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. :biggrin:
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 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!
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2020, 05:41:01 AM
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!
I've been voting for the more conservative candidates since 1988. So I haven't only recently entered politics.
Quote from: Dayton3 on December 21, 2020, 01:13:20 PM
I've been voting for the more conservative candidates since 1988. So I haven't only recently entered politics.
You'd think you would be smarter.......
Quote from: Dayton3 on December 21, 2020, 01:13:20 PM
I've been voting for the more conservative candidates since 1988. So I haven't only recently entered politics.
Since 1988? So you completely missed JFK, LBJ (Nam), Nixon, Carter and the Reagan Revolution?
Yeah, you just entered politics.
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2020, 02:15:31 PM
Since 1988? So you completely missed JFK, LBJ (Nam), Nixon, Carter and the Reagan Revolution?
Yeah, you just entered politics.
I was a year too young to vote in the 1984 election. But I had a strong interest in politics going back to 1976.
Quote from: Dayton3 on December 22, 2020, 11:06:03 AM
I was a year too young to vote in the 1984 election. But I had a strong interest in politics going back to 1976.
What were the political highlights of 1976?
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."
What constitution?
Quote from: Rockfish on January 01, 2021, 08:48:33 AM
What constitution?
Gee, what a brilliant retort... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Owebo on December 22, 2020, 11:07:58 AM
What were the political highlights of 1976?
It was the Bicentennial year. Carter was running against Ford. Reagan was trying to take the nomination from Ford and almost succeeded. Carter won very narrowly. Unfortunately.
Though it is worth remembering that Carter ran far more conservatively than he turned out to be while in office. But this was a pattern with Carter as in Georgia governors race he had run as a tried and true southern Democratic racist and then turned around completely as soon as he was sworn in.
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 04:16:57 AM
Gee, what a brilliant retort... :rolleyes:
LOL what constitution? Are you referring to the one that does NOT protect religious freedom?
So what constitution
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 06:30:34 AM
LOL what constitution? Are you referring to the one that does NOT protect religious freedom?
So what constitution
That would be the Bill of Rights, and who do you expect to protect it, Govt? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 06:33:48 AM
That would be the Bill of Rights, and who do you expect to protect it, Govt? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Grow up, religious freedom is not being protected by the constitution, nor is freedom of arms unrestricted so
What constitution
You believe in a wet dream, the truth has hit you and you are clueless
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 06:37:17 AM
Grow up, religious freedom is not being protected by the constitution, nor is freedom of arms unrestricted so
What constitution
You believe in a wet dream, the truth has hit you and you are clueless
Again genius, those are in the Bill of Rights, a restriction against govt. God gave us these Rights, not the fuckin govt!
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 06:37:17 AM
Grow up, religious freedom is not being protected by the constitution, nor is freedom of arms unrestricted so
What constitution
You believe in a wet dream, the truth has hit you and you are clueless
It seems some people have shit for brains or perhaps our education system has failed so miserably they're simply illeriterate and can't read and have any meaureable degree of comprehension. The way I read it both religious freedom and the right to bear arms are both absolutely guarrenteed. Said persons are also apparently clueless as to American history as well otherwise they'd have cincluded that the use of "arms" by the framers was meant to be all inclusive as the framers clearly had Lexington and Concord fresh in their minds as the Bill of Rights was penned.
Quote from: dickfoster on January 02, 2021, 09:26:08 AM
It seems some people have shit for brains or perhaps our education system has failed so miserably they're simply illeriterate and can't read and have any meaureable degree of comprehension. The way I read it both religious freedom and the right to bear arms are both absolutely guarrenteed. Said persons are also apparently clueless as to American history as well otherwise they'd have cincluded that the use of "arms" by the framers was meant to be all inclusive as the framers clearly had Lexington and Concord fresh in their minds as the Bill of Rights was penned.
He's not very bright, he thinks our Rights come from Govt.
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 06:46:18 AM
Again genius, those are in the Bill of Rights, a restriction against govt. God gave us these Rights, not the fuckin govt!
