ADVERTISEMENT

Who should Biden nominate with his four brand new SCOTUS picks?

Huey Grey

HR King
Jan 15, 2013
55,212
88,181
113
I want Garland and Obama in there. That would be worth the Republican meltdown. AOC should be pick #3. She would have at least 60 years to drive the cons nuts.

But who I really want is Hillary. I want her to have a vote to ream out the Republican insides for the rest of her life.
 
If Dems want to destroy the party, then by all means attempt to expand the SC. Oh, and be prepared when the republicans regain power for them to expand the court, too.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.
 
If Dems want to destroy the party, then by all means attempt to expand the SC. Oh, and be prepared when the republicans regain power for them to expand the court, too.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.
Destroy the party? This will consolidate the party. Dems just raised $100 million over this issue. You fill that seat, we will be bloodlusted to vote you out, and next year we will be begging our leadership to pack the court.
 
I'd like to see Garland nominated again. I think the worst thing Democrats could do is find the most polarizing option available.
Oh, the rest of my list, maybe with the exception of Obama, is bullshit just to grab the R's attention.
 
Destroy the party? This will consolidate the party. Dems just raised $100 million over this issue. You fill that seat, we will be bloodlusted to vote you out, and next year we will be begging our leadership to pack the court.
LOL!

You won’t even get full support among Democrats to expand the court! You have gone full loony toons. Even FDR couldn’t get it done. But go ahead.....try it and see what happens.

Good grief......the lunatic extremists have taken over your party. Thankfully there are still a few level-headed Dems left to put the kibosh on such stupidity.

BTW.......Biden is on record saying he is against expanding the court, so good luck with that.
 
So if Biden adds four , maybe next time republicans are in control after that, they add 5 more seats ? Then dems add six, then r’s add 7 soon we’ll have 254 on the bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
The mention of Obama or Clinton on the Supreme Court is as nauseating as Ted Cruz.
Why not nominate AOC or Ilhan Omar.
 
LOL!

You won’t even get full support among Democrats to expand the court! You have gone full loony toons. Even FDR couldn’t get it done. But go ahead.....try it and see what happens.

Good grief......the lunatic extremists have taken over your party. Thankfully there are still a few level-headed Dems left to put the kibosh on such stupidity.

BTW.......Biden is on record saying he is against expanding the court, so good luck with that.
What would stop us? D leadership wants this. Grassroots Ds want this. We have $100 million in brand new money to gin up support for the stragglers. Trump filling that seat will unite Democrats to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg and HawkNester
So if Biden adds four , maybe next time republicans are in control after that, they add 5 more seats ? Then dems add six, then r’s add 7 soon we’ll have 254 on the bench.
This is the powder keg the Rs will ignite. I rather not have it this way, but this is what will happen.
 
What would stop us? D leadership wants this. Grassroots Ds want this. We have $100 million in brand new money to gin up support for the stragglers. Trump filling that seat will unite Democrats to do this.
The American people and popular opinion, that’s who. Just because a few lunatics want it, won’t make it so. But go ahead and try, and see what happens.
 
Destroy the party? This will consolidate the party. Dems just raised $100 million over this issue. You fill that seat, we will be bloodlusted to vote you out, and next year we will be begging our leadership to pack the court.
Absolutely.

Sure, everybody learned about FDR's attempt to do that. And we all learned it was BAD.

But we also learned that tariffs were BAD.

And we used to think letting women vote was BAD.

And desegregation was BAD.

So maybe expanding the Court is something we can change our minds on, too.

McConnell and the GOP are doing their damnedest to make America's judiciary - top to bottom - lackeys of corporate power and anti-democratic values. And they are succeeding.

It may be impossible to fix what the GOP broke without expanding - and liberalizing - the Court.
 
