My disgust with Democrats regarding "court stacking"

[Nomomo]

Since when is it a president's job to stack the court?

( sorry shades, just showing you what it's like)

Never one to be overly quick on the uptake, I sheepishly admit that you totally lost me here, Dean.

Are you seriously that dense? I don't believe it.

[Some Schmo]

Let me tell you this: If I only did my job 75% of the time, I'd be fired. Yet apparently that's what the Democrats were insisting must happen.

So, am I wrong to be angry at Democrats for expecting the President to refrain from doing his job? If so, please convince me how and why.

I don't believe you're really this stupid. Jesus damned Christ, really? Or did you just forget to mention the coma you were in during 2016? Other than your Perfume threads, this has to be the dumbest subject you've ever OPed.

Believe me, Democrats would be flabbergasted if Trump actually did his job 75% or the time. Given that he is a lazy “F” who does nothing for this country, 75% would be quite an improvement.

[Some Schmo]

My disgust with Democrats regarding "court stacking"...

...is nothing compared to my disgust with blatant, in your face, “F”-you GOP hypocrisy.

Seriously Shades, this was beneath you. Wake the “F” up.

[Res Ipsa]

I think "court stacking" is a reasonable term for the Republican strategy.

In that case, those Republicans are disgusting for failing to do their jobs. I don't think it obviates the point I made in my opening post, though.

You are correct that Mitch McConnell is responsible for the number of opportunities Trump has to fill positions. But part of the allegations of "court-stacking" also refer to both the ideology and quality of the appointments. Trump is responsible for who he nominates.

[ajax18]

During the Obama presidency, the Republican-controlled Senate adopted a strategy of trying to hold open spots for the next Republican President by not following the normal process of considering Obama's nominees for court position. This strategy culminated failing to even give a hearing to his last Supreme Court nominee because the nomination was made in an election year. By this strategy, the Republican senate held open over 100 federal district court and court of appeals judgeships and one Supreme Court Justice spot for Trump. Then, other than a tax cut and gutting Obamacare, the Senate spent four years rushing through judicial nominations of sometimes wholly unqualified judges, many from lists provided by the federalist society. That culminated in confirming the latest Supreme Court justice days before a presidential election. In four years, 220 Trump judges have been confirmed compared to 334 for Obama in eight. I think "court stacking" is a reasonable term for the Republican strategy.

The Dems could have done the same had they controlled the Senate when Obama nominated Merrick Garland. That's the difference. Court packing has always meant appointing more than 9 justices, at least for the past 200 years.

[canpakes]

Court packing has always meant appointing more than 9 justices, at least for the past 200 years.

No. Only since 1869.

[Dr. Shades]

So selecting a Justice for the Supreme Court with the prerequisite that they are likely to be helpful in your effort to dishonestly steal the election if actually you lose is "doing your job"?

What makes you think she will help him steal the election, assuming it's even possible for her to do so? That's a pretty partisan thing for a Supreme Court justice to do.

Dr. Shades, could you please provide me with a link to your previous post of 4 years ago where you complained about the Republican Senate preventing Obama from "doing his job" by appointing a Supreme Court Justice in his last year of office?

No, because I wasn't paying close enough attention last time.

Are you seriously that dense? I don't believe it.

Thanks for the insult. Now that you (hopefully) have that out of your system, tell me what the "it" is in "sorry shades, just showing you what it's like" means.

I don't believe you're really this stupid. Jesus [vulgarity] Christ, really? Or did you just forget to mention the coma you were in during 2016? Other than your Perfume threads, this has to be the dumbest subject you've ever OPed.

Thanks to you too for the insults. Now that you've hopefully gotten them out of your system, care to take a gander at . . . oh, you know, actually answering my questions in the opening post?

[Res Ipsa]

During the Obama presidency, the Republican-controlled Senate adopted a strategy of trying to hold open spots for the next Republican President by not following the normal process of considering Obama's nominees for court position. This strategy culminated failing to even give a hearing to his last Supreme Court nominee because the nomination was made in an election year. By this strategy, the Republican senate held open over 100 federal district court and court of appeals judgeships and one Supreme Court Justice spot for Trump. Then, other than a tax cut and gutting Obamacare, the Senate spent four years rushing through judicial nominations of sometimes wholly unqualified judges, many from lists provided by the federalist society. That culminated in confirming the latest Supreme Court justice days before a presidential election. In four years, 220 Trump judges have been confirmed compared to 334 for Obama in eight. I think "court stacking" is a reasonable term for the Republican strategy.

The Dems could have done the same had they controlled the Senate when Obama nominated Merrick Garland. That's the difference. Court packing has always meant appointing more than 9 justices, at least for the past 200 years.

I don’t think I said anything about court packing. And could have done the same as what?

[ajax18]

I don’t think I said anything about court packing. And could have done the same as what?

Ok fair enough, you said court stacking. But the Dems did try to redefine the term court packing. The Democrats could have confirmed Merrick Garland in the last year of Obama's term if they had controlled the Senate.

[Some Schmo]

No, because I wasn't paying close enough attention last time.

I don't believe you're really this stupid. Jesus [vulgarity] Christ, really? Or did you just forget to mention the coma you were in during 2016? Other than your Perfume threads, this has to be the dumbest subject you've ever OPed.

Thanks to you too for the insults. Now that you've hopefully gotten them out of your system, care to take a gander at . . . oh, you know, actually answering my questions in the opening post?

You answered your own question. You weren't paying attention. You clearly asked your question out of ignorance of the events in 2016. That's why it's mysterious to you and nobody else.

I only insult you because I know you could be better than this, and it's annoying to witness you asking dumb questions.