Amy Coney Barrett

[bottomups]

Harry Reid removed the filibuster for approving judges. Thought the Democrat controlled Senate with Obama would fill vacancies with liberal judges. Surprise!

Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.

 

[It will be fine]

Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.

He had to because Mitch wouldn’t allow any judicial appointments by Obama. Mitch abuses the rules and then clutches his pearls when Democrats follow the logical response.

 

[vantexan]

Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.

Oh yes he did. Only requires a simple majority now or ACB wouldn't have been passed last night.

 

[vantexan]

He had to because Mitch wouldn’t allow any judicial appointments by Obama. Mitch abuses the rules and then clutches his pearls when Democrats follow the logical response.

Seriously? Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader when he changed the rules, not McConnell. He didn't have the votes, true, but McConnell could only ask his side not to approve at that point. He couldn't make them vote against, nor can he now.

 

[vantexan]

And when it comes to rigging courts at all federal levels nobody knows more about that than Mitch and his minions.

Only a Democrat would see following the Constitution as rigging.

 

[It will be fine]

Seriously? Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader when he changed the rules, not McConnell. He didn't have the votes, true, but McConnell could only ask his side not to approve at that point. He couldn't make them vote against, nor can he now.

McConnell used every dirty trick he could find to sabotage Obama. To pretend Reid eliminates the filibuster out of nowhere is ridiculous.

 

[Wally]

Interpretation is what judges do. It’s literally their entire job. To pretend a “textual“ interpretation is any more valid than a progressive one is foolish.

Wrong. The constitution is clear cut.

 

[It will be fine]

Only a Democrat would see following the Constitution as rigging.

So you agree with expanding the court if that’s what the next democratic senate decides?

 

[It will be fine]

Wrong. The constitution is clear cut.

That’s why there’s never a debate about the meaning of what’s in it? What do you think judges do? Why are there court cases? Your belief has no basis in reality.

 

[Wally]

That’s why there’s never a debate about the meaning of what’s in it? What do you think judges do? Why are there court cases? Your belief has no basis in reality.

The real reality is Dems will now have a hard time getting the courts to do their dirty work. That's winning!

 

[vantexan]

McConnell used every dirty trick he could find to sabotage Obama. To pretend Reid eliminates the filibuster out of nowhere is ridiculous.

Dirty trick or following the Constitution? Reid followed the Constitution by eliminating the filibuster because as Senate majority leader he had that power. McConnell used what was available to him to try and stop what Obama was attempting to do. The system allows for that so that compromises that are acceptable to both sides can be reached. In the broader context Obama wanted cap-and-trade. He wanted to raise energy prices so high that everyone's utility bills would skyrocket. He had already pushed through Obamacare. McConnell was fighting what Obama and Reid wanted. And they weren't interested in compromise with McConnell. And caused a wave election for Republicans in 2014.

 

[vantexan]

So you agree with expanding the court if that’s what the next democratic senate decides?

Ask Biden. He said it was a "boneheaded" idea. Yes, the Democrats will have the power to if they win the majority. But either side doing it to attempt one party rule is bad for democracy.

 

[bottomups]

Oh yes he did. Only requires a simple majority now or ACB wouldn't have been passed last night.

No he didn't. Fact check yourself. McConnell changed it to simple majority in 2017 for SCOTUS.

 

[Fred's Myth]

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Thomas Jefferson

One among many quotes, feel free to look up more yourself.

Thanks for disclosing the purpose of the Amendments. Amend, not change.

As verbs the difference between change and amend
is that change is to become something different while amend is to make better.

difference between amend and change - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Fred's Myth]

Interpretation is what judges do. It’s literally their entire job. To pretend a “textual“ interpretation is any more valid than a progressive one is foolish.

“[A] jurist is not to innovate at pleasure,” wrote Justice Cardozo. “He is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life."

limitations-on-the-exercise-of-judicial-review

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[It will be fine]

Thanks for disclosing the purpose of the Amendments. Amend, not change.

As verbs the difference between change and amend
is that change is to become something different while amend is to make better.

difference between amend and change - Google Search

www.google.com

Jefferson used the word change in that quote. Do you take issue with his usage? I don’t know what point you are trying to make.

 

[newfie]

And when it comes to rigging courts at all federal levels nobody knows more about that than Mitch and his minions.

Suddenly using a constitutional process is rigging

 

[JJinVA]

Frequent, the implication being he is in favor of changes to laws and constitutions. This isn’t hard to follow. The constitution was never meant to be seen as perfect handed down by god.

We have processes for Constitutional Amendments. They understood full well that things would change, but they also made it quite the process to add an Amendment because they had the foresight to perceive this current generation of tards

 

[100012438]

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

That sums up the socialists movement democrats are seeking. To completely upend the most successful form of government the world has ever seen, for one of the worse forms the world has ever seen.

European Catholic monarchy?

 

[Wally]

Ask Biden. He said it was a "boneheaded" idea. Yes, the Democrats will have the power to if they win the majority. But either side doing it to attempt one party rule is bad for democracy.

Don't ask Sleepy Joe, he wont remember. He recently thought George Bush was still President!