Buttigieg still supports packing...

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
Buttigieg has supporting the idea of increasing the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 justices

Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who now serves on Joe Biden's transition team, said he continues to support the concept of increasing the size of the Supreme Court, and defended the Democratic presidential nominee's claim that the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett is unconstitutional.

In 2019, Buttigieg supported the idea of a 15-member Supreme Court. Now, in a "Fox News Sunday" interview, he claimed that Republicans who speak out against changing the size of the high court are merely trying trying to distract from other issues.

“My views haven’t changed,” Buttigieg said. I think bipartisan reform with the purpose of reducing the politicization of the court is a really promising idea. Let's also be clear that a president can't just snap their fingers and do it, and most of all we don't want to allow this president to change the subject, which is what they're always doing."



 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Packing the court is as stupid a move as letting the senate go Nuclear under the Nevada idiot harry Reid.
If the Democrat pack the court with 15 people if they should happen to win what would stop the republicans from packing it 25 if they should win again?
Do these people ever think things over?
 

gunsmoke

Active Member
Packing the court is as stupid a move as letting the senate go Nuclear under the Nevada idiot harry Reid.
If the Democrat pack the court with 15 people if they should happen to win what would stop the republicans from packing it 25 if they should win again?
Do these people ever think things over?
So let me ask you the same question: Don't YOU PEOPLE ever think things over (or through)?

You all are so wound up about your infantile cultural battles, that you can't see beyond your own noses.

Did you think Rs would hold the WH and Senate forever?

When McConnell refused to consider the Garland nomination in 2015, you didn't think there would be repercussions to that?

When McConnell promises to push through the Barrett nomination, violating the precedent he set in 2015, you didn't think there would be repercussions that to???

How stupid are you?

As of now, the Trump Presidency looks to end as most predicted it would. The only potential saving grace this country can hold out for is that it wasn't Warren or Sanders who won the Democratic nomination...maybe...hopefully, Joe Biden will strike a more moderate tone so this country can begin to heal from the damage YOU people have inflicted upon it with your disastrous nomination and election of a man so unqualified and so brilliantly incompetent.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
Did you think Rs would hold the WH and Senate forever?

Well duh dumbass, nobody does. You SHOULD have told crazy Harry that before he decided to go nuke. You reap what you sow. Gloves are off... I'd like them to duke it out on the floor.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
violating the precedent he set in 2015
What precedent was that ole wise one? Also I am sure you meant 2016 because we know you have superior intellect (at least that is what you keep telling us). In the history of Supreme Court nominations there have been 9 nominees where no action was taken up by the Senate. McConnell's was just the most recent and certainly wouldn't be considered as a precedent, at best the characterization should be considered as rare.
 
Reactions: BOP

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Elections have consequences, and Trump is the current president and the GOP has the majority in the Senate.
Trump is President until at least Jan 20, 2021, and there is a current vacancy on the high court.
The GOP-led Senate is in control until at least January 3, 2021.
The President nominated someone to fill that vacancy and the Senate is responsible for confirming that nomination.
The Senate taking up the confirmation process is correct and McConnell is not bound by a perceived "precedent" set in 2015. Face it, every single Democrat was advocating for Garland to get a confirmation hearing and every single Republican was against it. Today it's just the opposite: every single Republican is advocating for Barrett to get a confirmation hearing and every single Democrat is against it. There's hypocrites on both sides.

Most people that are opining to pack the court are playing a game of "sour apples". They don't want to give Trump the possibility of placing 3 justices on the high court. I wonder if Trump had nominated Merrick Garland if the Dems would be clamoring about the situation.

The decision to add to the SCOTUS should not be taken lightly but should be above the political winds of the day. So, if adding member was truly desired, then they should have no problem with whomever the president happens to be.

So if Trump wins, he should propose adding 6 Justices to the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see the liberals flip flop on their desire to pack the court.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
When McConnell promises to push through the Barrett nomination, violating the precedent he set in 2015, you didn't think there would be repercussions that to???
No During Garland The Senate was controlled by one party and the White House By The Other Today the White House and Senate are Controlled by the SAME Party

It is unfortunate you are too clueless to understand the difference


Beyond that its ' advise and consent ' the Senate is under NO Obligation to vote on an appointee


How stupid are you?
Apparently not as ate up with Trump Derangement as you are
 
Top