Democrats say PACKING the Supreme Court Would Make America Better.

a reply to: tadaman

Fair enough.

I hope both “sides” can hear you.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

I continue to see the same rhetoric, We need more republicans... we need more democrats... nearly half the 120+ million registered voters are independent or unaffiliated, add in the third party voters and just over half registered voters are not republican or democrat.


Maybe its time to dump the two party system and shift more to a requirement for a coalition, all I know for certain is the big 2 have taken the strongest economy in the world and run it straight into the ground. more republicans, or democrats are not going to solve the problems we are facing and will face in the future.

July 10, 2018

"Court Packing" articles in left-wing publications are picking up steam, as their anger, frustration, and impotence mounts.

Almost as soon as Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, putting the legality of abortion and the safety of protections for LGBT people in immediate jeopardy, calls started pouring in from liberals and leftists for a drastic response: court-packing.

And the selection of Brett Kavanaugh as Kennedy’s replacement, ensuring the court will move dramatically to the right, only led the calls for court-packing to proliferate.

There is nothing in the Constitution mandating that the Supreme Court have nine members, and a simple act of Congress could increase that number to 11, or 15, or even more. That effectively creates a way for a political party in control of the House, Senate, and presidency to add a large number of ideologically sympathetic justices to the Court, all at once.


To many leftists and left-liberals, such drastic action is needed if any progressive legislation in the future is to survive. The concerns in question have less to do with hot-button social issues like abortion and LGBT rights and more to do with the constitutionality of economic regulation and redistributive programs.

Just this past Wednesday, the Supreme Court effectively gutted public sector unions under the guise of the First Amendment. In 2012, there were four votes on the Supreme Court (including Anthony Kennedy) for striking down the Affordable Care Act in full. And there’s an emerging movement of judicial conservatives, championed prominently by Donald Trump’s appellate appointee Don Willett, which wants the courts to become much more aggressive in blocking economic regulation.

Source: www.vox.com...

The more liberals focus on things they are powerless to change, the further away they take the party from ever regaining power. A viscious cycle.

a reply to: carewemust

I guess they shouldn't have an issue with whomever the President chooses then. It is part of HIS JOB!!!

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: carewemust

I guess they shouldn't have an issue with whomever the President chooses then. It is part of HIS JOB!!!

You're using logic. That doesn't apply to the radical left. They "have a problem" with anyone President Trump picks.

But Republicans have to remember that haters in Congress are the minority. It's 100% safe to totally ignore their whining.

Serious question to all of you, no matter your political leanings: 10 years ago did you ever think you would be having this conversation?

How many of you have been pulled into this political drama and have ended up learning how our country's branches of government work in just the last, say...4-8 years?

Is it a good thing to learn how the government was set up, what parameters the work in and how we can have a say?

It is divisive, to be sure right now, but, people are learning and talking about it and maybe eventually, everyone can come together and come up with some solutions. Knowledge is power! Have conversations (not screaming at each other fests).

If we can all agree to do that with logic, rationality and good will, I think a lot of good can be done.
Just my 2cents.

a reply to: frayedknot


If the U.S. is attacked by a foreign terrorist, or another country, and thousands are killed, we'll have unity for awhile.

All Americans were rooting for the boys trapped in the Thailand cave too.

So being united is possible, but it takes a catalyst of some kind. There are a ton of Americans who love chaos, however. Unity would bore them.

a reply to: carewemust

I am afraid you are right about that...sigh. I would hate to see a manufactured tragedy (again) as a catalyst.

The biggest problem I see right now is that people are jumping onto the outrage du jour without really looking into the schematics of ANYTHING. It is a crazy rabid hatred of anyone who dares think differently than people are programed to think.

This is dangerous. People need to research and THEN form their opinions, rather than jumping into the mass hysteria bin and screaming and fighting about things they don't even know if they are truly against.

It's a mad, mad world.
Thanks for the response CWM

a reply to: carewemust

Democrats lost the 2016 presidential election = They want to abolish the electoral college.
Republicans get to replace supreme couirt justices who are retiring = They want to change the make up of the court.

Democrats keep losing and dont understand it is their policies that are causing them to lose. Instead of changing their policies they want to force them by changing everything else.

Democrats have lost their effing minds.

a reply to: frayedknot

My largest most feverish hope was that trump would wake people up to the corruption in congress...

Right behind that, he would actually do some things to help the regular people.


He certainly has hit the mark on my first hope, jury still out on the rest. (I do not care about momentary assistance, I am looking for long term hope for the middle class)