But sadly we're in a time when Marxists want to overturn precedent and destroy our rule of law.


Senate Republicans Offer Constitutional Amendment To Block Supreme Court Packing


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Amendment%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Legislation%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

The first proposal would prevent the expansion or contraction of the Supreme Court by constitutional amendment, also known as the "Keep Nine" amendment. The second proposal would stop Democrats from unilaterally passing any court-packing legislation in the United States Senate.

Upon introducing these proposals, Sen. Cruz said:

"Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system. We must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance. That's why I'm proud to introduce these two commonsense proposals, which will prevent either party from adding or contracting the number of justices on the bench for political advantage."

After Democrats last week during the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett accused Senate Republicans of Court packing for simply fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominees, Sen. Cruz added:

"Don't be fooled by Democrats' hyperbolic rhetoric. Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power. Democrats are endeavoring to redefine the language to set the stage for a partisan assault on the Court. When it comes to our fundamental liberties – our religious liberty, our freedom of speech, our Second Amendment rights – we are often one vote away from losing them on the Supreme Court. For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary. These proposals would do just that."

Sen. Tillis added:

"For the last few years, Democrats have made no secret of their desire to see a radical, socialist agenda imposed on the American people. Unable to implement their job-killing plans through the Democratic process, they've decided they'll simply impose it on the American people through the Supreme Court. Chuck Schumer and his allies are now saying they'll pack the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans fulfill their constitutional duty to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Their proposals are dangerous and would give them free reign to appoint radical judges who would legislate from the bench, threatening the religious liberty and Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians. We have had nine judges on the Supreme Court since 1869, and efforts to change that is not supported by the majority of the American people. I am proud to co-introduce these proposals to stop Chuck Schumer's radical liberal agenda and maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court."

Sen. McSally said:

"Threats by Democrats to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court and add liberal activist judges is disturbing and dangerous. On top of that, some Democrats reluctance to even answer whether they would pack the Court proves a far more frightening reality. The left will first deceive the American people and then use any tool at their disposal to gain power and force their radical agenda on them. Our bills are critical to thwarting any efforts to fundamentally transform the Supreme Court, keeping the number of Justices at nine as it has been for over 150 years."

Sen. Wicker added:

"Proposals to 'pack' the Supreme Court and add seats to change its ideological balance should concern every American. There have been nine seats on the Supreme Court for more than 150 years, providing stability and trust in the rule of law. These two proposals would protect the independence of our federal judiciary and ensure our nation's highest court is not subject to political games."

Sen. Loeffler said:

"The shameful attacks on Judge Barrett are especially hypocritical given the Left's calls to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster in a desperate attempt to impose their radical agenda on the American people. These proposals will prevent Democrats from fundamentally altering the Court and adding new seats only to fill them with activist judges who will legislate from the bench and threaten the right to life, the Second Amendment and all the individual liberties that we as Americans hold dear. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in preventing attempts to undermine the integrity of our democracy and Americans' freedoms."

Sen. Hyde-Smith added:

"Having nine justices on the United States Supreme Court has worked for more than 150 years. Today, the long-standing checks and balances that are the foundation of our democracy would be thrown into crisis if threats to pack the court are successful. Packing the court is all about politics and power, not principle. The legislation we introduce today would keep our democracy intact and isolate the judiciary from the political whims of our colleagues across the aisle."

BACKGROUND:

Before President Trump had even nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Senate Democrats had already pledged their opposition to her confirmation.

Top Democrats, including Joe Biden, have falsely called Senate Republican's efforts to confirm Judge Barrett "court packing" because Republicans have been confirming principled constitutionalists to the federal bench. But as Sen. Cruz has said, "Court packing does not mean nominating a justice to fill a vacancy. [...] It is expanding the number of justices. And, you know, Joe Biden in 1983 said Court packing was 'a bone-headed idea,' and now that bone headed idea I think is their agenda number one if they win on Election Day."

Quote from: Solar on October 19, 2020, 02:15:45 PM
But sadly we're in a time when Marxists want to overturn precedent and destroy our rule of law.


Senate Republicans Offer Constitutional Amendment To Block Supreme Court Packing


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Amendment%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Legislation%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

The first proposal would prevent the expansion or contraction of the Supreme Court by constitutional amendment, also known as the "Keep Nine" amendment. The second proposal would stop Democrats from unilaterally passing any court-packing legislation in the United States Senate.

Upon introducing these proposals, Sen. Cruz said:

"Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system. We must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance. That's why I'm proud to introduce these two commonsense proposals, which will prevent either party from adding or contracting the number of justices on the bench for political advantage."

