Is it now time to expand the Supreme Court?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And you're just making up that no one is suffering from Texas law forbidding doctors and hospitals to provide emergency aide to pregnant women hurts no one, from your feelz, right?

I don’t recall posting that.
Please share.

a reply to: Vermilion

You need numbers or something to back that up, don’t you?

No, I don't. Logic tells us that when you change a law, and suddenly forbid women access to life saving medical care, women will die.

Don't agree. I don't give a #

ETA: I'm done with you and your off topic baiting. Your ignorance is not my problem

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Did I say Alito's agenda was his private, secret agenda? No. I did not. Of course he's working with other SCOTUS justices, in their districts, to achieve each other's agenda cooperatively, the bigger picture.

It's just Texas is leading the way for the nation on revoking our constitutional rights to reproductive decisions. Alito presides over the Texas court system.

Wait a second there.
I thought Alabama was leading the way. 🤷‍♂️

a reply to: Dandandat3


You want balences through the means of convolution? I don't see that ending well.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Did I say Alito's agenda was his private, secret agenda? No. I did not. Of course he's working with other SCOTUS justices, in their districts, to achieve each other's agenda cooperatively, the bigger picture.

It's just Texas is leading the way for the nation on revoking our constitutional rights to reproductive decisions. Alito presides over the Texas court system.

Still can't answer the question?

You made it sound like Alito himself decided. You are deflecting worse with every post now.

Did Alito decide "Nah, we're not gonna consider this case." or did the Justices decide? ❓

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Vermilion

Define a woman.

Ketanji says "take The 5th" 😀

a reply to: xuenchen

I said that SCOTUS justices' districts are like empires in which they can, and do, direct cases toward their agenda goals. I gave an example. You have posted your skepticism but have failed to disprove my assertion.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Did I say Alito's agenda was his private, secret agenda? No. I did not. Of course he's working with other SCOTUS justices, in their districts, to achieve each other's agenda cooperatively, the bigger picture.

It's just Texas is leading the way for the nation on revoking our constitutional rights to reproductive decisions. Alito presides over the Texas court system.

Still can't answer the question?

You made it sound like Alito himself decided. You are deflecting worse with every post now.

Did Alito decide "Nah, we're not gonna consider this case." or did the Justices decide? ❓

Did justice Alito not say that? This entire conversation devoted seems to just boil down to semantics with both you guys just saying prove one said one thing vs the other.
I am failing to see what exactly either side gains from this back and forth bickering?

The problem isn't the number of Supreme Court Justices. The problem is the selection process.

A Republican president nominates a judge, the Democrats do their best to throw dirt on them.

A Democrat president nominates a judge, the Republicans throw dirt.

Both sides are only interested in putting someone on the Court who aligns with their politics. Neither side is interested in putting someone on the bench who will uphold the Constitution.

That's how we get rulings like "Corporations are people", "The Second Amendment allows for infringement if the government says so", "Torture is OK as long as it's kept under wraps", and pretty much any other "Federal and State Governments can ignore the Constitution if they say they need to" type rulings.

Most, if not all, current justices are there to give the OK to rob American citizens of their rights and grant more power to government than the Constitution allows. Which rights we lose depends on the political leanings of who is on the bench at the time. But eventually, we will lose them all.

Expanding the Court will not change that. It will probably just make it happen faster.

a reply to: Dandandat3

i might could get behind expansion if they would instate term limits, or at the very least age limits.
i would also like to see age limits for representatives and senators.

term limits and age limits for all elected and appointed offices in the federal government.

Wait. So, the OP thinks the courts don't protect democracy and the solution is to make it bigger?

Only liberals think like this. Having and believing in two opposing viewpoints that contradict each other is a mental disorder. And the left in this country are bonkers.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Whatever her reasoning was she took to the grave.
RGB screwed 'her side' by not stepping down when Obama was in.

Personally, I'd like to see the next SCOTUS judge be a Libertarian or a 'no party' or an Independent etc etc. Break the Democrat/Republican lock that is on the Supreme Court. But I doubt any POTUS would have the guts to do it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

EZ
Reproductive rights being challenged and felled through Texas' Fifth Circuit District Court System, overseen by Justice Alito.

“Reproductive rights” ?
How about our 2nd amendment rights that are actually in the constitution?

Glad you asked. Doesn't a woman have a 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force for self-defense when her pregnancy threatens her health and/or life?

No.

Yeah. Thanks for confirming that people of your ilk think women are less than 3rd class citizens, zygotes and embryos being 2nd class.

And, they shall be judged by the contents of their uteri.

Stop whining, bake some cookies, make the guys some sandwiches.

And you want women to be able to lawfully shoot themselves in the womb area if it's a breech baby or something? C-sections are a better choice.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

SCOTUS ruled the 2nd Amendment wasn't only about war and civil unrest, that it was also about the right to self-defense. That means all kinds of lethal self-defense. I've heard some people have even had to have their hands registered.

In a nut shell, self-defense weaponry isn't limited to firearms and a 2nd Amendment right to lethal self-defense can be applied by any available means of weaponry that gets the job done.

Maybe even poison cookies.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

I said that SCOTUS justices' districts are like empires in which they can, and do, direct cases toward their agenda goals. I gave an example. You have posted your skepticism but have failed to disprove my assertion.

You made it sound like Alito himself decided. You are deflecting worse with every post now.

Did Alito decide "Nah, we're not gonna consider this case." or did the Justices decide? ❓

Now for your next best example? Or are you finished?

It was an interesting idea.

a reply to: FlyersFan

RGB screwed 'her side' by not stepping down when Obama was in.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she knew something we don't. At any rate, aren't you happy with her replacement, Amy Coney Barrett?

a reply to: xuenchen

I said that SCOTUS justices' districts are like empires in which they can, and do, direct cases toward their agenda goals. I gave an example.
Your skepticism has been noted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
At any rate, aren't you happy with her replacement, Amy Coney Barrett?

So far she's okay. No complaints so far. But like I said, I would like to see the next SCOTUS be Libertarian or 'no party' or Independent ... break the hold that the republicans and democrats have on the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I find it funny, when the Supreme court was only ruling in ways that made the left happy I never heard the right scream pack the court.

.....

The Right wasn't screaming it, they were just quietly and methodically going about doing it with the assistance of Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the Federalist Society. It wasn't an accident that Trump got to appoint 3 conservative judges, all approved by the Federalist Society in one 4 year term.

Lmao, it never actually happened in reality, so you’re sure it was happening in secret according to your fantasy.

And the completely random dynamic of SC deaths and retirements, must have a hidden hand behind it (vast right wing conspiracy lol).

Do you not tire of this ? Everybody else does.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Yeah ! " Build Back Better " The SCOTUS because it is the Liberal Thing to Do .........