Actually genius the bill of rights is the first ten amendments to the constitution.
Duh, simpleton alert
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 12:15:01 PM
Actually genius the bill of rights is the first ten amendments to the constitution.
Duh, simpleton alert
NOPE!!! The Constitution would not have been ratified had they not accepted the Bill of Rights 10 Amendments. Chicken or the egg?
Wouldn't have had the chicken without the Amendments!
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 12:34:20 PM
NOPE!!! The Constitution would not have been ratified had they not accepted the Bill of Rights 10 Amendments. Chicken or the egg?
Wouldn't have had the chicken without the Amendments!
Does not matter the constitution begins with the bill of rights.
In the real world at least
Not that the words have any meaning anymore
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 12:34:20 PM
NOPE!!! The Constitution would not have been ratified had they not accepted the Bill of Rights 10 Amendments. Chicken or the egg?
Wouldn't have had the chicken without the Amendments!
Solar is right on this point.
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
Does not matter the constitution begins with the bill of rights.
In the real world at least
Not that the words have any meaning anymore
Too bad you went to school later in life, or you might have learned all this stuff already. Now you're getting an education and it hurts your tiny little brain!
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 03:24:51 PM
Too bad you went to school later in life, or you might have learned all this stuff already. Now you're getting an education and it hurts your tiny little brain!
School? oh yea the stuff dumb people need.
Bill Gates is an official dropout
Thomas Edison went to grammar school for about three weeks
Again all Americans are not being afforded the right to practice their religion as they choose. So the cuntstitution is not worth the paper it is written on
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
Does not matter the constitution begins with the bill of rights.
In the real world at least
Not that the words have any meaning anymore
No the constitution begins with the preamble then comes artile 1, the bill of rights are the first ten amendments added to the end that were necessary additions in order to get all of the states to ratify therefore making the constitution the supreme law of the land. You might wat to bone up before mouthing off in future. Other chose a topic you actually know something about. Apparently the constitution just isn't your topic.
Quote from: dickfoster on January 02, 2021, 04:25:04 PM
No the constitution begins with the preamble then comes artile 1, the bill of rights are the first ten amendments added to the end that were necessary additions in order to get all of the states to ratify therefore making the constitution the supreme law of the land. You might wat to bone up before mouthing off in future. Other chose a topic you actually know something about. Apparently the constitution just isn't your topic.
Wow you are smart, did you buy Apple and Google too?
I giggle at fools like you who believe that Madison wrote that you have the right to bear the arms that the government allows you to bear, when one of the purposes to bearing arms was to rise up and overtake an abusive government.
PS if you are going to brag how fn intelligent you are you might want to run a better spell checker, because you wrote
"No the constitution begins with the preamble then comes artile 1"
Next
Quote from: dickfoster on January 02, 2021, 04:25:04 PM
No the constitution begins with the preamble then comes artile 1, the bill of rights are the first ten amendments added to the end that were necessary additions in order to get all of the states to ratify therefore making the constitution the supreme law of the land. You might wat to bone up before mouthing off in future. Other chose a topic you actually know something about. Apparently the constitution just isn't your topic.
the human race is not his topic. As far as trolls go, he is scrapping the bottom. He adds nothing to either this forum or to mankind, talk about wasting good air every time he breaths.
Quote from: Possum on January 02, 2021, 04:33:39 PM
the human race is not his topic. As far as trolls go, he is scrapping the bottom. He adds nothing to either this forum or to mankind, talk about wasting good air every time he breaths.
The fact is that Madison said that you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear government approved arms, and you have the right to worship as you choose, not just over zoom
So the constitution is null and void
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 03:45:23 PM
School? oh yea the stuff dumb people need.
Bill Gates is an official dropout
Thomas Edison went to grammar school for about three weeks
Again all Americans are not being afforded the right to practice their religion as they choose. So the cuntstitution is not worth the paper it is written on
No dumb ass, school as in
elementary school, that's where the majority of us learned about our Founding.
