Playstation Tablet 1,725 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Some sites says the democracts won, others say Republians. But this seems to be the real final deal. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Beta Bux Romeo said: Some sites says the democracts won, others say Republians. But this seems to be the real final deal. Only the fact that Democratic will control the House. Those numbers are clearly not final. Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, jehurey said: No. "Pack the Supreme Court" could mean specifically choose Justices that are significantly more liberal that what previous Democratic Presidents may have chosen. It could mean choosing significantly younger justices that will stay there for a long period of time. Especially with Mitch McConnell's rules, a simple Senate majority can pass a hard liberal justice. And vice versa. You were making fun of the "just the Congress" line, dude....................stop trying to play stupid. The right-wing dipshit you were quoting CLEARLY tried to depict it like that. Pick your poison.............either you are admitting to being TOO STUPID to read his tweet correctly, or you're being too stupid now trying to make up crazy scenarios. Right kinda like FDR's "supreme court packing" plan that the Congress found unconstitutional. You're now defending increasing the number of justices so you can pack the supreme court with young liberals? You can't be serious with this shit Edited November 7, 2018 by Vini Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 God damn it, looks like I-1639 is going to pass in my state. More abridgment of the second amendment. I hate this liberal shit hole, these people are so disconnected from reality. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Well, we'll see how they turn out, but Kristin Sinema is staying in there tight in Arizona's Senate seat (I believe that is Jeff Flake's outgoing seat) and within 8,500 votes of the Republican. And the Phoenix area is just starting to report their numbers. So who knows. And Tony Evers is barely hanging on against Scott Walker in the Wisconsin Governor race, by about 1500 votes. Although 78% percent has already voted. Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,085 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, McWickedSmawt85 said: Are these mother fuckers serious lol? Kind of missed the period of relevance retards. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Vini said: Right kinda like FDR's "supreme court packing" plan that the Congress found unconstitutional. You're now defending increasing the number of justices so you can pack the supreme court with young liberals? You can't be serious with this shit I love how you STILL think you can get me away from the fact that you are pretending to mis-read what that right-wing dipshit tweeted. Its not working, sweetheart. Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Just now, jehurey said: I love how you STILL think you can get me away from the fact that you are pretending to mis-read what that right-wing dipshit tweeted. Its not working, sweetheart. Of course you would pretend you're a mind reader of my unexplicit intentions after failing to defend the mind bogglingly stupid suggestion of "packing the supreme court". Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) I don't care how much of the government you control saying that you intend to "pack the supreme court" should disqualify you from any position of power Edited November 7, 2018 by Vini Link to post Share on other sites
-GD-X★ 7,731 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Looks like Scott won. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Vini said: Of course you would pretend you're a mind reader of my unexplicit intentions after failing to defend the mind bogglingly stupid suggestion of "packing the supreme court". No, because if Republicans get 6 of the 9 justices passed through, then they had effectively "packed" the supreme court. You're not clever enough to get out of this. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Vini said: I don't care how much of the government you control saying that you intend to "pack the supreme court" should disqualify you from any position of power So the Republicans should be disqualified from any position of power. Good to know. Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, jehurey said: No, because if Republicans get 6 of the 9 justices passed through, then they had effectively "packed" the supreme court. You're not clever enough to get out of this. Apparently you're not clever enough to know what court packing means https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 Even though you accidentally alluded to it on the last page. What Republicans are doing is not packing the court. Edited November 7, 2018 by Vini Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 A Democrat has just won a House seat in the dead-middle of Oklahoma. LOL In my district, we kicked one of the top ranking Republicans in the House, Pete Sessions. Colin Allred won. I'm genuinely surprised that Houston did not vote as blue as Dallas County. I had always thought that the Houston area was more liberal. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Vini said: Apparently you're not clever enough to know what court packing means https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 Even though you accidentally alluded to it on the last page. What Republicans are doing is not packing the court. No. court packing can also mean greatly shifting the balance of the existing court. Since that phrasing is used for passing federal court judges through Congress. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-have-a-breathtaking-plan-for-trump-to-pack-the-courts/2017/11/21/b7ce90d4-ce43-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.7c17d198a685 Tell me Vini.............is the Washington Post saying that Trump will CREATE NEW FEDERAL JUDGES AND NEW JUDGE DISTRICTS OUT OF THIN AIR?????? Or is the packing being done with the existing number of districts, and open judicial seats????? Edited November 7, 2018 by jehurey Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, jehurey said: No. court packing can also mean greatly shifting the balance of the existing court. Since that phrasing is used for passing federal court judges through Congress. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-have-a-breathtaking-plan-for-trump-to-pack-the-courts/2017/11/21/b7ce90d4-ce43-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.7c17d198a685 Tell me Vini.............is the Washington Post saying that Trump will CREATE NEW FEDERAL JUDGES AND NEW JUDGE DISTRICTS OUT OF THIN AIR?????? Or is the packing being done with the existing number of districts, and open judicial seats????? Court packing means adding new judges, there's only one definition. Read your own damn article Quote Calabresi proposes to pack the federal courts with a "minimum" of 260 — and possibly as many as 447 — newly created judicial positions. Under this plan, the 228-year-old federal judiciary would increase — in a single year — by 30 to 50 percent Jesus Christ Jerry Edited November 7, 2018 by Vini Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Vini said: Court packing means adding new judges, there's only one definition. Read your own damn article Jesus Christ Jerry No it doesn't...............I literally just posted an article using that term in which it specifically does not involved creating NEW judicial seats. Funny how you don't want to read my article since it completely breaks your definition. Packing can be done with EXISTING SEATS, or with NEW SEATS. If Trump names 4 judges over his presidency, he would've effectively packed the court............if the Democrats were have named Scalia's replacement, Anthony Kennedy's replacement, and Bader Ginsburg's replacement, they would've "packed the Supreme Court" with liberal judges. That is exactly how Fox News and right-wing media would use that word. Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Sinema has now cut it down to 4500 votes in Arizona. And Evers is hanging on to dear life with just 750 votes, but with 85% reporting. Link to post Share on other sites
Ike★ 2,906 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 29 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said: God damn it, looks like I-1639 is going to pass in my state. More abridgment of the second amendment. I hate this liberal shit hole, these people are so disconnected from reality. I voted no on that one. Hated it. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts