Posted on 10/11/2020 9:44:26 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Chris Coons said on Sunday that the Senate moving to confirm President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett "constitutes court-packing," and called the nominee's views "disqualifying."
Coons, D-Del., made the comments during an interview with "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., also spoke with Wallace Sunday.
"I'm going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett's views ... are not just extreme, they're disqualifying," Coons said of Democrats' strategy for Barrett's hearings. "It constitutes court-packing."
Court-packing's traditional definition is expanding the Supreme Court by law and then confirming justices to those seats, not what Republicans are doing, which is filling a naturally occuring vacancy. Sasse shot back that Coons' definition of court-packing was "obviously" incorrect and accused the Democrat of using "Orwellian" language.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Surprise...surprise...he’s a Democrat. If the shoe were on the other foot, a new SCJ would already be sitting on the bench. Hypocrites...
Regardless of truth, the left is broadly parroting this latest talking point to convince the American people that Republicans “packed” the Court. So when they do it, it won’t seem like anything more than doing the exact same thing those “evil” Republicans just did a few months earlier.
We’d better come up with a plan to counter this - because they are telegraphing it plain as day that TRUE “packing” of the Court (by adding seats) is EXACTLY what they plan to do.
They know it is not court-packing. But most of the dunces who listen to this crap don’t.
as expected the rats are exploiting the confusion surrounding the term “packing”. The GOP should immediately abandon the term and use “increasing the number of SC justices”. Long but no ambiguity.
I read the Constitution. I didn’t see anything in Article 3 that mentioned “qualifications” to be on SCOTUS...
They change the meaning of words to advance their agendas.
This is just another deliberate attempt to conflate two very disparate meanings of a word into a single definition.
Packing the Supreme Court means, quite simply, increasing the number of Justices serving on the court so the balance of the decisions by each of the Justices is changed, and it is ALWAYS an increase, never a decrease of the number.
Technically, the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is definitely NOT “packing” the court, unless that is supposed to mean packing more originalists onto the bench while not replenishing the number of activist justices. More properly, this would be “stacking”, as stacking the odds in favor of maintaining the Constitution as written.
FIFY
When the Democrats talk about their desire to pack the court, all they want to do is fill the Ginsberg vacancy? I don’t think so. They want to appoint additional justices to solidify the court in their favor. That’s packing the court. Let’s not let them get away with redefining language, again. I am sure that in the course of history, the ideological balance of the court has shifted a number of times. That’s the way it should be. The people elect a President and a Senate and court appointments would be expected to reflect the will of the people expressed through the election.
If Trump is re-elected and the Republicans hold the Senate, I guarantee that the Democrats will pull this crap again.
Can you tell me who is the stupidest member of the SJC. We have Mazie, and we have Stolen Valor - lie about one thing you have lied about everything - we have Whitehorse’s Ass, and we have Spartacus. I just can’t decide myself. I don’t think those 4 together add up to a certifiable moron.
As long as the court upholds the Constitution I don’t have a problem if there’s a hundred people on it.
Thought exercise -
Trump wins reelection
GOP retains control of the Senate
THEN expand the court by 2 positions but only 9 justices get selected for any particular case. That way, there are alternates available for when a justice dies, recuses or is unavailable.
I wonder how the left would repond to this idea. I bet they would not like it.
Roberts claims there are no Trump Justices so the argument has been shot down by SCOTUS itself.
Sorry Coons but you let your young daughter get drooled on by a pedo while you stood there and smiled. Your opinion means nothing.
Bull hockey.
Glad you posted about Pedo Joe and the young Coons
girl so I don’t have to. But like you I wonder how
parents stand by and watch their daughter get groped
by a serial deviant like Biden.
Coons - he’s a witch!
Rats will say anything.
That is why nobody believes them.
Yep, they are all following and their marching orders and saying republicans are packing the court.
How is the media not committing election interference. How much of their money is tied to foreign governments or companies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.