The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

You define it for me there chief,  it's not something I've found in the OED.

While you're at it, explain where you've sourced it and how republicans forcing through ACB against the exact precedent they set four years ago, doesn't meet that definition.

LOL....call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better (but it's not court packing)

[five points]

You really need a dictionary to tell the difference between filling a court vacancy and increasing the number of judges on the court?

[Milltown Row2]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

Have you not repeatedly stated that one reason you liked Trump being president was his effect on the Supreme Court?

It gives me great satisfaction to see the reaction of people like Sid but personally I have come to the conclusion that it essentially has no impact on me. What's going to happen is going to happen. I'm just head down making as much money as I can to worry about it

The American dream

[gallsman]

You really need a dictionary to tell the difference between filling a court vacancy and increasing the number of judges on the court?

When the people making the rules change them to suit only their agenda? Yes, absolutely.

[five points]

You really need a dictionary to tell the difference between filling a court vacancy and increasing the number of judges on the court?

When the people making the rules change them to suit only their agenda? Yes, absolutely.

Where exactly did "the rules" change? And where's the connection with you needing a dictionary?

Think about it, if you have an empty chair in a room, putting someone sitting in that chair is not packing the room.

[gallsman]

You really need a dictionary to tell the difference between filling a court vacancy and increasing the number of judges on the court?

When the people making the rules change them to suit only their agenda? Yes, absolutely.

Where exactly did "the rules" change? And where's the connection with you needing a dictionary?

Think about it, if you have an empty chair in a room, putting someone sitting in that chair is not packing the room.

When you establish the rules about how that chair can be filled, and then proceed to fill it in direct contravention of your own rules, then yes, it is.

[five points]

When you establish the rules about how that chair can be filled, and then proceed to fill it in direct contravention of your own rules, then yes, it is.

Which "rules" exactly?

[J70]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

Have you not repeatedly stated that one reason you liked Trump being president was his effect on the Supreme Court?

It gives me great satisfaction to see the reaction of people like Sid but personally I have come to the conclusion that it essentially has no impact on me. What's going to happen is going to happen. I'm just head down making as much money as I can to worry about it

What about all of those it WILL impact?

What's going to happen with gay marriage? Environmental concerns? Those with pre-existing conditions looking for health insurance? Those who are becoming increasingly powerless to get justice in the face of the might of corporate America?

And if the Supreme Court suddenly doesn't matter to you, why the vote for Trump?

Is THAT just to stick it to libs like Sid also?

[omochain]

An accomplishment by Trump but I think you would call it packing the court if the Dems did it.

I'm in the record as saying Garland should have been confirmed under Pres Obama

So Biden and Schumer were both on the record as saying that no judge should be confirmed in an election year.

Then when a vacancy occurred under Obama (upon the death of Scalia), they abruptly changed their tune and said that Obama should fill a spot in an election year

The Republicans in 2016 said that no....you shouldn't fill a seat in an election year and blocked Garland. Then when RBG died they abruptly changed course and confirmed Barrett a week before an election

So again, hypocrisy on both sides....just the Republicans managed to pull it off.

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

It's a wee bit more nuanced than that... https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

[gallsman]

When you establish the rules about how that chair can be filled, and then proceed to fill it in direct contravention of your own rules, then yes, it is.

Which "rules" exactly?

The ones that Lindsey Graham proudly announced could be turned against him if he went against him.

Take it up with him when there are 4 complete constitutionally appointed new liberal justices on the bench next year. He'll be out of a job, so he'll have plenty of time to chat with you.

[sid waddell]

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1321165074678112259

This seems like a good day to remind people that after Brett Kavanaugh was credibly accused of attempted rape he vowed to enact political retribution against Democrats for not believing his childhood calendar.

[Gmac]

A 47 year old female being sworn in by an African American  isn't this what liberals want all over society ? opportunities for everyone the American dream .

[sid waddell]

Tremendous fun on Channel 4 News this evening as a young woman in rural Pennsylvania tells Matt Frei that if Trump loses, she's moving to Canada

Frei didn't tell her

[trileacman]

If the election was held today Biden takes PA, WIS and MIC and Florida is a 50/50 so he could take that too. Would take a (not substantial) change of heart among voters in the first 3 states to get Trump back in but their seems to no floating voters around and battle lines seem firmly drawn.

As an congenial, old, white man Biden fits comfortably into what the lake states think a president should be. So he has the edge on Trump. If Biden couldn't win the home state of PA either then the Democrats are fucked everywhere, not just in the presidency.

Gut tells me Biden will take PA, WIS, MIC and FL (maybe after a delay) in polling but no others. Hopefully this will allow the EU to pull the ladder up on the those Brexiteers c***ts in the Brexit talks. Where I in Barnier shoes I'd call their bluff and I'd publicly tell let the Brits know the EU are offering no concessions and they can suck it up or f**k off into the international wilderness now that their pal Donald isn't around to rattle a sabre for them. It would give me the greatest pleasure to see those sneering pricks Gove, Frost and Cummings grovelling at the EU's feet.

[armaghniac]

A 47 year old female being sworn in by an African American  isn't this what liberals want all over society ? opportunities for everyone the American dream .

As she was involved in that maskless Covid fest in the White House, she is obviously not person of good judgement and so not fit to be judge.