I'd rather go by % change in population of the US since 9 justices were first seated, but 13 is a good starting point for the first few weeks of Biden's administration.
Upvote
0
Biden campaign reneging on transparency promise.
- Thread starter Aldebaran
- Start date
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,757
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
And then there's the fact that Harry Reid changed the rules that now favor the Republicans. Complain about Harry.
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 23,851
- 25,789
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You’d like them to be transparent about the right wing fantasy of a secret Harris administration?
Upvote
0
You are claiming that the Biden campaign is not being transparent that some people would prefer a Harris presidency?
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 23,851
- 25,789
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, I’m asking you to clarify. What is it you think they aren’t transparent about when you said this:
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,757
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Perhaps you should read the title of the thread. You know, as I said (and you quoted).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 23,851
- 25,789
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
OK. I have reread them. Now will you please explain you meaning when you said "That they can't even be transparent about that." in response to someone saying he would prefer a Harris administration?
Upvote
0
SimplyMe
Senior Veteran
- Jul 19, 2003
- 9,722
- 9,443
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I have. At the same time, I'm not the one who attempted to claim, "Vote for the dems, and the power goes to those who want to change the rules when it suits them," when that obviously equally applies to the Republicans. Again, Barrett would not be getting approved by the Senate, at least without Trump winning the election, if the Republicans had not change the rules to suit them.
You seem to be a bit hypocritical here.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,757
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
What rule did they change? The president and Senate have always had the power to appoint a SCOTUS nominee. So what's the problem, and what rule was changed? Did they ADD a seat to the court? Nope!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SimplyMe
Senior Veteran
- Jul 19, 2003
- 9,722
- 9,443
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The rule they changed was to get rid of the filibuster on Supreme Court appointments.
I'm not saying it was a problem, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of stating "Vote for the dems, and the power goes to those who want to change the rules when it suits them," when it equally applies to Republicans.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,757
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
If the dems pack the court so that they get to appoint the number of justices they need in order to always be in the majority, then it doesn't apply equally to Republicans. Once they change the rules, they stay in power and in control.
Upvote
0
SimplyMe
Senior Veteran
- Jul 19, 2003
- 9,722
- 9,443
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
This doesn't follow to me. After all, currently the Republicans have a 5-3 "advantage" on the Supreme Court -- and it looks as if it will soon be a 6-3 "advantage." In particularly, the last three seemed to have been very conservative justices, which is part of why McConnell removed the filibuster rule for Supreme Court Justices. Are you saying Democrats can't get "power and control" now because Republicans have stacked the Supreme Court with their justices?
Not sure how, if Democrats add four justices to make get a 7-6 advantage, how it would mean the Republicans would never get power and control again?
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,757
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
First of all, the term is court packing, not "stacking". And it doesn't mean appointing someone to fill an empty seat. It means adding seats. Currently, there are nine. Those who want to "reimagine" the system want to add more seats if Biden gets elected so they can fill them with the type of people his administration would rather be in power.
What Does It Mean to Pack the Court?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SimplyMe
Senior Veteran
- Jul 19, 2003
- 9,722
- 9,443
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, this is the reason I used the word "stacking" and not "packing." Don't pretend the Repubicans are not acting politically in trying to bend the Supreme Court to a Conservative viewpoint, particularly when they intentionally wait almost a year to keep a Democratic nominated (but quite moderate) justice from getting a hearing, yet hurry a pick in less than a month in order to ensure a Republican nominated justice gets confirmed.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