After Democrats last week during the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett accused Senate Republicans of Court packing for simply fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominees, Sen. Cruz added:

"Don't be fooled by Democrats' hyperbolic rhetoric. Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power. Democrats are endeavoring to redefine the language to set the stage for a partisan assault on the Court. When it comes to our fundamental liberties – our religious liberty, our freedom of speech, our Second Amendment rights – we are often one vote away from losing them on the Supreme Court. For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary. These proposals would do just that."

Sen. Tillis added:

"For the last few years, Democrats have made no secret of their desire to see a radical, socialist agenda imposed on the American people. Unable to implement their job-killing plans through the Democratic process, they've decided they'll simply impose it on the American people through the Supreme Court. Chuck Schumer and his allies are now saying they'll pack the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans fulfill their constitutional duty to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Their proposals are dangerous and would give them free reign to appoint radical judges who would legislate from the bench, threatening the religious liberty and Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians. We have had nine judges on the Supreme Court since 1869, and efforts to change that is not supported by the majority of the American people. I am proud to co-introduce these proposals to stop Chuck Schumer's radical liberal agenda and maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court."

Sen. McSally said:

"Threats by Democrats to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court and add liberal activist judges is disturbing and dangerous. On top of that, some Democrats reluctance to even answer whether they would pack the Court proves a far more frightening reality. The left will first deceive the American people and then use any tool at their disposal to gain power and force their radical agenda on them. Our bills are critical to thwarting any efforts to fundamentally transform the Supreme Court, keeping the number of Justices at nine as it has been for over 150 years."

Sen. Wicker added:

"Proposals to 'pack' the Supreme Court and add seats to change its ideological balance should concern every American. There have been nine seats on the Supreme Court for more than 150 years, providing stability and trust in the rule of law. These two proposals would protect the independence of our federal judiciary and ensure our nation's highest court is not subject to political games."

Sen. Loeffler said:

"The shameful attacks on Judge Barrett are especially hypocritical given the Left's calls to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster in a desperate attempt to impose their radical agenda on the American people. These proposals will prevent Democrats from fundamentally altering the Court and adding new seats only to fill them with activist judges who will legislate from the bench and threaten the right to life, the Second Amendment and all the individual liberties that we as Americans hold dear. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in preventing attempts to undermine the integrity of our democracy and Americans' freedoms."

Sen. Hyde-Smith added:

"Having nine justices on the United States Supreme Court has worked for more than 150 years. Today, the long-standing checks and balances that are the foundation of our democracy would be thrown into crisis if threats to pack the court are successful. Packing the court is all about politics and power, not principle. The legislation we introduce today would keep our democracy intact and isolate the judiciary from the political whims of our colleagues across the aisle."

BACKGROUND:

Before President Trump had even nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Senate Democrats had already pledged their opposition to her confirmation.

Top Democrats, including Joe Biden, have falsely called Senate Republican's efforts to confirm Judge Barrett "court packing" because Republicans have been confirming principled constitutionalists to the federal bench. But as Sen. Cruz has said, "Court packing does not mean nominating a justice to fill a vacancy. [...] It is expanding the number of justices. And, you know, Joe Biden in 1983 said Court packing was 'a bone-headed idea,' and now that bone headed idea I think is their agenda number one if they win on Election Day."

The way you block packing the sc, is to not elect democrats.

Quote from: Possum on October 19, 2020, 02:24:14 PM
The way you block packing the sc, is to not elect democrats.

That would be ideal, considering there won't be a DNC when this is over.

I agree with the above senators that packing the court would be a horrible idea and is entirely aimed at getting the court to do what the leftists wish it to do which is to completely throw out the constitution and then rule simply based off whether or not it supports the leftist agenda. The Supreme Court was never meant to have this large an amount of power in the first place which is perhaps why the exact number of justices that sit on the court was never specified. Additionally, while the Founders were very smart in a lot of regards when it came to writing the Constitution, I think that they may have not estimated people's willingness to sacrifice time honored traditions or safeguards in favor of short term gains. If one side were to pack the court the other side of the aisle will most certainly do the same when they have the power to do so. The check on this was that no one would dare open the flood gates to this however it has become increasingly obvious that people will do so if they think it can have a lasting impact. This idea also applies to Congressional and Executive Powers but that is another topic for another time. Needless to say I believe that amending the Constitution, which is not something I usually suggest, to ensure that there is a specified number of justices on the court would be a good idea. I would also say that the Filibuster instead of simply being a senate procedural rule should be enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that the minority party always has an ability to ensure legislation does not go forward that it does not approve of.

Quote from: Centinel on November 09, 2020, 08:56:01 AM
I agree with the above senators that packing the court would be a horrible idea and is entirely aimed at getting the court to do what the leftists wish it to do which is to completely throw out the constitution and then rule simply based off whether or not it supports the leftist agenda.

