|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 9:17:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 9:26:44 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32422/no-thank-you-harry-reid-hank-berrien?ampNo, THANK YOU, Harry Reid! by Hank Berrien June 28, 2018 It took five years, but now conservatives across the country are expressing their heartfelt gratitude to former Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid for eliminating the filibuster for most nominations by presidents in 2013, allowing the Senate to approve judicial nominees with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote supermajority that had been the standard for nearly four decades. The Washington Post chortled at the time, “Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.” Whoops. Since the GOP currently holds a slim 51-49 majority, the fact that a simple majority is all that they need to approve a Supreme Court justice means that a true conservative can be confirmed to the court. Reid had acted so that former President Barack Obama could gain confirmation of three picks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, feeling that the GOP had obstructed those selections. At the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had presciently warned Reid, "You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." But Reid was adamant, and issued a deathless tweet that may now come back to haunt him: Senator Harry Reid ✔ @senatorreid Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done. 3:08 PM - Nov 21, 2013 7,814 11.5K people are talking about this And now, conservatives are expressing their gratitude: Ben Shapiro ✔ @benshapiro No, thank YOU, Senator Reid … David French ✔ @davidafrench The tweet of a man who believed that the Democrats would win forever. Senator Harry Reid ✔ @senatorreid Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done. 5:34 PM - Jun 27, 2018 535 159 people are talking about this
|
|
|
|
Post by heff on Jun 28, 2018 10:22:30 GMT -6
Top notch salt mining. nom nom nom |
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 10:46:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 10:47:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 10:48:35 GMT -6
From the great scholar, Cher.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Jun 28, 2018 10:51:14 GMT -6
From the great scholar, Cher.  |
|
|
|
Post by thievingmagpie on Jun 28, 2018 11:15:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 11:35:49 GMT -6
I'm surprised the left hasn't dug up Uncle Keg yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 12:01:49 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32437/trump-considering-mike-lee-supreme-court-hank-berrienAccording to Bloomberg, President Trump has asked advisers how they feel about nominating Utah Senator Mike Lee, 47, to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Bloomberg quoted “three people familiar with the matter,” adding that two of the people said Trump hasn’t chosen a favorite among those possibilities on his list of 25 people he might choose for the Supreme Court. One person noted that Trump thinks Lee would be easily confirmed by the Senate, but is concerned that if he chooses Lee, the slim majority the GOP holds in the Senate might be endangered. That would seem unlikely, since Lee’s home state of Utah is as conservative as any state in the nation. But Trump said the same thing was said about him picking Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General; Sessions was replaced by Democrat Doug Jones. Of course, that race featured the candidacy of Judge Roy Moore, which was damaged by claims of him sexually harassing women As Bloomberg notes, “Lee has publicly denounced the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling, which could complicate his confirmation. Many of the other potential nominees, most of whom are judges, haven’t take as clear a position on reversing the precedent.” Lee voted for fellow Utahan Evan McMullin for president; he had been upset at the Republican National Convention when it appeared the RNC committee was attempting to break the RNC's own rules and steamroll dissent. Lee, whose knowledge of the Constitution is scholarly, said at the time, "I have never in all my life, certainly going on six years in the United States Senate, prior to that as a lifelong Republican, never seen anything like this.” Among the several books Lee has written: Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document. But Trump and Lee have mended fences in the last two years; Lee has supported virtually all of Trump’s priorities. On Thursday, Lee told Fox News, “I have a good relationship with the president. He and I don’t see eye to eye on every issue. He and I see eye to eye on most things when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States.” He added, “I’m someone who’s been watching the Supreme Court since I was 10 years old. I’m honored to even be considered for something like this.” With the GOP holding a slim majority, it’s important to note that some GOP senators have already said they would support a Lee nomination, including Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz, John Kennedy and fellow Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The problem would likely stem from GOP senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both abortion rights supporters. Bloomberg reported, “Murkowski simply said ‘hmm’ when asked about a possible Lee nomination Wednesday.”
