Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Look what the Demoncrats have planned if they win in 2020 >

Look what the Demoncrats have planned if they win in 2020

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Look what the Demoncrats have planned if they win in 2020

Reply

Old 03-20-2019, 06:13 AM
  #1  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 11,398
Default Look what the Demoncrats have planned if they win in 2020

The Mad Patriots

“On the Table”: 2020 Democrats Open to Packing the Supreme Court

Posted by: admin in Freedom News, Politics March 18, 2019 3 Comments 113 Views





Voter beware: The future of the Supreme Court will once again be on the ballot in 2020. The Democrats, driven to the edge of extremity by advocacy groups and left-wing fringe activists, are making sure of it. According to a new article in Politico, several prominent presidential candidates have already expressed openness to, if not a determination to, packing the Supreme Court with liberal judges to “take back” what they consider to be stolen seats.

Ramping up the number of justices in the name of turning the political tide of the court would forever delegitimize this constitutional judiciary, but the Democrats – long champions of a, cough cough, neutral court – seem to have no problem with this. If they have to slam through five more liberal justices to move the court to the left, they’re willing to do it.

Make no mistake about it, this is an “all hands on deck” situation.

From Politico:

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.

The surprising openness from White House hopefuls along with other prominent Senate Democrats to making sweeping changes — from adding seats to the high court to imposing term limits on judges and more — comes as the party is eager to chip away at the GOP’s growing advantage in the courts.
“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” said Harris (D-Calif.). “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

Expanding the Supreme Court would amount to a historic power play by the next Democratic president and Congress, requiring an intense legislative fight and the abandonment of many judicial and congressional norms.

But Democrats say that after Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and other lower court judges during President Barack Obama’s final term only to quickly fill those vacancies, the party needs an equally bruising response.
In a way, this plot to revamp the Supreme Court is more dangerous than all the talk of socialism, Medicare-for-all, free college, climate change, and Green New Deals combined. This is something the Democrats can actually do if they get into power. And after the ridiculous show they made of Brett Kavanaugh, do not doubt for a minute that they are willing to go for it. And “go for it,” in this instance, means not only packing the court with liberals but with extreme liberals – the type that currently populate courts like the Ninth Circuit.

If Democrats want to make sure that Republicans are energized for the next election, talk of packing the Supreme Court is an excellent way to do it. Let’s hope everyone is listening
Oldtimr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 08:33 AM
  #2  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,639
Default

Trump should embrace this today and add 4 more picks
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 08:38 PM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
C. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kountze, Texas
Posts: 4,447
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Trump should embrace this today and add 4 more picks
​​​​​At least enough to make Roberts (the Kennedy wannabe) irrelevant.

C. Davis
C. Davis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2019, 07:34 AM
  #4  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 658
Default

With conservative Justice Roberts turning out to being the most reasonable of the lot.
Erno86 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2019, 07:44 AM
  #5  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,639
Default

Originally Posted by C. Davis View Post
​​​​​At least enough to make Roberts (the Kennedy wannabe) irrelevant.

C. Davis
I think we need even more in order to erase a Kavanaugh 's vote also.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2019, 09:54 AM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
Lunkerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,914
Default

" Expanding the Supreme Court would amount to a historic power play"

The author of the article needs to review a little history... This is hardly an "historic power play" by Democrats... Tho I suppose it would be if it actually worked this time...

https://www.history.com/news/frankli...-supreme-court
Lunkerdog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2019, 01:32 PM
  #7  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,206
Default

My vote is to leave it alone at 9 justices. Extreme changes like going to a nuclear option that benefits one party will come back and bite them in the end down the road when there is the eventual power shift.
Champlain Islander is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2019, 04:45 AM
  #8  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Athens, TX for now.
Posts: 7,602
Default

There is nothing in the Constitution that says how many justices the court has to have. In the history of the nation it has been as few as 6 and as many as 10. So they can try to increase the numbers but still have to go through the same process as is used now. Only the President and put forth nominees and only the senate can confirm them. If the DEMs don't hold both the WH and the Senate they cannot do it and my bet is if even if they did hold them they would get shot down just like FDR did when he tried to do it.
flags is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2019, 06:44 AM
  #9  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,639
Default

Originally Posted by flags View Post
There is nothing in the Constitution that says how many justices the court has to have. In the history of the nation it has been as few as 6 and as many as 10. So they can try to increase the numbers but still have to go through the same process as is used now. Only the President and put forth nominees and only the senate can confirm them. If the DEMs don't hold both the WH and the Senate they cannot do it and my bet is if even if they did hold them they would get shot down just like FDR did when he tried to do it.
different times. They're already talking about eliminating the filibuster rule because they know they can't get their agenda through. So if they were to take the Senate, they have a shot, win the presidency and hold on to the house, get ready for 100% radical agendas to be passed including increasing the SC size
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2019, 07:43 AM
  #10  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,206
Default

The question is...what changed from the 2016 election with a huge win for the GOP then on to the mid terms which were a partial rebound for the Dems and how will it play out in 2020? The voters changed during Trump's first 2 years and I don't think it was due to our economy or Trump's accomplishments. It might have more to do with the bizarre way Trump conducts himself through his tweets and all the instability in his cabinet. I know after hearing what a great person so and so is when getting appointed to a high level position and then hearing all sorts of negatives when the person is either fired or quits, makes me wonder. I for one think Trump is his own worse enemy. I am starting to question if he can win in 2020 in keeping with what FM just posted above. Without a majority in both branches there is most likely not going to be much conservative legislation passed which will erode some of Trump's power. IMO if he started to act even remotely presidential he could offset some of the damage and get re-elected. POTUS making comments like calling Kelley Conway's spouse "the husband from hell" certainly aren't presidential. The rebuttal from Conway was that Trump is nuts. I think there are a lot of people all over the world who think the same thing.
Champlain Islander is online now  
Reply With Quote

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service