It needs to be made crystal clear...

[JHB]

If Mitch (via Trump) tries to fill RGB's seat, in direct opposition to everything he claimed about filling Scalia's, it will guarantee expansion of the court. Better yet, courts. Plural.

[idziak4ever1234]

1. I'm not very intelligent on Constitutional matters....

How would that work?

[Poiuyt]

3. The Constitution doesn't stipulate how many justices should be on the court.

[mr_lebowski]

4. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the # of SCOTUS justices.

It's varied in size a number of times in US history, though it's been 9 for around 100 years IIRC.

[mr_lebowski]

2. It's not in direct opposition ...

He claimed he was denying Obama because there was no chance he'd be the next President. His 2nd term was up.

I hate to say that, but that was what he claimed.

It wasn't just the 'election year' thing.

[JHB]

5. For that he wouldn't need the so called "Biden rule" he invoked so often

And don't give him any "well, technically..."s. What he did was a load of horsedump, and should be treated as such.

[mr_lebowski]

8. If it was horseshit ... and it most certainly was ...

Then what's our argument for insisting that he now needs to adhere ... to the aforementioned horseshit?

The only way we can reasonably argue that he needs to adhere to what he did before is to assert that it's actually 'valid'.

[JHB]

13. This is not a debate, this is a power play. No finely-honed argument is necessary.

The "argument" is: If he pulls that trigger, he does it knowing it will unlock a bigger one, which will be pulled.

[mr_lebowski]

14. Given the way Democrats handle subpoenas being ignored and such ...

I'm sure the threat of some sharply worded letters will have MM up into the wee hours tossing and turning.

[Volaris]

15. The argument is, that if he had behaved like a civilized human IN THE FIRST PLACE,

instead of the outright rascist hateful powerhungry treasonous snake that he is, there would be no argument from us, that a SC vacancy needs filled on Donald's watch.

He CREATED this problem by ignoring the norms of his post and wiping his ass with the constitution. There isnt too much we can do to stop him, but when he loses his precious majority leadership, his entire party can be punished for a goddamn generation ad far as I care. He needs to know if he does this, the following will happen:

1 expand the SC to 13 judges, and the federal bench to 100.
2 increase the number of House seats to 500 even.
3 END THE FILIBUSTER FOR EVERYTHING.
4 pass legislation into law that will so utterly devastate the conservative idea that the government is useless for people that it will keep their party in the wilderness for 50 years. I'm talking not just the Green New Deal, but healthcare for all, free tuition for all state universities, etc.
Fuck them IM DONE

[lastlib]

17. We don't have to claim it's valid--

We can just claim that he previously set the standard, and we're following it.

[PTWB]

6. Mitch has already said the situations are completely different.

He cites the fact that the presidency and senate were controlled by opposite parties then and the same party now. He absolutely will bring a nominee to a vote if he has the votes.

He is scum.

[JHB]

7. Who gives an eff what he's said? He's a shellful of turtle piss.

Make. It. Clear.

Make. The. Rest. Of. Them. Fear.

[MFM008]

9. of course he will

and he will be made aware there will be consequences if he does.
Now he can think that's OK now, but the GOP dog days are coming to an end.

[mr_lebowski]

10. What he said at the time was that Obama is at the end of 2 terms and therefore will NOT be the next

POTUS.

Not the same situation as now.

[PTWB]

11. That's not what he's saying now.

He’s given a statement that said he will bring the nominee to a vote. He’s justifying it using the reasoning I posted.


Republicans have short memories and are unfamiliar with the concept of hypocrisy.

[mr_lebowski]

12. I believe ya ... (nt)

[Meowmee]

16. I said a couple of years ago

It needs to be restructured as do other areas of the gov. More justices, no life appontments, appointed at 60 with a ten year term

[lastlib]

18. Years ago, there was a proposal.....

(I don't know its origin) for a National Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court. Take some of the load off SCOTUS, allow them to focus on the most important cases. I wonder if it's time to resurrect that idea.