Quote from: dickfoster on January 02, 2021, 04:25:04 PM
No the constitution begins with the preamble then comes artile 1, the bill of rights are the first ten amendments added to the end that were necessary additions in order to get all of the states to ratify therefore making the constitution the supreme law of the land. You might wat to bone up before mouthing off in future. Other chose a topic you actually know something about. Apparently the constitution just isn't your topic.
Does mouth breathing and drooling count? This guy is one of the dimmest trolls to ever hit this forum.
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 04:37:56 PM
The fact is that Madison said that you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear government approved arms, and you have the right to worship as you choose, not just over zoom
So the constitution is null and void
Hey dumb ass, God gave us these Rights, no man, no govt, just simply God!
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 06:10:23 PM
No dumb ass, school as in elementary school, that's where the majority of us learned about our Founding.
That was the place back 70 years ago most learned about our Founding.
Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 06:10:23 PM
No dumb ass, school as in elementary school, that's where the majority of us learned about our Founding.
Again Thomas Edison went to elementary school for about three weeks then his mother pulled him out. LOL it may have been Edisons fault because he is rumored to have told a teacher that he would record her screaming and Edisons mother was told that Tommy makes stuff up too much.
Then after flunking he recorded the teacher crying with a gadget that he dreamed up
Reminds me of my first removable hot swap hard drive rack that I made from an old erector set and hobbled parts. I should have patented that sucker
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
Does not matter the constitution begins with the bill of rights.
In the real world at least
Not that the words have any meaning anymore
Are you suggesting we ditch the Constitution? If so, what would you replace it with?
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2021, 05:01:38 AM
Are you suggesting we ditch the Constitution? If so, what would you replace it with?
The kid was an idiot liar, he has no clue of our Founding. Claimed he voted for Reagan, but his every post exposed his intellect to be that of a 20 something.
I booted his ass, he brought nothing to the forum.
Quote from: Solar on January 03, 2021, 05:23:39 AM
The kid was an idiot liar, he has no clue of our Founding. Claimed he voted for Reagan, but his every post exposed his intellect to be that of a 20 something.
I booted his ass, he brought nothing to the forum.
In my view there is still more cleanup in aisle 9. Where have these clowns come from? We are inundated with them.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2021, 05:46:41 AM
In my view there is still more cleanup in aisle 9. Where have these clowns come from? We are inundated with them.
Marxist marching orders. Do what they can to disrupt anything good posted, derail, derail, derail, like joesixpack/modelcitizen, one in thee same troll always tries to do.
They can't have us happy, they want us confused and bickering. They always fail in their quest here, though. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on January 03, 2021, 05:57:25 AM
Marxist marching orders. Do what they can to disrupt anything good posted, derail, derail, derail, like joesixpack/modelcitizen, one in thee same troll always tries to do.
They can't have us happy, they want us confused and bickering. They always fail in their quest here, though. :biggrin:
Actually I came to this forum because I hoped to get more support for my viewpoints than I do at other political forums.
Quote from: Dayton3 on January 03, 2021, 06:49:31 AM
Actually I came to this forum because I hoped to get more support for my viewpoints than I do at other political forums.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe it isn't the other forums, but you instead?
Point is, you don't understand Conservatism, simply because you never actually lived it. Conservatism isn't merely a descriptor of people on the right, rather a way of life for those who remember what America is and stands for.
For example, here is an America you never met and one we completely understood and agreed with. These are the words of a Patriot and a Statesman.
I consider myself both, a Patriot and a Statesman, a true Conservative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYSw297IgBY&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: Dayton3 on January 03, 2021, 06:49:31 AM
Actually I came to this forum because I hoped to get more support for my viewpoints than I do at other political forums.
I have not seen anywhere that you personally have any tolerance for a viewpoint that does not agree with you. I have wondered from the start, did you come here to debate and discuss, or did you come here to preach?
Quote from: Possum on January 03, 2021, 08:32:57 AM
I have not seen anywhere that you personally have any tolerance for a viewpoint that does not agree with you. I have wondered from the start, did you come here to debate and discuss, or did you come here to preach?
