Too bad the existence of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd means that he will still get millions of free votes for merely running against Trump and having a (D) behind his name.
Definitely.
The guy is insane. Hell, most of the party is at this point.
That's why it's important people spread truthful info as much as they can like the WalkAway campaign, or videos debunking misconceptions.
But apathy is a hell of a drug as well.
Their actions speak far louder than their words.
I do not even know if it is TDS anymore. Biden is spewing racist shit all the time, avoids questions that can alter the power dynamic in this country forever, probably is in to kid porn and the left still votes for him. The left advocates for restricting our rights and are cheered on, they are openly racist aand still they are considered the good guys. AOC gets 700k likes on any retarded tweet she does, and she is one of the most obvious dumb person in American politics.
I know TDS is strong in them but like WTF, how can it be this fucking strong.
Past a certain point 2 tribes just hate each other over too many accumulated disagreements and deliberately accelerated misunderstandings.
May be a bit of reach here but I should've seen this coming when early 2000s movies like "Wrong Turn", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Wolf Creek" cementing the idea that city dwellers should be deathly afraid of fly over country.
He spins it as some sort of conservative issue -- it's very much not.
People should be genuinely worried about this.
We're talking full judicial control of the most important decisions in the country.
Even people on the left who support Biden should be worried. This isn't one judge here, it's multiple.
Not only is there no reason for them to assume ACB is some sort of far-right partisan monster like they do, they're so brainwashed that they're willing to create the noose that'll be used to hang them later by supporting a party willing to go to this extreme.
This is a pure power grab.
After the multiple attempts to seize power over the last 4 years, the left -- particularly the younger ones, since the older ones are all but lost -- need to wake the hell up.
Their blind faith in MSM, Big Tech, corporate America, Hollywood, is stupid. They exist to exploit people. They will always do what's in their best interests -- not yours -- to accomplish that.
Packing the court will be the opening salvo of one party rule. They've articulated parts of their plan on multiple occasions. Creating however many states they need to ensure permanent control of the Senate. Allowing non citizens to vote. Removal of the filibuster. The perceived legitimacy of these decisions is contingent on control of the Supreme Court. The Left are done waiting for the frog to boil.
Traditionally, packing the courts has been a tactic of authoritarians looking to cement their power - it's hard to have your own actions deemed illegal when the body that decided that is full of those who would support your illegal actions.
The irony that you have the "anti-fascists" voting for someone who would basically be participating in fascist actions simply because of "drumpfler bad and orange" is not lost and is really concerning.
Yes. Not including nominations which were withdrawn, here's a list of all nominations that happened within presidential election years or after a presidential election had occurred but before the next president had taken office:
George Washington (I) nominated William Cushing for Chief Justice in 1796. The Washington-allied Senate confirmed him, but he declined to be elevated and continued as an Associate Justice.
George Washington (I) nominated Samuel Chase and Oliver Ellsworth in 1796. The Washington-allied Senate confirmed both.
John Adams (F) nominated John Jay in 1800 (after Adams had lost the 1800 election). The Federalist-controlled Senate confirmed him, but he declined to serve.
John Adams (F) nominated John Marshall in 1801 (after Adams had lost the 1800 election). The Federalist-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Thomas Jefferson (DR) nominated William Johnson in 1804. The Democratic-Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
John Quincy Adams (NR) nominated John J. Crittenden in 1828 (after Adams had lost the 1828 election). The Democrat-controlled Senate postponed the nomination.
Andrew Jackson (D) nominated John Catron and William Smith in 1837 (after the 1837 election in which Jackson wasn't a candidate, but his Vice President Martin Van Buren had won). The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed both (but William Smith declined to serve).
Martin Van Buren (D) nominated Peter Vivian Daniel in 1841 (after Van Buren had lost the 1840 election). The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him.
John Tyler (I) nominated Edward King and Reuben Walworth in 1844. The Whig-controlled Senate postponed taking action on King's nomination and took no action on Walworth's nomination.
