Three cheers for Chuck!
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/n...ne-obama-nominates-for-supreme-court-20160223
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/n...ne-obama-nominates-for-supreme-court-20160223
Grassley led committee thwarts radical President
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Grassley is what is wrong with politics in the US. There should be term limits. He is a disgrace, well the entire republican party is as well.
He and the GOP is all that protects the country from people like you. May he and they live and serve forever.
Apparently Arizona_Hawks is another one of those liberal, progressive, pinko commie, bed wetters! Quit whining. You lost the 2012 Senate and House elections and elections have consequences.
Grassley is as wrong as wrong can be on this one. I said it other places and I repeat it again....Grassley is too old to be a US Senator.
Here we have an ageist. Prejudiced against the elderly. you make me sick you bigot!
doing my best liberal outrage impression for a post. how did i do?
The SC cannot function with 8 Justices?
Cases cannot be decided 5-3?
Interesting, better let them know that. All cases may not proceed due to Huey's ignorance.
In a lot of ways it can't function with just 8. Split 4-4 decisions defer back down to the lower courts thereby wasting everyone's time and declaring the Supreme Court useless in many cases. Now what were you saying about ignorance, again?
You got me convinced. The highest court in the land should only have as many members of the local jury you just served on. Hip hooray! For not having a functioning judicial Supreme Court!
u failed miserable. Doesn't change the fact that Chuck is too old to serve Iowans as they deserve to be served.Here we have an ageist. Prejudiced against the elderly. you make me sick you bigot!
doing my best liberal outrage impression for a post. how did i do?
You're right. It needs to have nine.
If it takes years to determine those nine, so be it.
There have been two times when the Constitution set the number of justices at an even number (6 and 10). However, it's been 9 for a long time now. In some ways it might make sense to have an even number. That way, any overturns would be decided by at least two more justices than the minority opinion.
Kagan probably has to hold Ginsberg's hand up when it's time to vote. If Ruth goes, we're back to an odd number.
What is wrong with letting the lower court decide? Are the incompentents?
You said it wouldnt function, but it clearly can and has and will.
Talking to you is like discussing something with a 3rd grader.
Chuck also stated to Simon Conway on WHO yesterday that the Senate Republicans have a plan to have the Senate floor manned at all times between now and the Jan '17 inauguration day to prevent BHO from slipping in a recess appointment.
Similar threads
