justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/14/20 at 16:36:42:



LOL. You complained I didn't use your specific linked to definition but my own. So I went back to your definition and show that too is nothing to do with what the Democrats will likely do.

And you still complain. The fact is that what the Democrats propose to do if Barrett is rammed through after Garland has been refused a hearing, and the 200 Federal Judges were held up for Trump, IS court packing, but we don't need to give it a name, but if you did want to give that a name, it's more worthy of the epithet 'court packing' than the Democrats fixing what the Republicans are doing which is actively thwarting the will of the American people. I mean if they weren't they wouldn't need to use their raw power to block Obama's appointees and then force through Barrett

You make up your mind what what you want to call court packing. Or we can just say, what the Republicans did is perfectly fine. And what the Democrats are going to do is also perfectly fine.

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/14/20 at 17:23:40:


So the democrats are at it again.  

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/14/20 at 21:21:31:


Do you even know what you're talking about?

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/14/20 at 22:25:52:

... Talking like an eight year old ...
... posting non sequiturs and imbecilic sentences ...

When I say, you post things only a Drongo would post.
You enjoy it.

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/12/20 at 02:33:49:

... Drongo is almost a term of endearment....

Keep up the good work !

1.Do you know Roosevelt was democrat?

2.What makes you think they'll stop at 1 or 2?

3.What do you think the republican response will be?

4.Can you follow your own train of thought?

1. He was not a democrat obvs, but that is irrelevant because I was quoting JoG's post where he referenced TR's plan as 'court packing' for the sake of some definition.

2. What makes you think they won't

3. What does it matter because we see the Republican response right now in real time which is, 'our plan is to do whatever the fcuk we want'. Remember they are a minority/majority Senate ramming Barrett down the collective throats against the wishes of a large majority as an expression of the raw power they have.

4. Obviously you are the one unable to think beyond the most basic partisan arguments and like y'all do, try to project your insufficiencies on others.

With that said, read up on this article which brilliantly details the stark reality going forward and why if given the mandate of the Senate, the Democrats have no choice...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-expedite-conservati...

P.S. I have to admire the way you willingly dropped cover when you saw JoG was in over his head so you take over and try to drown the thread. Typical childish tactic.

And you guys beg for donations while fostering this sh!tty little 'political' forum. LOL. You drive more people away you alienate normal people who just want to come to a m/cycle forum without knowing this putrid cesspool exists. Pity those who wander into it.

1. As I said, it is irrelevant.

2. And your point is what? You haven't made any 'point'

3. That's just your shallow way of thinking. Look what the Republican are now doing, you OK with that. Well of course you are but the majority of the US isn't.

4. You are also free to piss off.

The reason it won't end in a judicial arms race is because ... elections. IF the US voters give Biden a clear mandate to fix the wrong of the Supreme court by flipping the Senate, then that is clearly what they want, which is to fix the current outrage.

Now you say what if the Republican just add more Justices, then the American People will speak and they'll be out of Congress for decades.

If Biden gets a majority Senate, he has no choice but to rebalance out the extreme unrepresentative Barrett. She's proven to be a cunning liar, racial bigot which is no more than you'd expect.

verslagen1 wrote on 10/16/20 at 16:03:32:


Ah yes, the famous, 'you've been proven wrong'. Nothing been proven, you are not even able to explain what your point is. All you have is puerile responses.

Go on what is the 'point' your supposedly making. If you are indeed making a point that is. Are you able to clearly state a point?