Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread

[Anonymous]

Put the screws Ginny. Make it clear it stops when Thomas retires

[Anonymous]

I guess Garland won't act until something horrible happens.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the justices don't deserve the protection of the law since they flout it so blatantly. There is NO respect of the law, so why bother?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dems don't have the power to do anything about it and the GOP is just fine. Get the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate and then we can talk.

The last time the Dems had 60 votes (2009) this included two from WV, two from Montana, one from Iowa, two from North Dakota, one from South Dakota, one from Florida, one from Louisiana, two from Arkansas, one from North Carolina, one from Indiana, one from Nebraska, one from Missouri and one from Alaska. I'd love to see 60 but...how does this ever happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dems don't have the power to do anything about it and the GOP is just fine. Get the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate and then we can talk.

The last time the Dems had 60 votes (2009) this included two from WV, two from Montana, one from Iowa, two from North Dakota, one from South Dakota, one from Florida, one from Louisiana, two from Arkansas, one from North Carolina, one from Indiana, one from Nebraska, one from Missouri and one from Alaska. I'd love to see 60 but...how does this ever happen?

Yeah that Senate had like ten Joe Manchins in it. That’s why getting anything done was still difficult even though they had a filibuster-proof majority for a couple of months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dems don't have the power to do anything about it and the GOP is just fine. Get the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate and then we can talk.

The last time the Dems had 60 votes (2009) this included two from WV, two from Montana, one from Iowa, two from North Dakota, one from South Dakota, one from Florida, one from Louisiana, two from Arkansas, one from North Carolina, one from Indiana, one from Nebraska, one from Missouri and one from Alaska. I'd love to see 60 but...how does this ever happen?

It won't happen, because the Senate favors land instead of people, and splitting the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess Garland won't act until something horrible happens.

Oh if they enforced the laws many many conservatives would be imprisoned. The documented list of conservatives threatening, death threats and harassing including DAs, judges, reporters, election workers, etc and their families including little kids is too long to go over.

There is a difference between protesting vs what republicans do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dems don't have the power to do anything about it and the GOP is just fine. Get the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate and then we can talk.

Yes there it is. Oh we have tied our own hands and can not do anything. Still vote for us so we can sit on our hands and watch the the republicans destroy our system of government.

The dems will always have an excuse to do nothing. If the dems had 60 votes they would magically need 75. If they had 75 they would need 100. It never ends. Remember how the dems said we can not make the senate work on a simple majority because the republicans would past unpopular laws when they win. That would mean elections had consequences.

Right now the republicans win because the dems do not use their elected power by their own choice. The republicans got SCOTUS to strike down Roe. The senate dems hide and do nothing.

What will it take for them to do something or even try to do something? Maybe if someone stormed the Capitol and tried to kill them…oh wait that happened and they did nothing in the senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Garland won't act until something horrible happens.

Oh if they enforced the laws many many conservatives would be imprisoned. The documented list of conservatives threatening, death threats and harassing including DAs, judges, reporters, election workers, etc and their families including little kids is too long to go over.

There is a difference between protesting vs what republicans do.

Anyone making threats should be arrested.
Protesting in front of the Justices' homes is illegal.
Merrick Garland twiddles his thumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Garland won't act until something horrible happens.

Oh if they enforced the laws many many conservatives would be imprisoned. The documented list of conservatives threatening, death threats and harassing including DAs, judges, reporters, election workers, etc and their families including little kids is too long to go over.

There is a difference between protesting vs what republicans do.

Anyone making threats should be arrested.
Protesting in front of the Justices' homes is illegal.
Merrick Garland twiddles his thumbs.

How is it illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dems don't have the power to do anything about it and the GOP is just fine. Get the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate and then we can talk.

Yes there it is. Oh we have tied our own hands and can not do anything. Still vote for us so we can sit on our hands and watch the the republicans destroy our system of government.

The dems will always have an excuse to do nothing. If the dems had 60 votes they would magically need 75. If they had 75 they would need 100. It never ends. Remember how the dems said we can not make the senate work on a simple majority because the republicans would past unpopular laws when they win. That would mean elections had consequences.

Right now the republicans win because the dems do not use their elected power by their own choice. The republicans got SCOTUS to strike down Roe. The senate dems hide and do nothing.

What will it take for them to do something or even try to do something? Maybe if someone stormed the Capitol and tried to kill them…oh wait that happened and they did nothing in the senate.

Have you read the constitution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Garland won't act until something horrible happens.

Oh if they enforced the laws many many conservatives would be imprisoned. The documented list of conservatives threatening, death threats and harassing including DAs, judges, reporters, election workers, etc and their families including little kids is too long to go over.

There is a difference between protesting vs what republicans do.

Anyone making threats should be arrested.
Protesting in front of the Justices' homes is illegal.
Merrick Garland twiddles his thumbs.

If they are in public space and not blocking driveways or walkways, then it isn't illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dems don't have the power to do anything about it and the GOP is just fine. Get the Dems to 60 votes in the Senate and then we can talk.

Yes there it is. Oh we have tied our own hands and can not do anything. Still vote for us so we can sit on our hands and watch the the republicans destroy our system of government.

The dems will always have an excuse to do nothing. If the dems had 60 votes they would magically need 75. If they had 75 they would need 100. It never ends. Remember how the dems said we can not make the senate work on a simple majority because the republicans would past unpopular laws when they win. That would mean elections had consequences.

Right now the republicans win because the dems do not use their elected power by their own choice. The republicans got SCOTUS to strike down Roe. The senate dems hide and do nothing.

What will it take for them to do something or even try to do something? Maybe if someone stormed the Capitol and tried to kill them…oh wait that happened and they did nothing in the senate.

Have you read the constitution?

It may surprise you to hear that the filibuster is not in the Constitution. Neither is cloture, it's just a made-up rule that the Senate has been adjusting on the fly for the past 100 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the justices don't deserve the protection of the law since they flout it so blatantly. There is NO respect of the law, so why bother?

Not all justices.