It already got packed. Do you not remember longer than a month ago? First a new Justice was blocked by the Republican House, who then went against their own grounds to install even more right-favoring justices. Then that group overturned Roe v. Wade, running against a “supermajority” of society’s view on reproductive rights.
So is it just convenient for you to pretend that didn’t happen when pointing fingers, or do you legitimately not understand what’s going on?
You mean Senator Mitch "whaddya do if another justice needed to be appointed to fill a vacancy in an election year with Trump in office? {giggle to himself} I'd fill it" McConnell somehow used the Democratic held House in '20 to fill RBG's seat with the help of Republican minority?
We are using two definitions of packing. In my view, and the common view when the term has been used, nominating and confirming replacements for open seats on the court is not called “packing”. Adding new seats because you don’t like the make up of the court is what people usually mean when they use the word.
Right, and you're just going to completely ignore that they made that opening remain open until their guy could nominate the judge they wanted because of a rule they made up that they completely trashed a few years later. Yeah okay.
Also who exactly is talking about adding seats? Citations needed.
Huh, not one single person with any power to do anything. Why exactly should I care, when the people who could do something have repeatedly and explicitly said they ain't gonna?
You asked who was talking about it. That looks like a big propaganda push to normalize the idea. And besides, that last link negates what you said anyway.
We are using two definitions of packing. In my view, and the common view when the term has been used, nominating and confirming replacements for open seats on the court is not called “packing”. Adding new seats because you don’t like the make up of the court is what people usually mean when they use the word.
Cool story. But I’m not a conservative, and I have no position. Yes, I’m sure it would be easier for you if I was. Then you could demonize me and take comfort in the fact that once again you’ve attacked your enemy.
I don’t need to attack the source when it’s a left wing rag. You know what I’m saying is correct. But you people are more concerned with winning, and taking a dig at your enemy then unbiased sources.
Jesus even when saying you're not attacking the source you can't help making an ad hominem attack on a source you don't bother to engage with. I hope in the future you can learn to actually read the material before engaging ignprant dismissal.
L take. I never stated I didn’t read the material. An assumption on your part. I’m sure this incident took place, but because of the source, I’m sure it’s riddled with left wing bias and twisted truths. Would you really take an article from fox news about Joe Biden at absolute face value? No, you wouldn’t, and shouldn’t.
We can only do terrible things permanently. Good things are always temporary and we are powerless to change that. Children have to starve because otherwise politicians might have to actually do some work for a change. This is a very good and serious political system and we should just accept it as it is and ignore any alternative.
So it’s good that these programs were hugely successful and impactful to millions of people for very low relative cost (hint: it actually generates more than it costs) are just gone now for no fucking reason other than “it wasn’t a permanent measure”
We COULD have been doing this THE WHOLE TIME
We STILL COULD BE DOING IT
But no, fuck that, can’t help people now can we
Fucking liberals goddamn
You are disgusting, do a tiny bit of reflection got damn
I'm mostly just surprised it took this long for allegations to come out - he's been obviously and incompetently acting like a Russian asset, in public, for some time now.
Because the fewer people there are who can vote, the fewer people there are voting against them while their lunatic cult shows up every time. Exclusion and cheating are the only way they've won an election in living memory.
Well, yes. Naturalization has been there from the beginning and "Birthright Citizenship" as we currently know it was solidified during reconstruction. So yeah, it's pretty fundamental to who we are as a nation. It's responsible for who we are as a nation. Quite literally, in fact.
After the Civil War, Congress overrode the veto of then-President Andrew Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared people “of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude” who are born in the United States to be citizens.
The principle, enshrined into law in 1866, has granted citizenship to countless people for over two hundred years. How do you get “irrelevant” from that?
It can’t possibly have had more than one purpose? Especially given the broad language used that explicitly covered all people born here?
This is a truly extraordinary insight. Who knows how many judges have been ruling incorrectly, and here you come clarifying it for us all! Truly, you are a gift to us all.
Yeah that broad language didn’t cover native Americans…
I’m not saying it’s irrelevant like they’re arguing but it’s not as fundamental as your arguing either…
America has broadly worded laws like this not because we’re progressive but because our founders were so fundamentally racist that they literally didn’t think about brown people or women as people and so these laws would never apply to them…
Freedom of speech is also a fundamental principle of our nation, but it’s also selectively enforced. I don’t think your argument refutes mine as well as you think.
motherjones.com
Top