Trump Might Get Another SCOTUS Pick Soon (Page 5): Handlers???? Why do you libs say crap like that? I guess I expect this crap from a guy who doesn't know which end of the flag is up.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

mjmoore17 wrote:

It is a process that is quite easy and has been done to increase the courts size in the past. Only needs congressional approval and presidents signature. The constitution says nothing about the size of the court. You should read it instead of your daily briefings from your handlers.

Handlers???? Why do you libs say crap like that? I guess I expect this crap from a guy who doesn't know which end of the flag is up.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

EyeSawYou wrote:

Typical Lib? lol I'm actually a conservative.

Some of our righties seem to think that if you disagree with them about anything or contradict them at all...you must be a lib.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

EyeSawYou wrote:

That are not with wrong with me! I are just gooder as I am me are.

Hilarious!

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

thom w wrote:

With all of your faults why do you want to take on someone else's as well. I'm pretty sure he is smarter than to take on yours.

Little tommie, why do you but your nose into everyone else's business?

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

mjmoore17 wrote:

During most of that last year, there were only 8.

Well, upside down flag guy you blatantly lied. The size of the court was NOT reduced.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

thom w wrote:

I don’t believe that to be the case. But let’s assume it is. You don’t know how smart I am, and you don’t know how smart he is, so how do you make a comparison. Some on here give major clues.

For all I know, you could be pretty smart, even thiugh you have never demonstrated it here. I do know that you are much better at circular speak than I am. I have no idea what the value if that could be.

Little tommie it is easy to make the comparison. You are the one who claims to be a genius and it is easy to see that you barley have rudimentary intelligence. Adding to that, you lie prolifically, change the subject when you have no answer, so it was a very easy conclusion to make.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Elaine2025 wrote:

Well, upside down flag guy you blatantly lied. The size of the court was NOT reduced.

To quote your comrade Elaine.. it was effectively reduced. There were 8 voters and not 9.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

mjmoore17 wrote:

To quote your comrade Elaine.. it was effectively reduced. There were 8 voters and not 9.

Upside down flag guy, The supreme court was nine with one vacancy. That in any sane mind is not a "reduced" court. It is still a court of 9. Give it up, you are wrong.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

EyeSawYou wrote:

LOLOLOLOL Dirtspout smarter than someone else? LOLOLOLOL

Say the uhh resident liar

Pegasus Loc: Texas Gulf Coast

It's now being reported that RBG has pneumonia and will retire in January.

https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Pegasus wrote:

It's now being reported that RBG has pneumonia and will retire in January.

https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Good thing the senate and not the house is in charge of putting another one on the court.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Elaine2025 wrote:

Upside down flag guy, The supreme court was nine with one vacancy. That in any sane mind is not a "reduced" court. It is still a court of 9. Give it up, you are wrong.

I don't know why but I'll try to educate you. The original Supreme Court consisted of five Justices and one Chief Justice which made it 6. It was then expanded twice, once to seven in Then it was reduced to five total but was dependent upon one of the Justices dying or retiring on his own.
This occurred and then there were a total of five, including the Chief Justice. The SCOTUS was then expanded to seven, then to nine and then to 10 Justices and a Chief, bringing it to 11. Then in 1869, the court was reduced to nine.
There was one attempt by FDR to expand the court again but it was defeated in Congress.
Thus, it is apparent that the size of the court is flexible and based upon law, not the Constitution.
So can it happen? Yes, it can.
You're welcome, Elaine.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Frank T wrote:

I don't know why but I'll try to educate you. The... (show quote)

Frank, thank you, but what you stated was not the issue, but a good history lesson. I said the court was NINE with one vacant seat under obama. He said the size of the court was REDUCED TO EIGHT. It was not REDUCED, there was simply a vacancy.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Elaine2025 wrote:

Little tommie, why do you but your nose into everyone else's business?

Isn’t that what you just did?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Elaine2025 wrote:

Little tommie it is easy to make the comparison. You are the one who claims to be a genius and it is easy to see that you barley have rudimentary intelligence. Adding to that, you lie prolifically, change the subject when you have no answer, so it was a very easy conclusion to make.

You sure make a lot of noise.