Interesting
But you do understand that Garland would have been embarrassed and not voted in right?
Only if you delete the first sentence
M
member 3289
Guest
It was discussed during the election. Multiple interviewers and even Trump himself tried to get Biden to discuss whether or not he would stack the court. He always refused to answer, which was a very clear indication that he was going to do it. You're the only person I've seen who is caught off-guard by this.
Because Republicans played dirty in order to get a 6-3 majority.
exactly. So now the remedy for this "loss of one seat" (5-4 minority instead of 6-3) is to give a 7-6 majority to the victims.
that's makes sense to you?
i'm only surprised at how little people care about the long-term implications of this action.
If the Ds kill fillibuster and stack the court, that means they're playing an end game and don't think the Rs will be able to reacquire power.
you don't build a weapon like this if you're at all concerned about it being turned on you.
Impossible
Wait you mean like the Democrats removing the filibuster to allow executive and judicial nominations in 2013. And how that led to the filibuster removal for the republicans Supreme Court nomination ?
it's like watching Black Spy and White Spy work on the same trap, each thinking they're going to nail the other.
I like to call it the Obama rule
M
member 1013
Guest
I love American politics
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
No one said it was.
And I'm not even advocating for it. I'm simply stating that the tongue's clacking about how this is a destruction of the institution is laughable considering the political jockeying that has made such an option even a conversation piece. The whole history since near inception including constitutional mandate for intrinsic congressional power to change the number of justices as they see fit is as relevant as when the same politicians invoke the founding fathers for any number of reasons.
And separately for the record, I don't think something being done or not being done for a long time is a very good argument for doing it.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Congress should cut the number of justices to seven imo.
Haha
That would go over well. I wonder which 2 they would pick?
Who?
I like your style.
#HonorHerWish
*Bonus*
"If anything would make the court appear partisan it would be that. One side saying when we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to. So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation."
*Bonus*
"If anything would make the court appear partisan it would be that. One side saying when we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to. So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation."
The Thurmond rule in U.S. politics posits that at some point in a U.S. presidential election year, the U.S. Senate will not confirm the president's nominees to the federal judiciary except under certain circumstances. The basic premise is that the President and the Senate majority are of opposite political ideologies and as such the judiciary committee will not allow an appointee to receive a floor vote from the entire Senate during a presidential election year.
The practice is not an actual rule - and has been described by experts as a myth. It has not always been followed in the past, with presidents continuing to appoint and the Senate continuing to confirm judicial nominees during election years, but nevertheless, inconsistently invoked by senators from both political parties, usually when politically advantageous to do so.