He came to preach, he even stated he'd been warned that his opinions would not be accepted by about 4 of the inner core. What he fails to understand is this is a Conservative forum, named as such long before Conservative was an accepted term. Only just a couple of years back, even Rush stated, "I never claimed to be a Conservative", and rightly so, but now everyone on the right claims the term as their own.
Remember when McCON-nel held disdain for anything Conservative just about 7 years ago? Now he even claims to be one of us. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on January 03, 2021, 08:51:34 AM
He came to preach, he even stated he'd been warned that his opinions would not be accepted by about 4 of the inner core. What he fails to understand is this is a Conservative forum, named as such long before Conservative was an accepted term. Only just a couple of years back, even Rush stated, "I never claimed to be a Conservative", and rightly so, but now everyone on the right claims the term as their own.
Remember when McCON-nel held disdain for anything Conservative just about 7 years ago? Now he even claims to be one of us. :rolleyes:
If I am not mistaken every GOP senator claims to be a conservative. Most of us here know that is a sham. It is the biggest bunch of RINO's in DC.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2021, 09:10:00 AM
If I am not mistaken every GOP senator claims to be a conservative. Most of us here know that is a sham. It is the biggest bunch of RINO's in DC.
Yup, only the Conservative Caucus get it, the rest are posers/RINO/leftists, Marxist appeasers.
Quote from: Possum on January 03, 2021, 08:32:57 AM
I have not seen anywhere that you personally have any tolerance for a viewpoint that does not agree with you. I have wondered from the start, did you come here to debate and discuss, or did you come here to preach?
I have no tolerance?
I'm the one who is threatened with being banned because I cannot provide proof of something I've said even though it is clear that finding that "proof" is utterly impossible.
I figured we all took for granted that a "discussion board" was mainly an "opinion board" .
Quote from: Dayton3 on January 03, 2021, 09:34:46 AM
I have no tolerance?
I'm the one who is threatened with being banned because I cannot provide proof of something I've said even though it is clear that finding that "proof" is utterly impossible.
I figured we all took for granted that a "discussion board" was mainly an "opinion board" .
Nope, not here. Most state when it's their idea, opinion or they heard it stated elsewhere, otherwise we back up everything with a source, because it lends credibility to the poster as someone you can trust when they speak.
We are all about facts on this forum, something you're obviously not used to.
Quote from: Solar on January 03, 2021, 09:39:15 AM
Nope, not here. Most state when it's their idea, opinion or they heard it stated elsewhere, otherwise we back up everything with a source, because it lends credibility to the poster as someone you can trust when they speak.
We are all about facts on this forum, something you're obviously not used to.
Most facts are subject to interpretation.
Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
Does not matter the constitution begins with the bill of rights.
In the real world at least
Not that the words have any meaning anymore
No the constitution begins with the preamble then comes artile 1, the bill of rights are the first ten amendments added to the end that were necessary additions in order to get all of the states to ratify therefore making the constitution the supreme law of the land. You might wat to bone up before mouthing off in future. Other chose a topic you actually know something about. Apparently the constitution just isn't your topic.
Quote from: Dayton3 on January 03, 2021, 09:44:45 AM
Most facts are subject to interpretation.
Nope! Fire hot, ice cold, ,liberalism, a mental disorder stemming from willful ignorance. Socialism is govt control, while a Republic is people controlling govt.
There is no disputing actual facts!
Quote from: Solar on January 03, 2021, 09:55:29 AM
Nope! Fire hot, ice cold, ,liberalism, a mental disorder stemming from willful ignorance. Socialism is govt control, while a Republic is people controlling govt.
There is no disputing actual facts!
Hear, hear!
Quote from: dickfoster on January 03, 2021, 10:22:14 AM
Hear, hear!
And libs will argue "relativism". If enough people deem it so, it then becomes true. Another reason they want democratic socialism, where the mob defines the new "Right and Wrong".
Truth be told theyr'e so dayum stupid they have no freeking idea what they want. They haven't been anywhere or done anything so they're running around clueless with their heads shoved up their backsides. Plus they haven't a single clue as to what a hard time even looks like.