The American people and popular opinion, that’s who. Just because a few lunatics want it, won’t make it so. But go ahead and try, and see what happens.
The American people don't want this pick pushed through. Polls have already come out on this. You are on the losing side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
The American people don't want this pick pushed through. Polls have already come out on this. You are on the losing side.
Really? You want to make a bet....right here and now.....about whether an attempt by the Dems to expand the court will succeed? C’mon, big man. Put up or shut up.
 
I want Garland and Obama in there. That would be worth the Republican meltdown. AOC should be pick #3. She would have at least 60 years to drive the cons nuts.

But who I really want is Hillary. I want her to have a vote to ream out the Republican insides for the rest of her life.

LMAO

TDS much?
 
I want ... Obama in there.
If Roberts steps down, Obama would be a top choice for Chief Justice.

Sure, I'd take him as a regular Justice, but I suspect he wouldn't want to subordinate himself to a corporate lawyer like Roberts.

Roberts may be the best of the conservatives on this court, but he's still a hack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
If Roberts steps down, Obama would be a top choice for Chief Justice.

Sure, I'd take him as a regular Justice, but I suspect he wouldn't want to subordinate himself to a corporate lawyer like Roberts.

Roberts may be the best of the conservatives on this court, but he's still a hack.
The sinister part of me wants Hillary as Chief, and writing every majority opinion, just to make R heads explode.
 
If Dems want to destroy the party, then by all means attempt to expand the SC. Oh, and be prepared when the republicans regain power for them to expand the court, too.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.
Destroy the party? This will consolidate the party. Dems just raised $100 million over this issue. You fill that seat, we will be bloodlusted to vote you out, and next year we will be begging our leadership to pack the court.

If Republican fascists push through a justice despite their own assurances otherwise, welcome to DC and Puerto Rico statehood and four permanent Dem senators, motherfuqqer.
 
If Dems want to destroy the party, then by all means attempt to expand the SC. Oh, and be prepared when the republicans regain power for them to expand the court, too.

The inmates have truly taken over the asylum.
2rn50k.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menace Sockeyes
The sinister part of me wants Hillary as Chief, and writing every majority opinion, just to make R heads explode.
Yeah, but I'm sure the smart part of you wants good decisions. Hillary would be good on some things but has always been too corporate-friendly.

She might overturn Citizens United, but only because she was part of that case, not because she cares about reining in corporate power.

Sure, I could be wrong. Relieved of the pressure of raising campaign funds, she might turn her back on big donors. But why count on her changing her stripes at this late date?
 
LOL!

You won’t even get full support among Democrats to expand the court! You have gone full loony toons. Even FDR couldn’t get it done. But go ahead.....try it and see what happens.

Good grief......the lunatic extremists have taken over your party. Thankfully there are still a few level-headed Dems left to put the kibosh on such stupidity.

BTW.......Biden is on record saying he is against expanding the court, so good luck with that.
I was just curious as to who are the few level-headed republicans that are left to put the kibosh on their party's stupidity over the last several years. Whoever they are, they have been doing a piss-poor job.
 
You guys have it all wrong. You expand to 17 and fill with just out of college women. It doesn't matter the qualifications as we have history that shows us. Once this is put into place you have a woman's rights/choice group bring a case trying to overturn R. vs W. only to fail and thus re affirming and solidifying the right to choose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
Yeah, why would a highly-respected professor of Constitutional Law have any business doing on the Supreme Court?
Lol, I was hoping someone would trot out this argument and you didn't disappoint. You guys have really overplayed the "constitutional law professor" angle. He taught a class on voting rights as a part-time professor while serving in the Illinois State Senate twenty years ago.

He has limited experience as a trial lawyer. The crowning achievement of his legal career was 26 years ago when he successfully represented a client in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after the client had been improperly fired from his position as a securities trader.

He has never presided over a court case in any court at any level. Ever.

His license to practice law has been inactive since 2007. And you want to put him on the Supreme Court.

Look, I like Obama and I would take four more years of him as POTUS over either one of our current choices, but let's leave the Supreme Court positions for actual judges who have actual experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jan Itor
ADVERTISEMENT