President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#47,753
#47,753
jonathanturley.org

In Vino Veritas: Punch-Drunk Pundits Reveal Plans to Pack the Supreme Court

Below is my column in the Hill on moments of honesty after the recent Democratic victories in California, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. In the euphoria that followed, Democratic politicians a…
jonathanturley.org jonathanturley.org

Best to not signal your intent.

Holder explained on a podcast: “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.” When asked about the priority in wielding that power, Holder declared that the court was hopelessly broken and had to be fundamentally changed: “It’s something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in ‘26 and in ‘28, ‘What are we going to do about the Supreme Court?’”

Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

oh yea..its gonna happen..question is if Rs beat them to punch and shove everything down their throat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider and Vol737
#47,755
#47,755
Orangeburst said:
Click to expand...

So according to Carville Dems can't regain power unless they change the laws. Far left Dems have been pushing this for awhile. What Carville didn't mention was how this kind of thing can get through the Senate. Is he saying the Dems will nuke the filibuster?
 
#47,757
#47,757
Sea Ray said:
So according to Carville Dems can't regain power unless they change the laws. Far left Dems have been pushing this for awhile. What Carville didn't mention was how this kind of thing can get through the Senate. Is he saying the Dems will nuke the filibuster?
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with "packing the court" (I'm more for impeaching those that committed perjury, and those that lied about the undisclosed financial gifts) , 9 justices is an arbitrary number, and the number is and always has been at the discretion of congress.
Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? | Constitution Center

If Mitch McConnell hadn't been a raging partisan hypocrite there would be no serious talk about packing the court.
www.brookings.edu

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote | Brookings

The historical record doesn't support the justifications the Senate GOP have proffered for blocking, and now permitting, election-year Supreme Court appointments, as shown by this case-by-case analysis of how nominations in election years have played out with both unified and divided government.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu
 
#47,758
#47,758
BeardedVol said:
While I don't agree with "packing the court" (I'm more for impeaching those that committed perjury, and those that lied about the undisclosed financial gifts) , 9 justices is an arbitrary number, and the number is and always has been at the discretion of congress.
Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? | Constitution Center

If Mitch McConnell hadn't been a raging partisan hypocrite there would be no serious talk about packing the court.
www.brookings.edu

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote | Brookings

The historical record doesn't support the justifications the Senate GOP have proffered for blocking, and now permitting, election-year Supreme Court appointments, as shown by this case-by-case analysis of how nominations in election years have played out with both unified and divided government.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu
Click to expand...
McConnell was one of the most unpopular politicians to routinely get elected. If it was his idea, it was a bad idea. And that includes "packing the court".
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Vol737, swampfoxfan and 2 others
#47,759
#47,759
Sea Ray said:
So according to Carville Dems can't regain power unless they change the laws. Far left Dems have been pushing this for awhile. What Carville didn't mention was how this kind of thing can get through the Senate. Is he saying the Dems will nuke the filibuster?
Click to expand...

Why not just doing it now? 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#47,760
#47,760
BeardedVol said:
While I don't agree with "packing the court" (I'm more for impeaching those that committed perjury, and those that lied about the undisclosed financial gifts) , 9 justices is an arbitrary number, and the number is and always has been at the discretion of congress.
Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? | Constitution Center

If Mitch McConnell hadn't been a raging partisan hypocrite there would be no serious talk about packing the court.
www.brookings.edu

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote | Brookings

The historical record doesn't support the justifications the Senate GOP have proffered for blocking, and now permitting, election-year Supreme Court appointments, as shown by this case-by-case analysis of how nominations in election years have played out with both unified and divided government.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu
Click to expand...
Discretion of Congress means it'd have to get through the Senate. Unless Dems have 60 votes I don't see that happening. This idea is nothing new FDR threatened it a long time ago. I'm well aware of its history
 
#47,761
#47,761
Sea Ray said:
Discretion of Congress means it'd have to get through the Senate. Unless Dems have 60 votes I don't see that happening. This idea is nothing new FDR threatened it a long time ago. I'm well aware of its history
Click to expand...
Don't need 60 if you blow up the filibuster
 
#47,762
#47,762
McDad said:
McConnell was one of the most unpopular politicians to routinely get elected. If it was his idea, it was a bad idea. And that includes "packing the court".
Click to expand...
afaik, McConnell never called for packing the court..they are upset just because of the Garland block..I wouldnt consider that with packing whatsover.
 
#47,766
#47,766
BeardedVol said:
If Mitch McConnell hadn't been a raging partisan hypocrite there would be no serious talk about packing the court.
www.brookings.edu

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote | Brookings

The historical record doesn't support the justifications the Senate GOP have proffered for blocking, and now permitting, election-year Supreme Court appointments, as shown by this case-by-case analysis of how nominations in election years have played out with both unified and divided government.
www.brookings.edu www.brookings.edu
Click to expand...
Mitch warned the Dems what would happen in 2013 if they used the nuclear option on judicial nominations. He advised there would be consequences if senate norms were ignored. He then followed through. I don't agree with it. But Mitch cautioned your party and they ignored it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider, Vol737 and 2 others
#47,770
#47,770
volfanhill said:
Mitch warned the Dems what would happen in 2013 if they used the nuclear option on judicial nominations. He advised there would be consequences if senate norms were ignored. He then followed through. I don't agree with it. But Mitch cautioned your party and they ignored it.
Click to expand...

www.pbs.org

Senate confirms 48 Trump nominees at once after GOP changed the chamber's rules

Frustrated by the stalling tactics, Senate Republicans moved last week to make it easier to confirm large groups of lower-level, non-judicial nominations. Democrats had forced multiple votes on almost every one of Trump’s picks, infuriating the president and tying up the Senate floor.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

You don't really have much of a leg to stand when it comes to complaining about changing the rules.
 
#47,771
#47,771
BeardedVol said:
www.pbs.org

Senate confirms 48 Trump nominees at once after GOP changed the chamber's rules

Frustrated by the stalling tactics, Senate Republicans moved last week to make it easier to confirm large groups of lower-level, non-judicial nominations. Democrats had forced multiple votes on almost every one of Trump’s picks, infuriating the president and tying up the Senate floor.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

You don't really have much of a leg to stand when it comes to complaining about changing the rules.
Click to expand...
Did that happen before or after 2013? I can't remember. Dates are hard. Dems broke senate norms and the gloves came off from both sides.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider, appvol and 2 others
#47,772
#47,772
volfanhill said:
Did that happen before or after 2013? I can't remember. Dates are hard. Dems broke senate norms and the gloves came off from both sides.
Click to expand...

I thought the response to the 2013 rule changes was to refuse to hold a confirmation hearing for a supreme court nominee?

Are we now saying changing to the rules to get your way are ok?

If so, then you should see packing the supreme court as a reasonable response.
 
#47,773
#47,773
BeardedVol said:
I thought the response to the 2013 rule changes was to refuse to hold a confirmation hearing for a supreme court nominee?

Are we now saying changing to the rules to get your way are ok?

If so, then you should see packing the supreme court as a reasonable response.
Click to expand...
No, I said Mitch warned that ignoring senate norms would come with a price. And he then proceeded to use his tiny turtle penis on them. It became the Wild West. The Dems got this ball rolling. So I think I will be the 727th SCOTUS justice in about 20 years. As these motions tit for tat. You got a shot too now. It's been clear since the last time the Dems had the senate that they would eliminate the filibuster should they ever have the chance to. The ones who wanted to protect it were ran out of office. It's going to be a huge mistake for this country
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, Vol since 77 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top