|
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 12:04:05 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32437/trump-considering-mike-lee-supreme-court-hank-berrienAccording to Bloomberg, President Trump has asked advisers how they feel about nominating Utah Senator Mike Lee, 47, to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Bloomberg quoted “three people familiar with the matter,” adding that two of the people said Trump hasn’t chosen a favorite among those possibilities on his list of 25 people he might choose for the Supreme Court. One person noted that Trump thinks Lee would be easily confirmed by the Senate, but is concerned that if he chooses Lee, the slim majority the GOP holds in the Senate might be endangered. That would seem unlikely, since Lee’s home state of Utah is as conservative as any state in the nation. But Trump said the same thing was said about him picking Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General; Sessions was replaced by Democrat Doug Jones. Of course, that race featured the candidacy of Judge Roy Moore, which was damaged by claims of him sexually harassing women As Bloomberg notes, “Lee has publicly denounced the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling, which could complicate his confirmation. Many of the other potential nominees, most of whom are judges, haven’t take as clear a position on reversing the precedent.” Lee voted for fellow Utahan Evan McMullin for president; he had been upset at the Republican National Convention when it appeared the RNC committee was attempting to break the RNC's own rules and steamroll dissent. Lee, whose knowledge of the Constitution is scholarly, said at the time, "I have never in all my life, certainly going on six years in the United States Senate, prior to that as a lifelong Republican, never seen anything like this.” Among the several books Lee has written: Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document. But Trump and Lee have mended fences in the last two years; Lee has supported virtually all of Trump’s priorities. On Thursday, Lee told Fox News, “I have a good relationship with the president. He and I don’t see eye to eye on every issue. He and I see eye to eye on most things when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States.” He added, “I’m someone who’s been watching the Supreme Court since I was 10 years old. I’m honored to even be considered for something like this.” With the GOP holding a slim majority, it’s important to note that some GOP senators have already said they would support a Lee nomination, including Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz, John Kennedy and fellow Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The problem would likely stem from GOP senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both abortion rights supporters. Bloomberg reported, “Murkowski simply said ‘hmm’ when asked about a possible Lee nomination Wednesday.” If this should happen won't they lose that much needed vote? |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 12:10:52 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32437/trump-considering-mike-lee-supreme-court-hank-berrienAccording to Bloomberg, President Trump has asked advisers how they feel about nominating Utah Senator Mike Lee, 47, to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Bloomberg quoted “three people familiar with the matter,” adding that two of the people said Trump hasn’t chosen a favorite among those possibilities on his list of 25 people he might choose for the Supreme Court. One person noted that Trump thinks Lee would be easily confirmed by the Senate, but is concerned that if he chooses Lee, the slim majority the GOP holds in the Senate might be endangered. That would seem unlikely, since Lee’s home state of Utah is as conservative as any state in the nation. But Trump said the same thing was said about him picking Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General; Sessions was replaced by Democrat Doug Jones. Of course, that race featured the candidacy of Judge Roy Moore, which was damaged by claims of him sexually harassing women As Bloomberg notes, “Lee has publicly denounced the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling, which could complicate his confirmation. Many of the other potential nominees, most of whom are judges, haven’t take as clear a position on reversing the precedent.” Lee voted for fellow Utahan Evan McMullin for president; he had been upset at the Republican National Convention when it appeared the RNC committee was attempting to break the RNC's own rules and steamroll dissent. Lee, whose knowledge of the Constitution is scholarly, said at the time, "I have never in all my life, certainly going on six years in the United States Senate, prior to that as a lifelong Republican, never seen anything like this.” Among the several books Lee has written: Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document. But Trump and Lee have mended fences in the last two years; Lee has supported virtually all of Trump’s priorities. On Thursday, Lee told Fox News, “I have a good relationship with the president. He and I don’t see eye to eye on every issue. He and I see eye to eye on most things when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States.” He added, “I’m someone who’s been watching the Supreme Court since I was 10 years old. I’m honored to even be considered for something like this.” With the GOP holding a slim majority, it’s important to note that some GOP senators have already said they would support a Lee nomination, including Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz, John Kennedy and fellow Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The problem would likely stem from GOP senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both abortion rights supporters. Bloomberg reported, “Murkowski simply said ‘hmm’ when asked about a possible Lee nomination Wednesday.” If this should happen won't they lose that much needed vote? Yes & that’s why I believe he will go with someone else off of his list, have them confirmed by midterms and then wait for RBG to leave. Once RBG leaves, I see Lee getting that Justice seat & giving the Conservatives/Libertarians a 7-2 majority on the bench. Then just wait and see if any other seats open up. |
