It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Joe Biden Refuses to Answer If He Will Pack the Supreme Court

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The DNC have been pretty open about loading the court.

My guess would be he would.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump and the GOP need to defeat the DNC scumbags for generation and beat them to the punch.

Install ACB before the election and after the election install 2 new Trump appointed SC justices.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Hypntick
It was a 2016 interview and she was talking about the importance of having all 9 justices as obama wasnt allowed to make the pick.

I cant post the link as I'm always on a cellphone





posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Leftists want to change the US Constitution not by a Convention, but by Supreme Court reinterpretation.

Of course Biden (Harris) will pack the courts if they get the Senate back.



No where in the constitution does it tell us the number of justices in the court. In fact it was changed during the civil war a tenth juror was added. So its happened before only real problem is your going to want to keep it an odd number to prevent ties. This was the problem with having 10 and why they moved it back to 9.


There is no number specified, true.

But the reaaon WHY they want it changed hasn't changed.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Time to make the supreme court an AI. I mean, basically mindless humans sitting on the bench already.

How long have we been in a *gasp* global pandemic and how many vacation days have they used up?



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Leftists want to change the US Constitution not by a Convention, but by Supreme Court reinterpretation.

Of course Biden (Harris) will pack the courts if they get the Senate back.



No where in the constitution does it tell us the number of justices in the court. In fact it was changed during the civil war a tenth juror was added. So its happened before only real problem is your going to want to keep it an odd number to prevent ties. This was the problem with having 10 and why they moved it back to 9.


There is no number specified, true.

But the reaaon WHY they want it changed hasn't changed.


Yes some has made the suggestion i will tell you however it wont happen. Reason why if the democratic senators indeed did this they know republicans will eventually retake the senate and they will add additional justices effectively destroying the Supreme Court from being able to perform its duties. It was the democrats that changed the rules on supreme court nominations. Used to require 60 voted to end deliberations. The democrats changed that only requiring a majority in order to get in there picks. So this would simply be a repeat once again its very dangerous to change the rules you often end up paying for it later.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Did the democrats think clearly and rationally when Reid changed the rules?



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Hypntick

I actually am convinced the only way forward is to eliminate the entire concept of a human judge.

An AI computer (in the distant future) is the only decent judge I can imagine.

It isn't bias or crippled by opinion.

It works purely from math and logic pathways. A defendant ought to able to communicate with the AI at any time any day in order to reason with it and appeal any miscalculations they believe it made so if true it can exonerate them.

You plug the Constitution in and the AI will uphold it.

Even if this idea goes horribly wrong it's better than living a life where immoral ignorant hypocrites think they can judge me and unjustly punish me destroying my life.

Im sorry but I'll be hard pressed to accept any "fix" that fails to remove the human from the equation.

Worst case scenario is still preferred to this.


and what answer will AI return when asked what we can do to Fix the planet? I know, and I think you do as well. Hows about we let Terminator stay sci-fi fiction.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
It'll be the House that packs the Supreme Court. If Dems lose control of the House, won't matter what ol Joe wants *if* he gets into office.


It would be the same way any other legislation gets passed, both Houses of Congress pass the bill and then it is signed by the President.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
It was the democrats that changed the rules on supreme court nominations. Used to require 60 voted to end deliberations. The democrats changed that only requiring a majority in order to get in there picks.


No, the Republicans did that. The Democrats changed them on all other judicial appointments except Supreme Court Justices.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Hypntick

I actually am convinced the only way forward is to eliminate the entire concept of a human judge.

An AI computer (in the distant future) is the only decent judge I can imagine.

It isn't bias or crippled by opinion.

It works purely from math and logic pathways. A defendant ought to able to communicate with the AI at any time any day in order to reason with it and appeal any miscalculations they believe it made so if true it can exonerate them.

You plug the Constitution in and the AI will uphold it.

Even if this idea goes horribly wrong it's better than living a life where immoral ignorant hypocrites think they can judge me and unjustly punish me destroying my life.

Im sorry but I'll be hard pressed to accept any "fix" that fails to remove the human from the equation.

Worst case scenario is still preferred to this.


and what answer will AI return when asked what we can do to Fix the planet? I know, and I think you do as well. Hows about we let Terminator stay sci-fi fiction.


That's what most people believe is the final solution as well.

I just want a fair judge I don't need it to fix the world.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dragonridr
It was the democrats that changed the rules on supreme court nominations. Used to require 60 voted to end deliberations. The democrats changed that only requiring a majority in order to get in there picks.


No, the Republicans did that. The Democrats changed them on all other judicial appointments except Supreme Court Justices.

Wrong the 60 vote rule was removed by Harry Reid.



CORNISH: You've said that you do not regret changing the rules to eliminate the need for 60 votes to end debate over judicial nominations. But since it's paved the way for how Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority are basically steamrolling Democrats in the Senate now, what's your response to Democrats who say you should?

REID: Well, let's look at what happened. Obama was president. He'd been elected by a large majority, but Republicans were filibustering everything. He couldn't get his cabinet officers confirmed, subcabinet. We had the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country - had many vacancies. What were we to do? So that's the reason that I moved to change the rules.


www.npr.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT SURPEME COURT JUSTICES.

Read your own damn source:


Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to make it easier to confirm federal court appointees with a simple majority.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: dragonridr

ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT SURPEME COURT JUSTICES.

Read your own damn source:


Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to make it easier to confirm federal court appointees with a simple majority.


I stand corrected apparently it was 2017 that they removed the fillibuster for the supreme court he claimed it was because the democrats had done it for lower court.

Which brings me to a point i made in another thread they do not want to pack the court. Because if they do the other side will just come back and add even more jurors until it no longer functions.




top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join