Neither article shows that Word is that Breyer told them to pound sand.
If he was planning to retire this is probably the best way to do it,trying to make it seem the decision wasn't political.
RBG passed
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Neither article shows that Word is that Breyer told them to pound sand.
If he was planning to retire this is probably the best way to do it,trying to make it seem the decision wasn't political.
The lefties have the same "inconvenient reality" with Breyer that they had with Ruthie.
The dem politicians all think that packing the court is the greatest idea since sliced bread, but both Breyer and Ruthie were adamantly opposed to it and thought that it was a dumb idea.
I get that the legislative branch decides the number of justices regardless of what justices say, but let's just say that the sitting court members are in a position to say things that influence others in this matter.
The court packing that the dems will probably succeed in doing is getting lower level appeals court judges appointed under the guise of helping with the workload. So those would be new and additional judges/justices. But when a case is heard en banc- ie by the full panel- it means that all will decide together including the new justices added. That will also allow them to put more lefty judges in the wings to showcase themselves for Supreme Court appointments. All of this presupposes that dems will be in power and the dems proceed with that assumption. Be careful though. Surprises happen. I am not necessarily opposed to adding some additional judges on a phased in basis such that it cuts across at least one election. Also, the nineth circuit needs to be broken up. It's jurisdiction is an unruly mess, both for the court and the states covered.
The dem politicians all think that packing the court is the greatest idea since sliced bread, but both Breyer and Ruthie were adamantly opposed to it and thought that it was a dumb idea.
I get that the legislative branch decides the number of justices regardless of what justices say, but let's just say that the sitting court members are in a position to say things that influence others in this matter.
The court packing that the dems will probably succeed in doing is getting lower level appeals court judges appointed under the guise of helping with the workload. So those would be new and additional judges/justices. But when a case is heard en banc- ie by the full panel- it means that all will decide together including the new justices added. That will also allow them to put more lefty judges in the wings to showcase themselves for Supreme Court appointments. All of this presupposes that dems will be in power and the dems proceed with that assumption. Be careful though. Surprises happen. I am not necessarily opposed to adding some additional judges on a phased in basis such that it cuts across at least one election. Also, the nineth circuit needs to be broken up. It's jurisdiction is an unruly mess, both for the court and the states covered.
This is the same fucking idiot that thought he was a federal judicial expert who argued for months that federal judges would throw out the Flynn case without the need of a pardon
Last edited:
Pack the courts next year?
Libtards can't even seat 1 SCOTUS. BLahahahahahahaha
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/15/politics/breyer-reaction/index.html
Liberals struggle with Breyer's refusal to retire
Washington (CNN) - Justice Stephen Breyer's latest signal, in comments made exclusively to CNN, that he is not yet ready to retire from the Supreme Court is angering progressive advocates and leading legal observers to wonder whether the left's pressure campaign on Breyer backfired.
We all know his main reason for living it to pack the court next opportunity he gets.
May Smidge roast in hell.
Jackson in neither qualified nor pro-Constitution.