme Court bench to 11 justices under the next Democratic president. Other reforms, including term limits to remove aging conservatives, may well be appropriate.”


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...-pack-supreme-court/


Dreaming!

60 votes in the Senate. Veto. Veto override. Then, who nominates those additional justices?




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
I had thought of this. Packing the court. I think FDR floated the idea when the SCOTUS of the day shut down a few of his programs.

quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
I don't know what to say about this idea.


Leftists upset that President Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court in a conservative direction are increasingly embracing a radical plan to expand the number of seats on the court once Democrats retake Congress and the White House.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement gives Trump the chance to nominate a second conservative to the court before he’s halfway through his first term in office.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 85 and 79-years-old, respectively, so it’s not unforeseeable that Trump could get to fill two more seats before he leaves the White House, potentially guaranteeing a conservative majority on the court for decades to come.

Now some liberals argue Democrats should simply expand the number of court seats — and then immediately fill the new ones with left-wing jurists — as soon as they take back control of Congress and the White House.


The Constitution doesn’t require a set number of seats on the court and leaves that power to Congress, which hasn’t altered the size of the Supreme Court since last setting it at nine in 1869.

“Democrats have no choice but to implement structural reforms to the judiciary if they hope to prevent decades of rule by the alt-right in America,” HuffPost reporter Zach Carter claimed in a Thursday article.

“At a minimum, that will mean expanding the Supreme Court bench to 11 justices under the next Democratic president. Other reforms, including term limits to remove aging conservatives, may well be appropriate.”


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...-pack-supreme-court/
 
Posts: 21240 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Internet Guru
posted Hide Post
At some point, society will realize that these leftist aren't reasonable people who can share rule with other ideologies.
 
Posts: 2050 | Registered: April 06, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mbinky:
That is how leftists operate: if you can't win under the current structure, change the rules.
Truth.
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Now in Florida
Picture of ChicagoSigMan
posted Hide Post
[QUOTE]
“Democrats have no choice but to implement structural reforms to the judiciary if they hope to prevent decades of rule by the alt-right in America,” HuffPost reporter Zach Carter claimed in a Thursday article.
/QUOTE]

No choice? How bout they just win elections?

And for all the whining about having to live under decades of rule by the right, they sure don't seem to have a problem with making us live under decades of rule by the progressive left?

And it sure seems that leftists can't see very far past their own noses. What do they think will happen when the GOP regains control? They will simply follow the example of the leftists and add more seats to the court and fill them to regain a majority. It will go back and forth like this until we have 100 justices on the court.

Even though every one of Harry Reid's tactics backfired on them once the GOP gained power, the Dems never seem to learn. They can't seem to figure out that when they change the rules, the new ones can be used by Republicans too.
 
Posts: 6084 | Location: FL | Registered: March 09, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Res ipsa loquitur
Picture of BB61
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
I don't know what to say about this idea.


Leftists upset that President Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court in a conservative direction are increasingly embracing a radical plan to expand the number of seats on the court once Democrats retake Congress and the White House.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement gives Trump the chance to nominate a second conservative to the court before he’s halfway through his first term in office.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 85 and 79-years-old, respectively, so it’s not unforeseeable that Trump could get to fill two more seats before he leaves the White House, potentially guaranteeing a conservative majority on the court for decades to come.

Now some liberals argue Democrats should simply expand the number of court seats — and then immediately fill the new ones with left-wing jurists — as soon as they take back control of Congress and the White House.


The Constitution doesn’t require a set number of seats on the court and leaves that power to Congress, which hasn’t altered the size of the Supreme Court since last setting it at nine in 1869.

“Democrats have no choice but to implement structural reforms to the judiciary if they hope to prevent decades of rule by the alt-right in America,” HuffPost reporter Zach Carter claimed in a Thursday article.

“At a minimum, that will mean expanding the Supreme Court bench to 11 justices under the next Democratic president. Other reforms, including term limits to remove aging conservatives, may well be appropriate.”


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...-pack-supreme-court/


FDR wanted to pack the court too. He backed down AIRC.


__________________________

 
Posts: 12583 | Registered: October 13, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
FDR did have a court packing plan to expand the number of justices.

He didn't do it, but mostly because the Supremes stopped striking down New Deal legislation pretty quickly after the threat. He probably had the votes to get it done.

The court could be expanded in number, but it would take having the Presidency and the House and the Senate OR the House and Senate with a veto-proof super majority.

Term limits on judges would take a constitutional amendment.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53249 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Festina Lente
Picture of feersum dreadnaught
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tanner:
This comment about sums it all up for the Dems.

“What immigrants?”





NRA Life Member - "Fear God and Dreadnaught"
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: in the red zone of the blue state, CT | Registered: October 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Can't wait for a Supreme Court with 1,001 members after each side packs it every 4-12 years.
 
Posts: 4331 | Location: Peoples Republic of Berkeley | Registered: June 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
I don't know what to say about this idea.

Leftists upset that President Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court in a conservative direction are increasingly embracing a radical plan to expand the number of seats on the court once Democrats retake Congress and the White House.

The Constitution doesn’t require a set number of seats on the court and leaves that power to Congress, which hasn’t altered the size of the Supreme Court since last setting it at nine in 1869.

“At a minimum, that will mean expanding the Supreme Court bench to 11 justices under the next Democratic president. Other reforms, including term limits to remove aging conservatives, may well be appropriate.”

This is not a new idea.
quote:
On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.


flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27911 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
Breaking now:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Justice Kennedy cannot retire.


j/k
 
Posts: 4254 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
His diet consists of black
coffee, and sarcasm.
Picture of egregore
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Breaking now:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Justice Kennedy cannot retire.


j/k

Although in jest, it makes me wonder if he is receiving any pressure to change his mind and not retire.
 
Posts: 28690 | Location: Johnson City, TN | Registered: April 28, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by egregore:
Although in jest, it makes me wonder if he is receiving any pressure to change his mind and not retire.

He's an 81 year old SCOTUS judge. I highly doubt he gives a flying fuck what Leftists, whom he usually disagreed with, think of his decision to retire and spend his last 10-20 years on Earth doing as he pleases.
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
always with a hat or sunscreen
Picture of bald1
posted Hide Post



Certifiable member of the gun toting, septuagenarian, bucket list workin', crazed retiree, bald is beautiful club!
USN (RET), COTEP #192
 
Posts: 16533 | Location: Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: June 20, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Happily Retired
Picture of Bassamatic
posted Hide Post
Now that right there is funny. Smile



.....never marry a woman who is mean to your waitress.
 
Posts: 5143 | Location: Lake of the Ozarks, MO. | Registered: September 05, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
What do you all think of Mike Lee?

He seems like he digs the Constitution.
 
Posts: 1188 | Registered: January 04, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by matai:
What do you all think of Mike Lee?

He seems like he digs the Constitution.


Sure. He is on the short list, and so is his brother. How about that? Two brothers on the list for Supreme Court nomination? Dad was distinguished Solicitor General, and they grew up at the Court.

I doubt he will be the nominee, for political calculation reasons more than his suitability. As a Senator, he needs to vote to confirm the new guy, or gal.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Kennedy retiring

© SIGforum 2024