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 28, 2018 12:12:14 GMT -6
Good read , only posted last part: Marc Thiessen: Congrats, Trump voters. You've just been vindicated Marc ThiessenJune 28, 2018 Democrats are grasping at straws because the timing couldn't be worse for them as they seek to gain control of the Senate in November. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has announced that the confirmation vote will take place in the fall, which would put Kennedy's replacement on the bench when the court's new term begins on the first Monday in October. Pity the Democratic senators such as Joe Manchin III, W.Va., Heidi Heitkamp, N.D., Jon Tester, Mont., Claire McCaskill, Mo., and Joe Donnelly ,Ind., who are running for reelection in states Trump won by double digits. Their political survival depends on being perceived as centrists, and they will now have to spend months campaigning while caught in the crossfire of a liberal-conservative battle royal over a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice. Vote yes, and their liberal base will be apoplectic; vote no, and their pro-Trump constituents could revolt. For all these reasons, Trump's appointee is likely to be confirmed. If that happens, Trump will have led one of the most consequential conservative presidencies in modern American history. Not only is Trump expanding the conservative Supreme Court majority, he is also moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will preside for decades. Imagine if it were Clinton making all these appointments. The consequences for human life, religious liberty, the Second Amendment and limited government would have been disastrous. Instead, the choice of the next Supreme Court justice is in President Trump's hands. So, to all the conservatives who cast their ballots in 2016 for just this moment -- you did the right thing. www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/28/marc-thiessen-congrats-trump-voters-youve-just-been-vindicated.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true |
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 28, 2018 12:13:17 GMT -6
^^^
And its why he might get a few left votes due to midterms and what states those Dems are competing in
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 12:19:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 12:25:31 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/06/27/hollywood-implodes-over-justice-kennedy-retirement-this-is-how-you-lose-a-country/Hollywood celebrities jumped on social media Wednesday and fired off a series of emotional reactions, calls to “fight,” and cataclysmic predictions in response to the news that Justice Anthony Kennedy had announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. “ok, dems. this is real. all y’all paying attention? this is how you lose a country,” actor Don Cheadle said on Twitter. “all of our rights are in the balance. urge your leadership to resist when trump attempts to appoint the next swamp thing out of the pez dispenser or kiss it bye bye.” Other stars, like Will & Grace actress Debra Messing, Westworld star Jeffrey Wright, and actor John Leguizamo urged their followers to “fight” and push back against what director Rob Reiner called “tyranny.” President Trump on Wednesday graciously celebrated the news and announced his intentions to nominate a Constitutional originalist to replace Justice Kennedy before the midterm elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 12:37:00 GMT -6
......
I guess they forgot these from the recent past:
Elections have consequences
GOP, you got to sit in the back seat.
Welcome to the b word known as Karma leftist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jun 28, 2018 13:08:02 GMT -6
Amul Thapar
Book it.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 13:43:57 GMT -6
Not a bad pick and one I would support. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 13:47:25 GMT -6
The left’s new plan: dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/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. (RELATED: Kennedy Calls It Quits: Longtime Swing Justice Hands Trump The Biggest Gift Of His Presidency) 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.” Jacobin writer Todd Tucker made a similar argument in an essay on Friday, claiming that Democrats need to rig the court in order to pass far left legislation that might otherwise be ruled unconstitutional. Recent Supreme Court decisions, coupled with Kennedy’s retirement, mean “it is time to push a once-marginal idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court,” argued Tucker. (RELATED: Democrats Keep Destroying Political Norms To Go After Trump) “A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past,” he added. Even before Kennedy’s retirement, left-wing writers were laying the groundwork for Democrats to pack the court once Trump is out of office. New Republic writer Scott Lemieux argued in May that Democrats should consider packing the court if conservative justices keep Democrats from pushing a hard left legislative agenda. “Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either,” Lemieux claimed in the article, entitled “Democrats: Prepare to Pack the Supreme Court.” The left-wing magazine on Thursday tweeted out Lemieux’s article in response to Kennedy’s retirement. “Packing the court (or raising the number of justices) will become a question in Dem primary debates,” CNN analyst Harry Enten predicted following news of Kennedy’s retirement. Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis reached a similar conclusion. “Don’t be surprised next time Democrats have control of Congress and [the White House] if they consider changing the number of seats on SCOTUS,” he wrote. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4?kowww.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointmentsnewrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-court |
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 13:51:46 GMT -6
The left’s new plan: dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/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. (RELATED: Kennedy Calls It Quits: Longtime Swing Justice Hands Trump The Biggest Gift Of His Presidency) 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.” Jacobin writer Todd Tucker made a similar argument in an essay on Friday, claiming that Democrats need to rig the court in order to pass far left legislation that might otherwise be ruled unconstitutional. Recent Supreme Court decisions, coupled with Kennedy’s retirement, mean “it is time to push a once-marginal idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court,” argued Tucker. (RELATED: Democrats Keep Destroying Political Norms To Go After Trump) “A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past,” he added. Even before Kennedy’s retirement, left-wing writers were laying the groundwork for Democrats to pack the court once Trump is out of office. New Republic writer Scott Lemieux argued in May that Democrats should consider packing the court if conservative justices keep Democrats from pushing a hard left legislative agenda. “Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either,” Lemieux claimed in the article, entitled “Democrats: Prepare to Pack the Supreme Court.” The left-wing magazine on Thursday tweeted out Lemieux’s article in response to Kennedy’s retirement. “Packing the court (or raising the number of justices) will become a question in Dem primary debates,” CNN analyst Harry Enten predicted following news of Kennedy’s retirement. Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis reached a similar conclusion. “Don’t be surprised next time Democrats have control of Congress and [the White House] if they consider changing the number of seats on SCOTUS,” he wrote. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4?kowww.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointmentsnewrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-courtOf course the left thinks they need to change it. Think we'd be hearing this had Hillary won? Reminds me of their rantings to abolish the electoral college. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 13:52:52 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32435/dems-beg-moderate-republicans-please-help-us-stop-emily-zanottiDems Beg Moderate Republicans: Please Help Us Stop A SCOTUS Nomination Schumer wants Senate "Republicans In Name Only" to join Democrats in opposing a new Justice. Thanks to Sen. Chuck Schumer, who filibustered Neil Gorsuch's appointment to the Supreme Court, Republicans have an almost completely clear path to replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy with a conservative Supreme Court justice, so Democrats must rely on breaking down the 51-seat majority Republicans have in the Senate in order to derail the nomination process. According to NBC News, Schumer and others have already started begging so-called "Republicans In Name Only," Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Barbara Murkowski (R-AK) to abandon their Republican colleagues and caucus with Democrats to filibuster any nominee who isn't sufficiently "moderate." "With little power to defeat a nominee outright on their own, Democrats began to look at Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as potential allies in their cause," NBC News reports. The theory is that both Collins and Murkowski are pro-choice Republicans, and fear that a fifth conservative vote might overturn Roe v. Wade, or its contemporary successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will motivate them to block a conservative nominee, plucked off President Donald Trump's list of potential justices, released during Trump's Presidential campaign. It's a good strategy: Collins and Murkowski have sided with Democrats before, individually opposing major changes to Obamacare, and, as part of a group, derailed Republican efforts at comprehensive immigration reform with moderate, "compromise" proposals. Neither woman fears turning her back on her Senate colleagues. But it's also a risk: Collins and Murkowski may be willing to delay or defer legislation, but siding with Democrats to obstruct a Republican judicial nominee is a more public declaration. www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sens-collins-murkowski-become-early-focus-senate-s-court-fight-n887171?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerbounce13 on Jun 28, 2018 13:58:48 GMT -6
I think it would be admirable for trump to select a moderate.