John Tyler (I) nominated Samuel Nelson and John M. Read in 1845 (after the 1844 election in which Tyler wasn't a candidate). The Whig-controlled Senate confirmed him Nelson, but took no action on Read's nomination.
Millard Fillmore (W) nominated Edward A. Bradford in 1852. The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action.
Millard Fillmore (W) nominated William C. Micou in 1853 (after the 1852 election in which Fillmore wasn't renominated by his party and which his party's candidate, Winfield Scott, lost). The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action.
James Buchanan (D) nominated Jeremiah S. Black in 1861 (after the 1860 election in which Buchanan didn't run for re-election). The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action.
Rutherford B. Hayes (R) nominated William Burnham Woods in 1880. The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Rutherford B. Hayes (R) nominated Stanley Matthews in 1881 (after the 1880 election in which Hayes didn't run for re-election). The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action. Matthews was renominated by James A. Garfield (R) and confirmed by the new Republican-controlled Senate in May 1881.
Grover Cleveland (D) nominated Melville Fuller in 1888. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Benjamin Harrison (R) nominated George Shiras in 1892 and Howell E. Jackson in 1893 (after Harrison had lost the 1892 election). The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed both.
William Howard Taft (R) nominated Mahlon Pitney in 1912. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Woodrow Wilson (D) nominated Louis Brandeis and John Clarke in 1916. The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed both.
Herbert Hoover (R) nominated Benjamin Cardozo in 1932. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Franklin Roosevelt (D) nominated Frank Murphy in 1940. The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Barack Obama (D) nominated Merrick Garland in 2016. The Republican-controlled Senate took no action.
Donald Trump (R) nominated Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. The Republican-controlled Senate is expected to confirm her.
So, 28 (29 counting Barrett) people have been nominated (and not withdrawn) in a presidential election year or post-election year before the president leaves office.
Of those 28, 19 were confirmed (16 when the Presidency and Senate were aligned, only 3 when they were not (Fuller in 1888, Woods in 1880 and Nelson in 1845)).
Of the 9 that weren't confirmed, 8 occurred when the Presidency and the Senate were opposed. Only 1 occurred when the Presidency and the Senate were aligned (Black in 1861).
Biden's claim is just more bullshit because he doesn't want to answer questions about court packing or his potential nominees. Not only have there been 28-29 nominations in an election year, there's been nominations after an election where the nominating President lost or wasn't running and there's been at least two nominations happen while people are actively voting (John Tyler nominated two candidates on the last day of voting in 1844, but both were withdrawn two months later).
Anyone saying that Republicans shouldn't confirm Barrett now because they refused to confirm Garland back in 2016 also doesn't have history on their side. The last time an opposed Senate confirmed a nominee in an election year was in 1888 and the last time an aligned Senate rejected a nominee in an election year was 1861.
It's just politicking since none of the Democrat activists or elected members would've been hesitant to confirm Garland had they also controlled the Senate during Obama's last year in office.
Which tells you exactly what he plans to do. Packing the court is transparently illegitimate - any halfwit can see that it is unsustainable for every incoming President to shove enough yes-men onto the bench to overturn the previous President's majority - and the people doing it are the same ones that twisted the right to privacy into the so-called constitutional right to murder your own unborn child.
They believe the MSM and their ridiculous shit.
I'm afraid there's far more people supporting Biden than many want to believe.
Mainly because of ignorance; not maliciousness. But it's sad that their lazy method of keeping informed is what will inevitably change the foundation of this country to something awful.
Biden does not deserve any voter's vote.
Too bad the existence of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd means that he will still get millions of free votes for merely running against Trump and having a (D) behind his name.
The current left is so pathetic.
Definitely.
The guy is insane. Hell, most of the party is at this point.
That's why it's important people spread truthful info as much as they can like the WalkAway campaign, or videos debunking misconceptions.
