Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it.
Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade.
It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future.
Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
I don't have a lot of confidence in our immediate future. But I haven't given up on our long term yet.
But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.
You're welcome.
It's a bit counter-intuitive, but apparently correct (and specific). I suppose the confusion comes from/with "court-stacking." And of course both major parties have used the misnomer when expedient.
Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it.
Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade.
It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future.
Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.
You're welcome.
Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it.
Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade.
It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future.
But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.
It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username?
Your onto us now.
Clever me!
You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby.
Posting to this webpage pays well.
You've said that before, but at this point I have to assume you're joking. BillG pointed out that less than 1% of all RP members post here. And many who do post here don't discuss politics. Who would pay to have someone stir up a teacup?
My hunch is that you're one particular longtime participant in this forum (using a different username) with too much time on his hands. Have you grown as much broccoli this year? How's your dog?
I really hope you'll disappear after Trump loses but like a bad case of hemorrhoids I doubt you will.
It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username?
Your onto us now.
Clever me!
You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby.
It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username?
Your onto us now.
Clever me!
You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby.
One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause". This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.
The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President. Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?
It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username?
One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause". This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.
The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President. Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?
It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username?
If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
There would be a lot of frothing from the usual suspects. It's mostly hypothetical (because it's unlikely to happen any time soon).
And while not directly related to the US Constitution, it's easy to point to bigotry in several State constitutions (which are not as shy and in some cases spell out the elephant) e.g.:
Arkansas Art. 19, § 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause". This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.
The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President. Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?
One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
Gosh, it's almost as if there hadn't been a 14th amendment to the constitution for 152 years, and a 19th amendment for 100 years. That you could read. That anyone, even a political cartoonist, even a poster on the RP forums, could read.
Those amendments are part of the constitution, which an originalist would regard as the law. And which all Supreme Court Justices (and all members of Congress; officers of the executive branch, including the president and vice president; and even members of state legislatures) swear an oath to support and defend.
But maybe that's too difficult a concept to communicate in one panel of a cartoon, which seems to be the predominant level of historical scholarship these days.
