All Things Politics Thread

[drgilbert]

 

[hornsups]

The Democrats are the ones moving the goal posts.  Harry Reed couldnt get 60 votes so they pass ed the nuclear option.  If he hadnt ACB would have never been confirmed.  Now you guys want to pack the court.  Moving the goal posts. 

The point is Republicans are not radicalizing the branches of government, the Democrats are.

Do you really think Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot? Come on man. You’re being disingenuous if you don’t think he would. He has shown he will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. It’s packing the court it’s reform. And the number of justices has been changed multiple times, this isn’t something new. Republicans radicalize the branches of government and they always will because that’s the politics of today. So again if the Democratic Party wins the 2 GA seats or 1 of those and the Alaska seat still being counted, they should add two justices to the court. Why? I think Republicans like to call it... elections have consequences. So everyone will have to just deal. 

 

[DMAC]

Do you really think Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot? Come on man. You’re being disingenuous if you don’t think he would.

Again man that is an assumption you are making and is not what actually happened.  I am merely showing you how and why it changed by Democrats and that very change was used to appoint ACB.  We used existing changes made by Democrats.  Even Democrats opposed the nuclear option and some of them came on record that they were opening pandoras box.  Now you are packing the courts?  SMH

 

[DMAC]

It’s packing the court it’s reform. And the number of justices has been changed multiple times, this isn’t something new.

There have been 9 scotus justices since 1839.  181 years so do not pretend this yearly maintenance because you know full well this isnt normal.  Again 1839......

Even your beloved RBG said it was an abuse of power by FDR tried to pack the court 1937.  She said 9 scotus is the right number and has been so since 1839

 

[DMAC]

Republicans radicalize the branches of government and they always will because that’s the politics of today.

Name one.  Just one.

 

[hornsups]

Again man that is an assumption you are making and is not what actually happened.  I am merely showing you how and why it changed by Democrats and that very change was used to appoint ACB.  We used existing changes made by Democrats.  Even Democrats opposed the nuclear option and some of them came on record that they were opening pandoras box.  Now you are packing the courts?  SMH

What am I assuming?? He literally did it. Reid got rid of 60 for lower courts and Mitch then did it for SCOTUS. He didn’t have to do that. That’s my point. You’re talking like Harry Reid changed something and then that was it. You’re missing the part were McConnell took it further. That’s what I’m talking about when I’m saying you don’t think McConnell would have done it if the shoe was on the other foot. He would have done it first had he had to. As for adding justices, do I think McConnell would do that if Republicans were in the position Dems are? f##king no doubt. He’s proven it with his handling of Amy Barrett. You can try to justify it but he was still against everything he and other Republicans said when the shoe was on the other foot. So now that Mitch has taken it a step further from Reid, if GA goes to the Dems in January, turn about is fair play. Schumer should take it a step further. Get read of the filibuster. Bring up DC statehood. And court reform. The people have given Biden a mandate. If they give us the Senate, it’s only right to enact policy that they support. 

 

[hornsups]

There have been 9 scotus justices since 1839.  181 years so do not pretend this yearly maintenance because you know full well this isnt normal.  Again 1839......

Even your beloved RBG said it was an abuse of power by FDR tried to pack the court 1937.  She said 9 scotus is the right number and has been so since 1839

Haha so you admit that it has changed before. Good, so it can change again. Also RBG said Trump shouldn’t replace her but he did. She also thinks Roe v Wade is law. She thought Trump should be impeached. She’s for 2A reform as well. So do you think she was right on those too? Or are you just trying to use her for this one thing??

 

[hornsups]

Name one.  Just one.

Did you just sleep through the last 4 years when Trump radicalized the Executive Branch?? I mean I guess you don’t think it’s radical because it’s things you believe in but again that’s your opinion. Just like you have the opinion Dems are radicalizing things. 

