It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl
Merrick Garland is a moderate.
On top of that, do you recall how many members the Supreme Court originally consisted of? Do you see a problem today?
The point is that we have an odd number of judges so that there isn't a tied decision.
Even Richard Burr said nine years ago that a bench without nine judges wouldn't work. How are you not seeing the hypocrisy?
In 1997, Judge Garland wrote the opinion in LaRouche v Fowler. That decision upheld the rights of political parties against the federal Voting Rights Act. The year before, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Morse v Republican Party of Virginia, 517 US 186, that the Voting Rights Act applies not only to state and local governments, but to the actions of political parties. Notwithstanding that, Judge Garland wrote in LaRouche v Fowler that the Voting Rights Act cannot be used to control the actions of the national convention of a political party.
originally posted by: schuyler
Oh, boo hoo. If the Dems could do it, they would, and they have. Just look at the history of appointments and you'll see a lot more obstructionism on the part of Democrats as opposed to Republicans. It's an easy Google. And I want the GOP to keep obstructing. Tipping the balance of the court now will ruin the country, imo. We cannot afford any ore liberals on the court. So if the GOP can hold off the Huns a few more months, it's fine with me and I don't really care what the libtards have to say about it.
Flail away. Scream and shout. Have an embolism.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t
He's attempting to set the table for a massive push to ramrod a replacement for Scalia into the bench after Clinton loses and prior to him leaving office. I suspect we will hear an unending cacophony from that side of the aisle, desperate to seat a left leaning justice before Trump seats a proper Constitutionalist judge in January.
originally posted by: digital01anarchy
Lol never before in the history of politics has anyone ever done anything like this its unprecedented. Oh the outrage oh the humanity how will our democratic republic ever function again!
You guys play dirty then cry when its directed back at you. Seems the democrats only want to play fair when its in their favor to do so then lie, cheat and steal when they think nobody is watching. how do I know this you ask? wikileaks provided the evidence feel free to search the emails.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You a parent aren't aware this tactic was used twice by democrats. They rejected Nixon appointments leaving the court vacant for 2 yrs and only agreed to a Nixon choice because another Judge was retiring meaning there would have only been 7.
Then there's Reagan his appointments were again blocked by democrats leaving the court vacant for 2 yrs. So it's happened before and will happen again.