- Jun 26, 2015
- 26,406
- 15,495
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No, I'm against increasing the number of SC justices.You’re equivocating increasing the number of seats to the bench for the purpose of attaining some degeee of ideological tilt, with attaining the ideological tilt within the established number of seats as those seats were vacated by retirement and filled.
Well, it looks like they can because they did. Yes, the seat was vacated 'naturally' and was eventually filled but wasn't filled in the 'usual' timely manner, or Garland would have been seated on the court.The two aren’t the same, and because they aren’t the same, Republicans absolutely can “have it both ways.”
They said they couldn't allow Garland to be seated because it was an election year and then push through Coney-Barrette right before an election? How about we just agree that they are liars?
Upvote
0