 

[DMAC]

Haha so you admit that it has changed before. Good, so it can change again. Also RBG said Trump shouldn’t replace her but he did. She also thinks Roe v Wade is law. She thought Trump should be impeached. She’s for 2A reform as well. So do you think she was right on those too? Or are you just trying to use her for this one thing??

SMH yes it went from 7 to 9 justices 181 years ago.  Pandoras box

 

[DMAC]

Did you just sleep through the last 4 years when Trump radicalized the Executive Branch?? I mean I guess you don’t think it’s radical because it’s things you believe in but again that’s your opinion. Just like you have the opinion Dems are radicalizing things. 

You keep speaking generalizations.  Your point is no clearer than it was the previous point.  Give me a specific example

 

[hornsups]

You keep speaking generalizations.  Your point is no clearer than it was the previous point.  Give me a specific example

Generalization?? You asked me to name one Republican?? Did you not? I said the last 4 years when TRUMP radicalized the Executive Branch?? Is he not a Republican? That would be one correct?

 

[DMAC]

Haha so you admit that it has changed before. Good, so it can change again. Also RBG said Trump shouldn’t replace her but he did. She also thinks Roe v Wade is law. She thought Trump should be impeached. She’s for 2A reform as well. So do you think she was right on those too? Or are you just trying to use her for this one thing??

Well this isnt the United States of RBG.  Her personal opinions are different from legal opinions.  She said would have voted against FDR, its on tape.  Her personal opinion of who replaces her was not an actual court case now was it

 

[DMAC]

Generalization?? You asked me to name one Republican?? Did you not? I said the last 4 years when TRUMP radicalized the Executive Branch?? Is he not a Republican? That would be one correct?

Jesus man.  I said an example of what he did not some generalization about a name

 

[hornsups]

SMH yes it went from 7 to 9 justices 181 years ago.  Pandoras box

Hahaha Pandora’s box. Well I guess we will have to deal. 

 

[DMAC]

Hahaha Pandora’s box. Well I guess we will have to deal. 

You cant see past the desire to win at all costs even though the ramifications of such radical moves destabilizes this government and the faith the people have in it.  It doesnt matter to you that is becoming a banana republic?

 

[hornsups]

Jesus man.  I said an example of what he did not some generalization about a name

No. You asked for one Republican. I gave you that. Then you said generalizations blah blah blah. Name one. Now you then asked a second question ask for an example. I don’t have to provide you an example. Because the thing is, no matter what I say, you will not think it’s radical. That’s evident. So why waste my time? 

 

[hornsups]

Well this isnt the United States of RBG.  Her personal opinions are different from legal opinions.  She said would have voted against FDR, its on tape.  Her personal opinion of who replaces her was not an actual court case now was it

No it’s not. And I see you focused on her personal opinion of replacing her but skipped her legal opinions on impeachment and 2A. I’m sure you don’t agree with her stances there..  but that doesn’t play to your point so you ignore it. 

 

[DMAC]

No. You asked for one Republican. I gave you that. Then you said generalizations blah blah blah. Name one. Now you then asked a second question ask for an example. I don’t have to provide you an example. Because the thing is, no matter what I say, you will not think it’s radical. That’s evident. So why waste my time? 

ok we are going to play this game then here let me clear it up for you.

You claim Trump has radicalized the Presidency.  Give me an example of how?  Stop avoiding the answer you know full well what I was asking.

 

[DMAC]

No it’s not. And I see you focused on her personal opinion of replacing her but skipped her legal opinions on impeachment and 2A. I’m sure you don’t agree with her stances there..  but that doesn’t play to your point so you ignore it. 

We are discussing the number of scotus justices.  You are deflecting.  Stay on topic

 

[hornsups]

You cant see past the desire to win at all costs even though the ramifications of such radical moves destabilizes this government and the faith the people have in it.  It doesnt matter to you that is becoming a banana republic?

Wait do you not think people like me have lost faith in the government when Republicans block a SCOTUS appointment. And then seat one going against the reasoning they gave when blocking the prior appointment?? That shows you the issue. You see it as Pandora’s box. People like me see it as right wrongs.