The Supreme Court was never meant to have this large an amount of power in the first place which is perhaps why the exact number of justices that sit on the court was never specified.
Additionally, while the Founders were very smart in a lot of regards when it came to writing the Constitution, I think that they may have not estimated people's willingness to sacrifice time honored traditions or safeguards in favor of short term gains.

If one side were to pack the court the other side of the aisle will most certainly do the same when they have the power to do so. The check on this was that no one would dare open the flood gates to this however it has become increasingly obvious that people will do so if they think it can have a lasting impact.
This idea also applies to Congressional and Executive Powers but that is another topic for another time. Needless to say I believe that amending the Constitution, which is not something I usually suggest, to ensure that there is a specified number of justices on the court would be a good idea.
I would also say that the Filibuster instead of simply being a senate procedural rule should be enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that the minority party always has an ability to ensure legislation does not go forward that it does not approve of.

Well said!
Take a look at how I broke up your post, this makes it easier to read, especially those on mobile devises.
Try and break up your posts. Thanx.

Quote from: Centinel on November 09, 2020, 08:56:01 AM
I agree with the above senators that packing the court would be a horrible idea and is entirely aimed at getting the court to do what the leftists wish it to do which is to completely throw out the constitution and then rule simply based off whether or not it supports the leftist agenda. The Supreme Court was never meant to have this large an amount of power in the first place which is perhaps why the exact number of justices that sit on the court was never specified. Additionally, while the Founders were very smart in a lot of regards when it came to writing the Constitution, I think that they may have not estimated people's willingness to sacrifice time honored traditions or safeguards in favor of short term gains. If one side were to pack the court the other side of the aisle will most certainly do the same when they have the power to do so. The check on this was that no one would dare open the flood gates to this however it has become increasingly obvious that people will do so if they think it can have a lasting impact. This idea also applies to Congressional and Executive Powers but that is another topic for another time. Needless to say I believe that amending the Constitution, which is not something I usually suggest, to ensure that there is a specified number of justices on the court would be a good idea. I would also say that the Filibuster instead of simply being a senate procedural rule should be enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that the minority party always has an ability to ensure legislation does not go forward that it does not approve of.

Your suggestions make much sense. I believe the states would ratify specifying the number of justices. The filibuster issue is a higher hill to climb.

No doubt that the Filibuster issue is definitely one that would be harder to ratify as I do not hear anyone even talking of such an amendment.

As to the Justices Amendment I would agree that it could be passed but it would still face an uphill battle. There are 29 states that I could reasonably see ratifying it without much of an issue. The remaining 9 would be tough. I could see perhaps Maine, Virginia, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and maybe Colorado ratifying under the right circumstances however that is only 7 and the remaining states are all very heavily Democrat and I don't see them ratifying under most circumstances.

Quote from: Centinel on November 09, 2020, 09:49:28 AM
No doubt that the Filibuster issue is definitely one that would be harder to ratify as I do not hear anyone even talking of such an amendment.

As to the Justices Amendment I would agree that it could be passed but it would still face an uphill battle. There are 29 states that I could reasonably see ratifying it without much of an issue. The remaining 9 would be tough. I could see perhaps Maine, Virginia, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and maybe Colorado ratifying under the right circumstances however that is only 7 and the remaining states are all very heavily Democrat and I don't see them ratifying under most circumstances.

What is strange is that the filibuster is good for both parties long term. Unfortunately democrats lack the ability to think long term.

Quote from: Solar on October 19, 2020, 02:15:45 PM
But sadly we're in a time when Marxists want to overturn precedent and destroy our rule of law.


Senate Republicans Offer Constitutional Amendment To Block Supreme Court Packing


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Amendment%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Legislation%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

The first proposal would prevent the expansion or contraction of the Supreme Court by constitutional amendment, also known as the "Keep Nine" amendment. The second proposal would stop Democrats from unilaterally passing any court-packing legislation in the United States Senate.

Upon introducing these proposals, Sen. Cruz said:

"Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system. We must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance. That's why I'm proud to introduce these two commonsense proposals, which will prevent either party from adding or contracting the number of justices on the bench for political advantage."

After Democrats last week during the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett accused Senate Republicans of Court packing for simply fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominees, Sen. Cruz added:

"Don't be fooled by Democrats' hyperbolic rhetoric. Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power. Democrats are endeavoring to redefine the language to set the stage for a partisan assault on the Court. When it comes to our fundamental liberties – our religious liberty, our freedom of speech, our Second Amendment rights – we are often one vote away from losing them on the Supreme Court. For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary. These proposals would do just that."

