eau de sauvage wrote on 10/09/20 at 21:48:37:


This is what’s known as leftist, moderator buddy privilege.

I guess Sew would say Eau’s dog looks at him like a “puerile  fcuking moron as well as an imbecile” so it’s okay for Eau to talk this way. Everyone else’s dog must look at them normally so if they get out of line, the delete button comes into play. Who knew Sew was on the Presidential Debate Commission?

Hey Webster, still feeling lucking your bet to vacate this forum after Biden becomes President.


@Mn, you misunderstand, I wasn't saying anything 'bad' about you why would I do that, I was just lamenting the fact that I'd like to answer you but your idiocy makes it impossible, in a way not dissimilar to Trump.

Ahhh Mn, you still don't get it. Maybe you think 'drongo' is some sort of insult but we really don't talk like that here. I would never call you that, it's more of a crododile dundee hollywood thing. Check out the video of Aunty Donna below. Drongo is almost a term of endearment. We more say stuff for example like "you Mn are a vacant c.unt" which you are. When we wanna slag someone off believe me 'drongo' doesn't come into the equation. You fcuking brain dead fcukwad.

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

... Check out the video of Aunty Donna below ...
... Drongo is almost a term of endearment ...

So glad calling you a Drongo does not offend you!
Then I'll just keep using it to describe you,
and your posts !

Interesting video,
can you tell us which one is you ?

Don't know who, 'Aunty Donna' is,
is she a blood relative of yours ?

So nice that she has her own show
and allows you to appear on it.

@JoG, Trump was elected for a four year term yet there's 4 years and 7 months between the death of Scalia and Ginsburg. Why would not Mitch even hold a hearing for Garland? Why were there 200 Federal vacancies for Trump to fill?

Because Garland's place was denied in order to...wait for it...pack the court. why were 200 vacancies not filled by Obama, because McConnell blocked them all in order to ... wait for it... pack the court.

All perfectly within their rights, and if the Democrat gain the senate as well as the presidency it will also be within their constitutional rights to add or subtract from the court, end the filibuster and do whatever they nee to do.

But won't that end in a judicial arms race? No it won't because what comes around goes around. Just like McConnell wants to say the constitution allows him to have done all these things, similarly there's no set number of judges.

If the Republican Party and its conservative defenders are going to operate according to a narrow, legalistic parsing of the rules — if they’re going to do anything and everything that isn’t expressly forbidden by the text, all in service of minority rule on an already counter-majoritarian playing field — then the only rational response is for Democrats to do the same. To adopt forbearance would be to accept defeat.

With some luck this will be the last of Lindsey Graham...

@JoG,

OK you post a link that says the constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices, which we already know. So what is the point you're making.

There's no 'definition' for 'packing' it's whatever you want. However in a colloquial sense 'packing' whether it's local branch stacking at a political office or 'packing' the SC, is simply nefariously adding you own guys.

The keyword being nefariously. The Republicans have been using their raw power to pack the court, not just scotus but the federal courts, by denying Obama 200 federal judges, holding them over for Trump, and also by UNCONSTITUTIONALLY holding back Merrick Garland.

The Constitution says that it is the job of the Senate to 'advise and confirm' Judges picked by the President. Obama selected Garland, and McConnell, using his raw power, refused to do that, saying that Garland is not even going to get a hearing, there will be no advise much less consent.

And why.... to 'pack the court' with their own Federalist selected guys. This is not what the majority of the US public want. This is not how the US public wants Judges with a lifetime job to be selected.

So when the Democrats win the Presidency, if the American people give them a mandate in the Senate, then they should 'unpack' the court and rebalance it to what it would have been had they not conspired to pack it.

Look electing Coney Barrett, is OK but it's not OK that they hold back Merrick Garland.

McConnell and Graham make the ludicrous justification that "A President's term is 4 years not 3.5 er... yes that is correct, but then that also applies to Obama's second term. So Trump get's to select over a period of 4 years and seven month which is the time between the death of Scalia and Ginsburg.

So it's laughable that the Republicans want to try and whinge about "court packing".

Also note that the article correctly points out that there's no set number of judges. It's been anywhere from 5 to 10. The Republican were happy to keep it to 8 for nearly a year.

It is the Republican's who have packed the court and the Democrats could simply just lose Barrett and keep the court at eight. Which would actually be a good idea, then the court would have to make more concessions. There wouldn't be these 5/4 splits.

If the court split 4/4 then the lower court ruling would stand, and y'all wouldn't have such a divisive judiciary.