AGAIN, your prog Sherrod Brown doesn't support it, what exactly is there to support here? Why don't you get the court packing bills passed and see if Biden signs it or not? Or you wanna pretend everything is Biden's fault here?
Biden was the one who fooled us gullible progs teasing support of expanding the court,wont fool us again.
Because decisions have never been challenged, ever. And here I though the individual mandate was still standing for Obamacare. you tell me:
Sherrod Brown said he didn't support expanding the court in 2021.If he says he doesn't support it in 2024 he wont be getting a donation from me.If I lived in OH he wouldn't be getting a vote from me if that was still his stance. Biden has said he doesn't support it.Its going nowhere if a Dem president says they dont support it.
2014 decision applies to all appointments, its not categorical for SC Justices The idea here is not new. President Theodore Roosevelt used this intersession recess to make numerous recess appointments in 1903. The practice was never repeated, however, and the theory upon which TR’s actions were based were largely disavowed by subsequent administrations. But that’s hardly the only problem with an intersession recess appointment. The real problem with trying to make such an intersession recess appointment is that the Supreme Court has held that such an appointment would be unconstitutional in Noel Canning v. NLRB. Dayen and Kilgore purport to address Noel Canning — claiming it does not apply since the case concerned only intrasession recess appointments — but they ignore what Justice Breyer’s opinion for the court actually says. As Seth Barrett Tillman points out, Noel Canning clearly precludes such an appointment. From Justice Breyer’s opinion: we conclude that the phrase “the recess” applies to both intra-session and inter-session recesses. If a Senate recess is so short [i.e., less than 3 days] that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. See Art. I, § 5, cl. 4. And a recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well. If a three-day recess is too short, a three-second recess would certainly be as well and, contrary to Dayen’s and Kilgore’s suggestion, Justice Breyer’s opinion makes no distinction between intrasession and intersession recesses. All told, every justice on the court embraced an opinion rejecting the idea that such an intersession recess appointment would be constitutional. All that the Senate would need to do is end its next session by adjourning sine die and Garland’s term would end. This is because, under the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, such appointments terminate at the end of the next Senate session. Adjourning sine die would require the cooperation of the House and a president’s signature, but that would be no obstacle come Jan. 20. In other words, Congress could terminate any recess appointment made by Obama in less than three weeks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/ Tell you what? Did you read what I wrote? "All it takes is to change federal law" Who changes federal law? Biden? Do I expect laws to be changed with Manchin and Sinema as the 50 votes? Nevermind the fact that this thing will need 60 votes. I do support packing the court, what I am arguing is that it is IMPOSSIBLE in the current scenario - you guys just want to blame Biden and Democrats when you don't even understand the process here.
bro, you're here talking about dems shifting on court packing if we abastain, c'mon now. This is dreamAct debate all over again.
So basically progs who ensured 6-3 majority in the SC over 20 years want Dems to undo their bullshit voting patterns by doing extraordinary things or they will continue to make the SC more conservative. Makes so much sense.