Democrats Furious About Supreme Court 6-3 Decision Against Vote Harvesting

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
And exactly when did 'repubs' attempt to stack the court?

When the Dems accuse the Repubs of doing something wrong, look very closely because the Dems are doing it.

What rules did they change that were unconstitutional? When they were in power they used the rules to select new members and they did it with the blessing of the people who voted them into the Senate with a majority. The D' tried to steal that too.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: infolurker

So when dems stack the court it's bad. But when repubs stack the court it's good?

By appointing nominees when a republican president is in office in accordance to the constitution and establish procedure?

Or by changing the rules as they go?

a reply to: infolurker

"Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting,'" Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion upholding the Arizona laws.

"usual burdens of voting"

To be fair, the general concept of standing in line for hours without refreshment or relief is fairly discouraging and doesn't exactly motivate me to participate in a voting process that isn't guaranteed to give me some degree of reward for my investment. And no, doing my patriotic duty by submitting a ballot doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

a reply to: Justoneman

Changing the rules was referring to democrats wanting to change the established and historical number of individuals that sit in the Supreme Court.

A compare and contrast thing. Don’t cha know…

originally posted by: TzarChasm
To be fair, the general concept of standing in line for hours without refreshment or relief is fairly discouraging and doesn't exactly motivate me to participate in a voting process that isn't guaranteed to give me some degree of reward for my investment. And no, doing my patriotic duty by submitting a ballot doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

Looks at who's in charge of the Government in those places with long lines. To them discouraging you from voting is a feature not a bug.

a reply to: infolurker

Dem poor witto dems

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: infolurker

"Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting,'" Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion upholding the Arizona laws.

"usual burdens of voting"

To be fair, the general concept of standing in line for hours without refreshment or relief is fairly discouraging and doesn't exactly motivate me to participate in a voting process that isn't guaranteed to give me some degree of reward for my investment. And no, doing my patriotic duty by submitting a ballot doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

That's like your opinion bro and a prime example of WHAT'S WRONG in this Country.

The sense of entitlement is overwhelming that it just stinks.

You, as a citizen of this Country, have the right to vote and make change.

It doesn't require much, but to incconvenience of standing around for a bit, for the convenience of legislation you are voting for.

This isn't Star Wars release where we wait 36hrs to a week in line, no refresgments next to a Storm Trooper who hasn't bathed for a movie that'll last a mere 2hrs and dismissed, remembering only for funs.

Meanwhile, Voting has long lasting IMPACT.

Anyways, incredible ruling by the Supreme Court, this makes Democrat cheating HARDER.

....and yes, Democrats used this methods, underhanded, to try to gain the advantage. I mean, seriously, how many of you need to have your echo chamber reality shattered to see this practice as a common tactic to gain the edge?

a reply to: Arnie123

But American’s will pay the privilege of standing around hour hours to wait for a roller coaster.

Or stand in line for days for Black Friday deals.

Just wait until we are all waiting in line for bread with our ration books.

Making ballot harvesting illegal shouldn’t even be up for debate unless one already relies on it for stealing an election.

Same applies to mail in ballots—mail in voting is ripe for fraud and incompetence. It should be reserved for very special circumstances and have strict and narrow requirements to qualify.

Here is a recent example of mail in ballot fraud committed by Democrats: abc13.com...

for 200+ years the USA public has been able to walk / ride horse / take train or whatever to vote.

now some snowflakes can't stand in line for an hour? can't produce an ID? skeered of Covid?

a reply to: Justoneman

Right. Cheating. Not at all like having Mitch McConnell deny Obama appointing a court member on the way out. But then allow Trump to appoint one when he was on the way out. Totally fair and balanced. No shenanigans at all.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: infolurker

So when dems stack the court it's bad. But when repubs stack the court it's good?

When did Republicans stack the court?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Justoneman

Right. Cheating. Not at all like having Mitch McConnell deny Obama appointing a court member on the way out. But then allow Trump to appoint one when he was on the way out. Totally fair and balanced. No shenanigans at all.

Nope.

None.

Has always been that way.

But keep complaining to the choir if you like.

It still won't equal court stacking.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: neutronflux

Sure let's just ignore how Mitch said no to appointing a justice as Obama was going out so that Trump could appoint one. Then when Trump was going out he went ahead and appointed one anyway ignoring his own bs reason for not appointing one before Obama left.

So yeah.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

It's always been that way? You mean when republicans say one thing then do something hypocritically different? Well I can't argue with your logic there.

BTW court packing is any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. McConell ignoring his own precedent to not appoint a judge during a presidential election... Court Packing. Republicans Court Packed Barret.

Pot meet kettle.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: neutronflux

Sure let's just ignore how Mitch said no to appointing a justice as Obama was going out so that Trump could appoint one. Then when Trump was going out he went ahead and appointed one anyway ignoring his own bs reason for not appointing one before Obama left.

So yeah.

Same answer, how it has always been.

Pres & senate same party gets a vote

Pres & senate different parties no get a vote.


Only difference this time around is that democrats were successful in convincing brainwashed folks like you that Republicans were doing something new and nefarious.

You can repeat the lie as often as desired.

Won't make your brainwashed 'truths' into facts.



And even if true, it STILL doesn't meet the definition of packing the court.

Democrats want to increase the number of judges to tilt things in their favor.

THAT is packing the court.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Yes it does and yes they did.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

When they appointed Barrett.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Yes it does and yes they did.

Ah, I see you are at the stick fingers in ear while chanting

Na na na na I CAN'T HEAR YOU na na na

phase of your tantrum.



Happens a lot when democrats are presented with facts that don't fit the brainwashed narrative.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: BrujaRebooted

When they appointed Barrett.

Appointed a replacement when pres & senate were same and got vote.

Just as it has always been.



At no time did republicans attempt to expand the number of judges on the court.

That would be court packing.

Which democrats want to do now.


Keep trying though, maybe your misinformation will magically become facts if you repeat it often enough.