But apathy is a hell of a drug as well.
Their actions speak far louder than their words.
I do not even know if it is TDS anymore. Biden is spewing racist shit all the time, avoids questions that can alter the power dynamic in this country forever, probably is in to kid porn and the left still votes for him. The left advocates for restricting our rights and are cheered on, they are openly racist aand still they are considered the good guys. AOC gets 700k likes on any retarded tweet she does, and she is one of the most obvious dumb person in American politics. I know TDS is strong in them but like WTF, how can it be this fucking strong.
It's called Tribalism.
Past a certain point 2 tribes just hate each other over too many accumulated disagreements and deliberately accelerated misunderstandings.
May be a bit of reach here but I should've seen this coming when early 2000s movies like "Wrong Turn", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Wolf Creek" cementing the idea that city dwellers should be deathly afraid of fly over country.
He spins it as some sort of conservative issue -- it's very much not.
People should be genuinely worried about this.
We're talking full judicial control of the most important decisions in the country.
Even people on the left who support Biden should be worried. This isn't one judge here, it's multiple.
Not only is there no reason for them to assume ACB is some sort of far-right partisan monster like they do, they're so brainwashed that they're willing to create the noose that'll be used to hang them later by supporting a party willing to go to this extreme.
This is a pure power grab.
After the multiple attempts to seize power over the last 4 years, the left -- particularly the younger ones, since the older ones are all but lost -- need to wake the hell up.
Their blind faith in MSM, Big Tech, corporate America, Hollywood, is stupid. They exist to exploit people. They will always do what's in their best interests -- not yours -- to accomplish that.
Packing the court will be the opening salvo of one party rule. They've articulated parts of their plan on multiple occasions. Creating however many states they need to ensure permanent control of the Senate. Allowing non citizens to vote. Removal of the filibuster. The perceived legitimacy of these decisions is contingent on control of the Supreme Court. The Left are done waiting for the frog to boil.
Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment defining how many justices there are on a Supreme Court.
Our government is not remotely constitutional. They should give the seat to Trump, which is ironically constitutional.
To be fair, if we could muster enough legislative unity to amend the constitution then court-packing wouldn’t be a problem
Traditionally, packing the courts has been a tactic of authoritarians looking to cement their power - it's hard to have your own actions deemed illegal when the body that decided that is full of those who would support your illegal actions.
The irony that you have the "anti-fascists" voting for someone who would basically be participating in fascist actions simply because of "drumpfler bad and orange" is not lost and is really concerning.
Didn't I hear somewhere that supreme court appointments during an election year has been done 19 times?
Yes. Not including nominations which were withdrawn, here's a list of all nominations that happened within presidential election years or after a presidential election had occurred but before the next president had taken office:
George Washington (I) nominated William Cushing for Chief Justice in 1796. The Washington-allied Senate confirmed him, but he declined to be elevated and continued as an Associate Justice.
George Washington (I) nominated Samuel Chase and Oliver Ellsworth in 1796. The Washington-allied Senate confirmed both.
John Adams (F) nominated John Jay in 1800 (after Adams had lost the 1800 election). The Federalist-controlled Senate confirmed him, but he declined to serve.
John Adams (F) nominated John Marshall in 1801 (after Adams had lost the 1800 election). The Federalist-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Thomas Jefferson (DR) nominated William Johnson in 1804. The Democratic-Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
John Quincy Adams (NR) nominated John J. Crittenden in 1828 (after Adams had lost the 1828 election). The Democrat-controlled Senate postponed the nomination.
Andrew Jackson (D) nominated John Catron and William Smith in 1837 (after the 1837 election in which Jackson wasn't a candidate, but his Vice President Martin Van Buren had won). The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed both (but William Smith declined to serve).
Martin Van Buren (D) nominated Peter Vivian Daniel in 1841 (after Van Buren had lost the 1840 election). The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him.