The problem is, the left's definition of a moderate is not a moderate
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 14:14:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 14:18:12 GMT -6
The left’s new plan: dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/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. (RELATED: Kennedy Calls It Quits: Longtime Swing Justice Hands Trump The Biggest Gift Of His Presidency) 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.” Jacobin writer Todd Tucker made a similar argument in an essay on Friday, claiming that Democrats need to rig the court in order to pass far left legislation that might otherwise be ruled unconstitutional. Recent Supreme Court decisions, coupled with Kennedy’s retirement, mean “it is time to push a once-marginal idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court,” argued Tucker. (RELATED: Democrats Keep Destroying Political Norms To Go After Trump) “A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past,” he added. Even before Kennedy’s retirement, left-wing writers were laying the groundwork for Democrats to pack the court once Trump is out of office. New Republic writer Scott Lemieux argued in May that Democrats should consider packing the court if conservative justices keep Democrats from pushing a hard left legislative agenda. “Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either,” Lemieux claimed in the article, entitled “Democrats: Prepare to Pack the Supreme Court.” The left-wing magazine on Thursday tweeted out Lemieux’s article in response to Kennedy’s retirement. “Packing the court (or raising the number of justices) will become a question in Dem primary debates,” CNN analyst Harry Enten predicted following news of Kennedy’s retirement. Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis reached a similar conclusion. “Don’t be surprised next time Democrats have control of Congress and [the White House] if they consider changing the number of seats on SCOTUS,” he wrote. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4?kowww.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointmentsnewrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-courtOf course the left thinks they need to change it. Think we'd be hearing this had Hillary won? Reminds me of their rantings to abolish the electoral college. Or this one could turn out like their much lauded “nuclear option” turned out,(they ask the Republicans to vote for expanding the SCOTUS by two. It passes & then the next election cycle kicks in. The Democrats suffer yet another defeat, so Trump and the Republicans have the majority. Two more Conservative/Libertarian styled Justices goes to the court and it goes to a 9-2 majority. Liberal heads across this great nation explode in collective rage). |
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 16:27:55 GMT -6
I think it would be admirable for trump to select a moderate. The problem is, the left's definition of a moderate is not a moderate No it wouldn't. Screw the reaching across the asile crap. We need someone that is going to follow the Constitution. The left isn't going to support anyone that's not an activist. |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 28, 2018 16:41:35 GMT -6
I think it would be admirable for trump to select a moderate. The problem is, the left's definition of a moderate is not a moderate No it wouldn't. Screw the reaching across the asile crap. We need someone that is going to follow the Constitution. The left isn't going to support anyone that's not an activist. Exactly. When it comes to the Supreme Court, you can shove all that moderate crap. Justices tend to move more left over time anyway, so pick the most right wing one you can get confirmed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 16:58:28 GMT -6
Exactly. When it comes to the Supreme Court, you can shove all that moderate crap. Justices tend to move more left over time anyway, so pick the most right wing one you can get confirmed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk John Roberts? |
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jun 28, 2018 19:23:16 GMT -6
The left’s new plan: dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/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. (RELATED: Kennedy Calls It Quits: Longtime Swing Justice Hands Trump The Biggest Gift Of His Presidency) 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.” Jacobin writer Todd Tucker made a similar argument in an essay on Friday, claiming that Democrats need to rig the court in order to pass far left legislation that might otherwise be ruled unconstitutional. Recent Supreme Court decisions, coupled with Kennedy’s retirement, mean “it is time to push a once-marginal idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court,” argued Tucker. (RELATED: Democrats Keep Destroying Political Norms To Go After Trump) “A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past,” he added. Even before Kennedy’s retirement, left-wing writers were laying the groundwork for Democrats to pack the court once Trump is out of office. New Republic writer Scott Lemieux argued in May that Democrats should consider packing the court if conservative justices keep Democrats from pushing a hard left legislative agenda. “Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either,” Lemieux claimed in the article, entitled “Democrats: Prepare to Pack the Supreme Court.” The left-wing magazine on Thursday tweeted out Lemieux’s article in response to Kennedy’s retirement. “Packing the court (or raising the number of justices) will become a question in Dem primary debates,” CNN analyst Harry Enten predicted following news of Kennedy’s retirement. Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis reached a similar conclusion. “Don’t be surprised next time Democrats have control of Congress and [the White House] if they consider changing the number of seats on SCOTUS,” he wrote. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4?kowww.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointmentsnewrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-courtTrump and the Republicans need to do a pre-emptive expansion to 11 seats. That means, once RBG can no longer serve, it will be an insurmountable 8-3 conservative court.
#winning
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 19:57:52 GMT -6
|
|
