(10-26-2020, 11:14 PM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(10-26-2020, 11:03 PM)davebucknut Wrote:

(10-26-2020, 10:57 PM)ScarletHayes Wrote: So Murkowski, Dilecto and and Collins all voted against her, or just Collins?  A tad confused by some of the posts.  

Everybody in the gop except the senator from Maine (collins?)

All 47 dems voted no.
Final vote 52-48.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Man, if you're a Dem you don't dare leave the reservation.  Not a single defector.  Of course I guess you could say the same about the GOP, but of course the party of the president is going to vote for his nominees.  

If the Dems want to throw a hissy fit, they can go to Harry Reid's house and whine away.  Ye reap what ye sow.

The gop always has 1 or more defectors, but it has become extremely rare to see the dems ever have a vote that isn't 100% yes or 100% no on any issue.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ginsburg has had health problems for a long time.  She had 8 years to resign and be replaced by Obama but instead chose to hang on and then assumed she could safely resign under Queen Hillary.  She was arrogant and foolish and the Democrats have nothing to cry about other than her bad judgement.

exactly right. if not for her chutzpah, Obama would have replaced RBG....

(10-27-2020, 08:52 AM)Alabuckeye Wrote: exactly right.  if not for her chutzpah, Obama would have replaced RBG....

I think stupidity/selfishness could easily replace chutzpah in your reply.  Instead of enjoying the short time she obviously had left of her life she chose to push her judicial philosophy on the country and she got burned.  No one to blame for this but her.  I'd love to hear what Obumer's opinion of her is now.  She cheated him and rewarded Trump.  Stupid, selfish move that may have saved the country.  We'll have to wait and see what the socialists do next with regard to packing (provided they take over the Senate).

I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

(10-27-2020, 09:56 AM)Erhino Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP has never expressed any interest in increasing the size of the Court.  If Trump gets to add two more justices it will only be to replace current ones.  Also, I doubt the country will ever have any more constitutional amendments.  The parties are way too polarized to ever agree on something that important.  We basically have two distinct governments vying for power, not two parties.

(10-27-2020, 09:56 AM)Erhino Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

Well, no need to consider your hypothetical, as there is ZERO chance Trump would do this, and  his base would not support it if he did.

(10-27-2020, 09:56 AM)Erhino Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP would need the WH, House, and Senate. It's not looking good. But if they were to get that then a threat of packing might bring the left to the table to lock in the number of justices. I'm just not sure even then though the GOP could follow through on the threat as you are correct the right is more reasonable. If the Dems get all three branches there might be enough in at risk districts and with enough brains to know that packing could lose them the next election and the GOP would have to retaliate. It's a stupid road to even threaten but the far left of the Dems now look to be record setting when it comes to stupid ideas.

(10-27-2020, 10:04 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:56 AM)Erhino Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP would need the WH, House, and Senate. It's not looking good. But if they were to get that then a threat of packing might bring the left to the table to lock in the number of justices. I'm just not sure even then though the GOP could follow through on the threat as you are correct the right is more reasonable. If the Dems get all three branches there might be enough in at risk districts and with enough brains to know that packing could lose them the next election and the GOP would have to retaliate. It's a stupid road to even threaten but the far left of the Dems now look to be record setting when it comes to stupid ideas.

You need to brush up on your civics a bit. It takes more than that to get a constitutional amendment done. HT was correct that we will never see a constitutional amendment again added in this country. At least not one addressing a significant issue.

(10-27-2020, 11:48 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 10:04 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:56 AM)Erhino Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:22 AM)Erhino Wrote: I would love to see an amendment locking in number on SCOTUS. A Trump and Senate win could allow for preemptive packing. The left would be all over the amendment then.

The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP would need the WH, House, and Senate. It's not looking good. But if they were to get that then a threat of packing might bring the left to the table to lock in the number of justices. I'm just not sure even then though the GOP could follow through on the threat as you are correct the right is more reasonable. If the Dems get all three branches there might be enough in at risk districts and with enough brains to know that packing could lose them the next election and the GOP would have to retaliate. It's a stupid road to even threaten but the far left of the Dems now look to be record setting when it comes to stupid ideas.

You need to brush up on your civics a bit. It takes more than that to get a constitutional amendment done. HT was correct that we will never see a constitutional amendment again added in this country. At least not one addressing a significant issue.

Two thirds of both House and Senate have to ratify and then three fourths of the states have to ratify. I think I can safely say this will never be achieved with the current divisions between the parties.  Heck, it is not an easy process when everyone is getting along.

If the Democrats actually follow through on their threat to pack the court, the government has officially become defunct. They are saying they are going to make Puerto Rico and Washington DC states and then pack the courts. The US would become a one party nation, which would be a sad end to a great country. The minute they try to enact restrictive gun laws, which they would be able to pass by doing this, the US is going to have a civil war, and I don't think Democrats have yet realized that is not a war they can win.

they can't just do it on any of those items. There is a lengthy process for any of them. It's threats to try to control the power the Republicans have right now.

(10-27-2020, 12:00 PM)dunefan Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 11:48 AM)Beastdog Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 10:04 AM)3rdgensooner Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:56 AM)Erhino Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:46 AM)Beastdog Wrote: The left would NEVER agree to this, as it limits their ability to increase their power. The "bar" for enacting a constitutional amendment is high enough that some amount of bi-partisan support is required.

You donâ€t think they wouldnâ€t back it if Trumpsky wants to add two more to the court next term? Or four?

Reasonable people donâ€t want it. The left is not as reasonable as the right IMO.

The GOP would need the WH, House, and Senate. It's not looking good. But if they were to get that then a threat of packing might bring the left to the table to lock in the number of justices. I'm just not sure even then though the GOP could follow through on the threat as you are correct the right is more reasonable. If the Dems get all three branches there might be enough in at risk districts and with enough brains to know that packing could lose them the next election and the GOP would have to retaliate. It's a stupid road to even threaten but the far left of the Dems now look to be record setting when it comes to stupid ideas.

You need to brush up on your civics a bit. It takes more than that to get a constitutional amendment done. HT was correct that we will never see a constitutional amendment again added in this country. At least not one addressing a significant issue.

Two thirds of both House and Senate have to ratify and then three fourths of the states have to ratify. I think I can safely say this will never be achieved with the current divisions between the parties.  Heck, it is not an easy process when everyone is getting along.

Yep. I don't think any of us will ever see an amendment again. I just looked it up, the 27th (the last) took over 202 years.