RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Novus America]

How though? The Republicans control both the Presidency and Senate.
This is perfectly legal.

You might find it objectionable on other grounds. But this is not illegal nor an abuse of power.
The President picks someone, the Senate says yes or no.

There is not law saying judicial confirmations must cease at some arbitrary time around election season.

Packing the court is also completely legal, as the Constitution says nothing on the number of justices.

It is, but likely to backfire politically. The reason it is not done is because it is politically unwise.
Not for any higher reasons.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the left if the roles were reversed and it was the Republicans talking about stacking the supreme court the way they are....

[Picairn]

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the left if the roles were reversed and it was the Republicans talking about stacking the supreme court the way they are....

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the right if the roles were reversed under Obama and it was the Democrats who refused to give President John McCain any hearings or votes on his nominated justice.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the left if the roles were reversed and it was the Republicans talking about stacking the supreme court the way they are....

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the right if the roles were reversed under Obama and it was the Democrats who refused to give President John McCain any hearings or votes on his nominated justice.

Bias is bias, regardless of which way it swings.

[Fluvannia]

Packing the court is also completely legal, as the Constitution says nothing on the number of justices.

It is, but likely to backfire politically. The reason it is not done is because it is politically unwise.
Not for any higher reasons.

On top of that, Democrats would first need to change the Judiciary Act of 1869, which sets the size of the court at nine. It's not like they could just roll in January 20th and drop five nominees on the Senate. If that process is something the Republicans could sufficiently delay, they could absolutely bludgeon the Dems with it in the mid-terms. If Dems control both House and Senate, there's also the option of calling a constitutional convention, which since a significant number of states are Republican-governed -- and several more could swing Republican if the Dems are actively working on court-packing -- could be looked at as a serious reason for the Democrats to avoid tinkering with the law. At that point more moderate blue states may also sign on just so they can look like they're in favor of playing clean. Remember that many people who are independent or even Republican and are voting for Biden is because they want a return to smoother, more stable governance; upending the Court for political purposes is not something these voters will appreciate, and if Dems are smart they'll err on the side of keeping their jobs.

As usual, it's all a game of numbers and appearances.

[West Leas Oros 2]

"why people hold others to their words or standards of behavior I will never understand"

It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.

And yet you come to their defense when you agree with them.

[Kowani]

Confirmed: Amy Comey Barret will be the SCOTUS nominee.

Crossposting.

[Greed and Death]

It is, but likely to backfire politically. The reason it is not done is because it is politically unwise.
Not for any higher reasons.

On top of that, Democrats would first need to change the Judiciary Act of 1869, which sets the size of the court at nine. It's not like they could just roll in January 20th and drop five nominees on the Senate. If that process is something the Republicans could sufficiently delay, they could absolutely bludgeon the Dems with it in the mid-terms. If Dems control both House and Senate, there's also the option of calling a constitutional convention, which since a significant number of states are Republican-governed -- and several more could swing Republican if the Dems are actively working on court-packing -- could be looked at as a serious reason for the Democrats to avoid tinkering with the law. At that point more moderate blue states may also sign on just so they can look like they're in favor of playing clean. Remember that many people who are independent or even Republican and are voting for Biden is because they want a return to smoother, more stable governance; upending the Court for political purposes is not something these voters will appreciate, and if Dems are smart they'll err on the side of keeping their jobs.

As usual, it's all a game of numbers and appearances.

Changing the Judiciary act would take time. It took a year to pass the ACA with a filibuster proof majority. It would take at least that long to do away with the filibuster and add seats the court.
Next it would likely take 3 months for each appointee to get through the senate The GOP could easily drag 1 or 2 drag until after the next senate election and the Republicans would likely reclaim the senate which would defeat the whole purpose of packing the court.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the left if the roles were reversed and it was the Republicans talking about stacking the supreme court the way they are....

It happened toward the end of Obama's last term with his nominee Merrick Garland. On a side note, Democrats are NOT the left.

[Thermodolia]

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the left if the roles were reversed and it was the Republicans talking about stacking the supreme court the way they are....

You could say the same for a lot of what’s currently happening.

A lot of conservatives would lose their shit if Trump was a Democrat and said all of his “jokes”

[Alcala-Cordel]

Could you imagine the absolute cringe levels of backlash from the left if the roles were reversed and it was the Republicans talking about stacking the supreme court the way they are....

You could say the same for a lot of what’s currently happening.

