Court packing is legal. It is no more against the rules than arbitrarily deciding nominees don't get to go through the confirmation process when it's a Democratic president, and then changing the rules to allow it when a Republican is president.I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules. I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it. I don't want that, and many others don't want that either. And that is why the dems keep threatening it I believe. But what Trump is doing now is perfectly legal and if the dems are threatening to do something that historically is not wanted, it is another indicator they don't ultimately want what is better. It is just more of their tantrum.
What is wrong and I think it will bite them in the ass is Biden and his choice of words.
No one would stand for it if Trump said these words when asked his position on a matter:
Court packing is legal. It is no more against the rules than arbitrarily deciding nominees don't get to go through the confirmation process when it's a Democratic president, and then changing the rules to allow it when a Republican is president.
Then, respectfully, you need to do a better job making your point. Because, it looked to me like you were contrasting court-packing with what Trump and the Republicans are doing on the basis that the latter isn't against the rules, it's legal, etc.I never said it was not legal.
Not following.
Then, respectfully, you need to do a better job making your point. Because, it looked to me like you were contrasting court-packing with what Trump and the Republicans are doing on the basis that the latter isn't against the rules, it's legal, etc.
If anyone is going to argue it's fine the Republicans, for example, change the number of D.C. Circuit judges, change the rules about when a vacancy can be filled to suit them, etc., then you have to agree court-packing is fine in order to be consistent.
I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.
I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.
I saw all that. So, what's the problem then? Because, respectfully, it sounds now like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.My first sentence I used that you responded to was:
I even then said:
Seems pretty clear to me, LOL.
You seem to have that typical trait I see with many liberals in blaming others for your created problems.
I agree that an odd number is best, although there's already a mechanism built in to deal with ties.If the courts do expand, expanding it to an even number seems kind of strange anyway. Unless they want to increase the chance for ties.
I saw all that. So, what's the problem then? Because, respectfully, it sounds now like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.You told me I need to do a better job making my point.
In response to something you getting wrong, LOL.
Me calling you on your lack of attention to detail is not arguing.
You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.
First, the personal attacks do nothing helpful.It's funny how your side thinks it's perfectly fine to cheat or change the game if you don't win. Though, your side has no faith or morals, so it's not surprising either.
You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.
I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.
I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.
First, the personal attacks do nothing helpful.
Second, you can only call it "cheating or changing" the game if you are admitting that what the Republicans have done is cheat or change the game.
You say you don't like the idea of court packing but that you would have to accept it if it happened. Does that mean you also don't like what the Republicans have done with regard to the courts?Seriously?
We literally just went back and forth (where you told me to do a better job at making my point)
I re-posted (and will do it yet again) what I said that you claimed I was not making my point clearly on:
Me saying I would have to accept it, means I don't like it. But I understand, if they can accomplish it based on the rules/process it is legimate.
I also believe that the more Biden doubles down on his not wanting to tell the voting public his intentions it will hurt him.
Especially when he is asked, please tell us the voters want to know. He says "That voters don't deserve to know".
Which you have avoided commenting at all about in any of this I believe.
Do you think it is OK for Biden to talk like that to the people? Who have every right to know how he stands on an issue that may or may not matter to them?
To me it shows the double standards that many liberals have. Could you imagine how much everyone's panties would be in a bunch if Trump had used that response if it was thought he was going to do that, and was being asked that publicly?
I guarantee it matters more for someone still on the fence. Someone like you probably just ignores it.
Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.There was no personal attack. I'm not sure why you tried to deflect and turn the situation around on me, but you're the side that wants to change the rules of the game because you're losing. You'd make a really shitty chess player as you'd be losing and try to change the rules and you would get kicked out of the professional league for being a moron.
Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.
As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.
Liberals change their moral stance on things on the drop of a dime to suit whatever situation they may be in. They are liars and morals aren't something you just get to change when you feel like it. Morals are hard core beliefs you have and if you change yours to suit whatever the current nonsense the Liberal media is telling you to lie about then you have no morals to speak of. The lack of faith is also very relevant and your side constantly attacks people of faith. Neither of those things were a personal attack against you, just facts. If you're hurt by the truth then that's your problem. The truth is you're poor losers, you still haven't been able to get over your loss in 2016 and keep trying to manipulate and change the rules to suit your situation. It's very dishonest, but your side is full of liars so again, not surprising, just sad.
You say you don't like the idea of court packing but that you would have to accept it if it happened. Does that mean you also don't like what the Republicans have done with regard to the courts?
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.
As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.