Sen. Tillis added:

"For the last few years, Democrats have made no secret of their desire to see a radical, socialist agenda imposed on the American people. Unable to implement their job-killing plans through the Democratic process, they've decided they'll simply impose it on the American people through the Supreme Court. Chuck Schumer and his allies are now saying they'll pack the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans fulfill their constitutional duty to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Their proposals are dangerous and would give them free reign to appoint radical judges who would legislate from the bench, threatening the religious liberty and Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians. We have had nine judges on the Supreme Court since 1869, and efforts to change that is not supported by the majority of the American people. I am proud to co-introduce these proposals to stop Chuck Schumer's radical liberal agenda and maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court."

Sen. McSally said:

"Threats by Democrats to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court and add liberal activist judges is disturbing and dangerous. On top of that, some Democrats reluctance to even answer whether they would pack the Court proves a far more frightening reality. The left will first deceive the American people and then use any tool at their disposal to gain power and force their radical agenda on them. Our bills are critical to thwarting any efforts to fundamentally transform the Supreme Court, keeping the number of Justices at nine as it has been for over 150 years."

Sen. Wicker added:

"Proposals to 'pack' the Supreme Court and add seats to change its ideological balance should concern every American. There have been nine seats on the Supreme Court for more than 150 years, providing stability and trust in the rule of law. These two proposals would protect the independence of our federal judiciary and ensure our nation's highest court is not subject to political games."

Sen. Loeffler said:

"The shameful attacks on Judge Barrett are especially hypocritical given the Left's calls to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster in a desperate attempt to impose their radical agenda on the American people. These proposals will prevent Democrats from fundamentally altering the Court and adding new seats only to fill them with activist judges who will legislate from the bench and threaten the right to life, the Second Amendment and all the individual liberties that we as Americans hold dear. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in preventing attempts to undermine the integrity of our democracy and Americans' freedoms."

Sen. Hyde-Smith added:

"Having nine justices on the United States Supreme Court has worked for more than 150 years. Today, the long-standing checks and balances that are the foundation of our democracy would be thrown into crisis if threats to pack the court are successful. Packing the court is all about politics and power, not principle. The legislation we introduce today would keep our democracy intact and isolate the judiciary from the political whims of our colleagues across the aisle."

BACKGROUND:

Before President Trump had even nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Senate Democrats had already pledged their opposition to her confirmation.

Top Democrats, including Joe Biden, have falsely called Senate Republican's efforts to confirm Judge Barrett "court packing" because Republicans have been confirming principled constitutionalists to the federal bench. But as Sen. Cruz has said, "Court packing does not mean nominating a justice to fill a vacancy. [...] It is expanding the number of justices. And, you know, Joe Biden in 1983 said Court packing was 'a bone-headed idea,' and now that bone headed idea I think is their agenda number one if they win on Election Day."

Eh...it needs some amending.

It's been amended every 20 years, or so, as is. No reason for us to stop now.

Quote from: joesixpack on November 09, 2020, 12:31:23 PM
Eh...it needs some amending.

It's been amended every 20 years, or so, as is. No reason for us to stop now.

If we are going to amend it though you need to be extremely careful in doing so because you don't know how people are doing to misinterpret or even blatantly ignore parts of it in the future. The debate surrounding the 2nd Amendment is a good example of this because although the Right of the People part is exceedingly obvious to anyone that has read the remainder of the document that still doesn't stop people from trying to corrupt it.

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 11:32:00 AM
If we are going to amend it though you need to be extremely careful in doing so because you don't know how people are doing to misinterpret or even blatantly ignore parts of it in the future. The debate surrounding the 2nd Amendment is a good example of this because although the Right of the People part is exceedingly obvious to anyone that has read the remainder of the document that still doesn't stop people from trying to corrupt it.

FYI. Jokey is our resident idiot Marxist. Attempting to reason with him is akin to finding the clean end of the turd.

Seems like many Republicans are simply trying to get out of their responsibility for winning elections consistently in the first place.

Quote from: Dayton3 on December 20, 2020, 01:42:00 PM
Seems like many Republicans are simply trying to get out of their responsibility for winning elections consistently in the first place.

  Tell us again how you are more conservative than most of us.

Quote from: Possum on December 20, 2020, 03:23:05 PM
Tell us again how you are more conservative than most of us.

I'm more conservative than most of you here.

Quote from: Dayton3 on December 21, 2020, 05:21:54 AM
I'm more conservative than most of you here.

No son, you are not!!! We were born Conservative, most of us here anyway, which is why we have an inert grasp of its true meaning.
The difference being, you only recently entered politics, so your view of what the meaning of being a Conservative is skewed by the media.

We were Conservative when no one even used the term. Being a Conservative used to be a way of life, it's only been the last 40 years that it became a divisive term, and guess who made it divisive?
Leftists in both party's!