A lot of conservatives would lose their shit if Trump was a Democrat and said all of his “jokes”

They lost their shit when Obama saluted some soldiers with a coffee cup in his hand. His (and Trump's) various war crimes were perfectly okay with them though.

[Thermodolia]

You could say the same for a lot of what’s currently happening.

A lot of conservatives would lose their shit if Trump was a Democrat and said all of his “jokes”

They lost their shit when Obama saluted some soldiers with a coffee cup in his hand.

That really wasn’t respectful in my opinion. He should have just not saluted. When your hands are full your not expected to salute

[Alcala-Cordel]

They lost their shit when Obama saluted some soldiers with a coffee cup in his hand.

That really wasn’t respectful in my opinion. He should have just not saluted. When your hands are full your not expected to salute

I couldn't care less how the imperialist tributes his war criminal pawns. Hell, even if I did support them it would still be meaningless.

[Tekania]

They lost their shit when Obama saluted some soldiers with a coffee cup in his hand.

That really wasn’t respectful in my opinion. He should have just not saluted. When your hands are full your not expected to salute

Civilians don't generally have to return a salute, so really anything that indicates some return so as to arrest the salute requirement is respectful in my opinion. Afterall, in the case of military they are required to salute, he isn't required to return. If he does return (even with something in his hand) they can then stop the salute, otherwise the requirements would be to continue holding the salute until he has passed. I speak this as someone with experience having served in uniform with the US Navy.

[-Ra-]

It's official. Amy Coney Barrett will be the next associate justice of the United States.

Liberty. Liberty. Liberty in the flesh. Hats off to this amazing woman.

[Tarsonis]

It's official. Amy Coney Barrett will be the next associate justice of the United States.

Liberty. Liberty. Liberty in the flesh. Hats off to this amazing woman.

Surprising absolutelu no one.

[The Black Forrest]

It's official. Amy Coney Barrett will be the next associate justice of the United States.

Liberty. Liberty. Liberty in the flesh. Hats off to this amazing woman.

How is that about liberty?

[West Leas Oros 2]

It's official. Amy Coney Barrett will be the next associate justice of the United States.

Liberty. Liberty. Liberty in the flesh. Hats off to this amazing woman.

How is that about liberty?

Liberty... as long as you follow the party line.

[The Black Forrest]

One thing which is surprising about RBGs death is the lack of comments by MRA types.

Especially when considering she argued before the supreme court for a man seeking social security benefits after his wife died in labor and was told it was only for widows.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

Goes against the narrative of evil feminists?

[Tarsonis]

One thing which is surprising about RBGs death is the lack of comments by MRA types.

Especially when considering she argued before the supreme court for a man seeking social security benefits after his wife died in labor and was told it was only for widows.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

Goes against the narrative of evil feminists?

If I'm reading that right, she defended the appellee, so she actually argued against him.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It's official. Amy Coney Barrett will be the next associate justice of the United States.

You sound silly saying "it's official" then making a claim which is not yet fact.

[The Black Forrest]

One thing which is surprising about RBGs death is the lack of comments by MRA types.

Especially when considering she argued before the supreme court for a man seeking social security benefits after his wife died in labor and was told it was only for widows.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

Goes against the narrative of evil feminists?

If I'm reading that right, she defended the appellee, so she actually argued against him.

It’s confusing. Weinberger appealed the case to SCOTUS. He became the appellant and Ginsberg spoke for the Appelle Stephen Wiesenfeld.

[The Black Forrest]

It's official. Amy Coney Barrett will be the next associate justice of the United States.

You sound silly saying "it's official" then making a claim which is not yet fact.

News has been reporting many official sources say it’s barrett.

[Tekania]

One thing which is surprising about RBGs death is the lack of comments by MRA types.

Especially when considering she argued before the supreme court for a man seeking social security benefits after his wife died in labor and was told it was only for widows.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

Goes against the narrative of evil feminists?

If I'm reading that right, she defended the appellee, so she actually argued against him.

Mr. Wiesenfeld (the widower) started as the plaintiff in suing The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare who became the defendant. The initial court ruled in favor of the defendant (Mr. Wiesenfeld). The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare then appealed the courts decision becoming the appellant and thus making Mr. Wiesenfeld the appellee in the case. Ginsburg was representing the appellee (Mr. Wiesenfeld, the widower) in the case.

[Telconi]

It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.

And yet you come to their defense when you agree with them.

One doesn't need to be honorable to be worth defending.