Liberal Forum

razoo » 20 Aug 2023, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 5:14 pm

Time to abolish the supreme court to prevent further abuse of voters and to squash the Supreme Court as a third party..... for either side of the aisle.

How are you going to do that, snowflake? 
You think you can rewrite the Constitution?
 

razoo » 20 Aug 2023, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 5:14 pm

Time to abolish the supreme court to prevent further abuse of voters and to squash the Supreme Court as a third party..... for either side of the aisle.

It is treasonous, dangerous, and wrong, but the constitution does not specify how many constitute a Supreme Court.

So if the Democrats ever win another majority in the House and Senate they could pack the court with enough unprincipled Marxists to allow a Huey Long to be the King.

Agreed?

Bruce » 20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm

It is treasonous, dangerous, and wrong, but the constitution does not specify how many constitute a Supreme Court.

So if the Democrats ever win another majority in the House and Senate they could pack the court with enough unprincipled Marxists to allow a Huey Long to be the King.

Agreed?

True.
TNM.               
"Adios, mofo's".                                  

https://youtu.be/5OKdbc0DYpM

 

Bruce » 20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm

It is treasonous, dangerous, and wrong, but the constitution does not specify how many constitute a Supreme Court.

So if the Democrats ever win another majority in the House and Senate they could pack the court with enough unprincipled Marxists to allow a Huey Long to be the King.

Agreed?

The South has grown sick of Democrat company.           

https://youtu.be/lQ8JIa98kAw

Bruce » 20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm

It is treasonous, dangerous, and wrong, but the constitution does not specify how many constitute a Supreme Court.

So if the Democrats ever win another majority in the House and Senate they could pack the court with enough unprincipled Marxists to allow a Huey Long to be the King.

Agreed?

Well said. Agreed.
 

Bruce » 20 Aug 2023, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 1:31 pm

The Supreme Court will always reject any effort to nullify a constitutional election.

Without a Supreme Court the Constitution is not the law of the land.

That means Joe Biden, or Trump,  is Presidentfor Life.  Which ever one has the most bullets.

It means anarchy.

+1

Bruce » 20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 5:47 pm

It is treasonous, dangerous, and wrong, but the constitution does not specify how many constitute a Supreme Court.

So if the Democrats ever win another majority in the House and Senate they could pack the court with enough unprincipled Marxists to allow a Huey Long to be the King.

Agreed?

Why would Democrats need the House? 
They have nothing to do with the nomination or approval of judges on the court. 
 

golfboy » 20 Aug 2023, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Aug 2023, 6:45 pm

Why would Democrats need the House? 
They have nothing to do with the nomination or approval of judges on the court.

They’d have to pack the Supreme Court with Marxists, which would require new legislation.

Remember Democrats like me would be screaming hell no, remember Huey Long.

We stopped FDR in 1937 from it.

February 5, 1937

After winning the 1936 presidential election in a landslide, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a bill to expand the membership of the Supreme Court. The law would have added one justice to the Court for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices. Roosevelt’s motive was clear – to shape the ideological balance of the Court so that it would cease striking down his New Deal legislation. As a result, the plan was widely and vehemently criticized.
The law was never enacted by Congress, and Roosevelt lost a great deal of political support for having proposed it. Shortly after the president made the plan public, however, the Court upheld several government regulations of the type it had formerly found unconstitutional. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, for example, the Court upheld the right of the federal government to regulate labor-management relations pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Many have attributed this and similar decisions to a politically motivated change of heart on the part of Justice Owen Roberts, often referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine.” Some legal scholars have rejected this narrative, however, asserting that Roberts' 1937 decisions were not motivated by Roosevelt's proposal and can instead be reconciled with his prior jurisprudence.