This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yes...it's "shtick" to read and respond to the words of another poster...love it....beginning to see the pattern/problem here
Thanks for calling me out and setting me straight Super Sarg!!!!!!!
Like I said, you nailed him.
The thread is only 12 hours old, plenty of time to "repeat that lie so often they believe it". 
You may be right. Just noting that Nadler does add a bit of gravitas.
Pretty much the same with liberals. Think about Biden is on video saying "A marriage is between a man and a woman" Hillary was against gay marriage, Obama was against the gays getting married. It took time but they slowly came around. Now did they come around on their own or was it political and for votes? That we don`t know. A little of both I would think.
Assuming this is true (which is probably safe to do), what is the political benefit to trial-ballooning this without making a real attempt to implement it?
Assuming this is true, I’m sure it will be followed up with here by all the heavily right leaning folks who are bashing the left as power hungry with “I was wrong.....”
Me or wreck or are you speaking third person here? The bold is word for word what he did and you appear to be doing in this thread in this instance. You can read for yourself
He's horrible with context, jumps in the middle of conversations without half the understanding.
I didn't realize we had so many people competing for the PSF police force
And I wasn't even trying....guess I'm just awesome like that
When I went to look for this bill on govtrack.us I couldn't find it. I didn't want to offer any opinion until reading it as I thought there were three possibilities. This was just grand standing just like most of the 3995 unenacted bills you will find there. Option two was that this was a dangerous political gambit to actually pack the court. Option three is that there was a thoughtful bill to expand the court along @Sinn Feinlines in such a way that no one would honestly use the words "court packing" by (as an example) phasing in the new justices over many future presidential terms. I'm guessing, and always did that this was just another bill like most of the other 3995 proposed so a few people could stand in front of the camera and tell their constituents (both now and maybe future) that they were doing this great thing, but I still haven't seen the bill to know if this is really my opinion.
If that is their plan then they just hurt all of the non progressives of their party.
Allows Biden and other mainstream Dems to look like moderates for not supporting this (even though they’re doing a lot of progressive stuff that the public either likes or doesn’t pay attention to).
To show what can happen when a party has leadership willing to challenge it's loopiest members instead of caving to their every whim?
I know this was directed at a bunch of people who were posting on page 1 and not at me, but I do want to reiterate for the record that one of the reasons that I supported Biden is because I see him as somebody who's unlikely to get on board with additional norm-breaking. I don't expect him to support court packing, and I would be disappointed if he did.
Exactly! Seems rather inconsistent with the idea of a "thoughtful conservative" though.
Absolutely was not pointed at you IK.
This might be true, but how logistically would democrats pull this off? Sure they could conceivably get this out of the House, but there is no way this gets past the Senate Parliamentarian as a budget bill and thus could be passed with 50 votes plus the VP via reconciliation. So do they eliminate the filibuster here? Maybe they should but are even democrats so bad with optics that they would do both at the same time? And then what about Biden? I am not sure he is really opposed to this so I won't make that argument, but it is clearly not high on his agenda. How does he get through his agenda when this ties up debate now and then very likely cost him Congress in 2022?
I think you said you'd stop caring about electoral politics. Im gonna hold you to that !!!
Well, technically, the fact that you took time to respond to my post and then continue with it's defense means you were actively trying. If you weren't trying then you wouldn't have responded at all.And I wasn't even trying....guess I'm just awesome like that
Nadler said that under the proposed Bill, Biden would be able to elect 4 new Justices. So this isn't a phasing.
Terms limits should be instituted for all branches of Government, not just the Supreme Court.
The Center united and held in regards to Trump. I'd expect it to do the same again.
If applying reasoned judgment to a question always results in a shift towards progressivism for society as a whole then how can applying reasoned judgment ever confirm a conservative position?
Thanks. I didn't mention it but my three options were in order of being likely. And I did mention in a different post how if this was a real proposal to really pack the court it still seemed logistically impossible. I'll add even if it somehow passed as described it seems rather unlikely that Biden would be able to add these justices.
THERE'S the "technicality" the other two were looking for
You could tell he was lying through his teeth as he went from saying it was a bad idea to refusing to answer such question. As if voters were not entitled to know his plan for the court. Of course he was in a tough spot as either answer would negatively effect his chances. But it was far too important of an issue to brush off as partisan and also the reason I could not vote for him despite not liking Trump.
By the way....are we allowed to use this thread as evidence that many here in the PSF DON'T agree with packing the courts in the future, when the usuals come in saying "everybody" here cheers it on and wants it to happen? Or is that going to be a "gotcha" too? Asking for a friend.
Can't remember the last time this place was pretty much in agreement on something
I'm sure lots of conservatives are cheering this on in hopes that democrats turn this into a PR nightmare. In hopes that it all backfires into securing an even larger conservative majority on the courts. I doubt very many of those on the left that absolutely want the courts to shift left and actually gave a minute of thought to whether this would accomplish this goal are cheering.By the way....are we allowed to use this thread as evidence that many here in the PSF DON'T agree with packing the courts in the future, when the usuals come in saying "everybody" here cheers it on and wants it to happen? Or is that going to be a "gotcha" too? Asking for a friend.
Can't remember the last time this place was pretty much in agreement on something
I have a hunch more are cheering this than admit it. Just a hunch
Is that what she meant when she said she supported Biden's commission studying it, that it is an "idea that should be considered" and that it is "not out of the question?" Hmmm......
This idea that the Democrats ever played fair when it came to the court is laughable.
Isn't ending what you describe pretty much why The Federalist Society has been put front and center of right-wing judicial nominations?
You're probably right. Not much of a difference between the "screw the GOP, they started this" and the "Oh I hope they do this, screw it up or set a new precedent we can then claim ourselves" groups....two sides of the same coin.
I have a hunch more are cheering this than admit it. Just a hunch