John Tyler (I) nominated Edward King and Reuben Walworth in 1844. The Whig-controlled Senate postponed taking action on King's nomination and took no action on Walworth's nomination.
John Tyler (I) nominated Samuel Nelson and John M. Read in 1845 (after the 1844 election in which Tyler wasn't a candidate). The Whig-controlled Senate confirmed him Nelson, but took no action on Read's nomination.
Millard Fillmore (W) nominated Edward A. Bradford in 1852. The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action.
Millard Fillmore (W) nominated William C. Micou in 1853 (after the 1852 election in which Fillmore wasn't renominated by his party and which his party's candidate, Winfield Scott, lost). The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action.
James Buchanan (D) nominated Jeremiah S. Black in 1861 (after the 1860 election in which Buchanan didn't run for re-election). The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action.
Rutherford B. Hayes (R) nominated William Burnham Woods in 1880. The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Rutherford B. Hayes (R) nominated Stanley Matthews in 1881 (after the 1880 election in which Hayes didn't run for re-election). The Democrat-controlled Senate took no action. Matthews was renominated by James A. Garfield (R) and confirmed by the new Republican-controlled Senate in May 1881.
Grover Cleveland (D) nominated Melville Fuller in 1888. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Benjamin Harrison (R) nominated George Shiras in 1892 and Howell E. Jackson in 1893 (after Harrison had lost the 1892 election). The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed both.
William Howard Taft (R) nominated Mahlon Pitney in 1912. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Woodrow Wilson (D) nominated Louis Brandeis and John Clarke in 1916. The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed both.
Herbert Hoover (R) nominated Benjamin Cardozo in 1932. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Franklin Roosevelt (D) nominated Frank Murphy in 1940. The Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed him.
Barack Obama (D) nominated Merrick Garland in 2016. The Republican-controlled Senate took no action.
Donald Trump (R) nominated Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. The Republican-controlled Senate is expected to confirm her.
So, 28 (29 counting Barrett) people have been nominated (and not withdrawn) in a presidential election year or post-election year before the president leaves office.
Of those 28, 19 were confirmed (16 when the Presidency and Senate were aligned, only 3 when they were not (Fuller in 1888, Woods in 1880 and Nelson in 1845)).
Of the 9 that weren't confirmed, 8 occurred when the Presidency and the Senate were opposed. Only 1 occurred when the Presidency and the Senate were aligned (Black in 1861).
Biden's claim is just more bullshit because he doesn't want to answer questions about court packing or his potential nominees. Not only have there been 28-29 nominations in an election year, there's been nominations after an election where the nominating President lost or wasn't running and there's been at least two nominations happen while people are actively voting (John Tyler nominated two candidates on the last day of voting in 1844, but both were withdrawn two months later).
Anyone saying that Republicans shouldn't confirm Barrett now because they refused to confirm Garland back in 2016 also doesn't have history on their side. The last time an opposed Senate confirmed a nominee in an election year was in 1888 and the last time an aligned Senate rejected a nominee in an election year was 1861.
It's just politicking since none of the Democrat activists or elected members would've been hesitant to confirm Garland had they also controlled the Senate during Obama's last year in office.
29 times, if I'm not mistaken.
"We will know what's in it when it's passed."
Get ready for FDR 2:Electric Boogaloo Female Edition.
This is exactly why we have 9 justices to begin with.
Roosevelt didn’t get his way so he forced it
Which tells you exactly what he plans to do. Packing the court is transparently illegitimate - any halfwit can see that it is unsustainable for every incoming President to shove enough yes-men onto the bench to overturn the previous President's majority - and the people doing it are the same ones that twisted the right to privacy into the so-called constitutional right to murder your own unborn child.
They believe the MSM and their ridiculous shit.
I'm afraid there's far more people supporting Biden than many want to believe.
Mainly because of ignorance; not maliciousness. But it's sad that their lazy method of keeping informed is what will inevitably change the foundation of this country to something awful.
!!!!