Biden White House: Year 4

[TerryBoats]

3 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Facts. They often recorded no information that would have allowed them reunite children with the parents they deported and made no attempt to put families back together.

You do realize that you presented no facts, right?

Edited April 10, 2021 by abc2330

[pat]

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

I knew you were going to come up with crap. The crazies are the anti police, super woke, canceling assholes, super greenies, open borders, etc.  They ignore the murders occurring at record pace while calling anyone a racist at a drop of a hat.

 

And AOC, Steve Cohen, Lee, de Blasio, and many others are bat shit crazy

Yes.  The Crazies are beating police with flag poles.  Shouting about banning Major League Baseball.

 

Fwiw De Blasio isn't crazy he just sucks.

[Starkiller]

5 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

You do realize that you presented no facts, right?

Just because you refuse to admit it doesn’t make something not a fact.
 

This has all been well reported. Just not on Fox News or OAN or whatever propaganda “news” network you apparently follow.

[IsntLifeFunny]

14 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

Well that explains everything.  How many are now in the system since Biden came into office?

A lot, but they aren’t being stripped from their parents. Are you seriously so dense as to not see the difference? 

[Titans279]

I think it's true that there's little to no outrage about kids right now being kept in some cage like structures while "kids in cages" was definitely a large part of the complaint about Trump. It's not true to say it was primarily about child separation for most people.

 

For example "kids in cages" was more searched for compared to "child separation".

 

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 5-y&geo=US&q=kids in cages,child separation

[OILERMAN]

5 hours ago, El Guapo said:

The crazies are the anti police, super woke, canceling assholes, super greenies

 

Ah, the insurgents!

[OILERMAN]

Stephen Miller was a known white supremist, don't put him in charge if you don't want to get criticized 

[Rogue]

15 hours ago, El Guapo said:

He doesn’t need to retire if the Democrats succeed in packing the court which they want to do. Typical leftist bullshit. I am waiting for anything moderate in the Biden administration. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/09/biden-supreme-court-reform-commission-480582

 

Quote

Biden himself has said he’s “not a fan” of so-called court-packing — adding additional seats to the Supreme Court in order to alter its ideological balance — and held up the commission as a more conscientious approach to studying the issue.

The left may want to pack the courts, but the man in charge does not, so why not cool your jets and stop being so partisan reactionary to every little thing that may or may not amount to anything?  I know, but, but, Trump!  Right?  It's gotta end somewhere.  

There are alternatives.  One that I had read several months ago was that prior to the SC claiming it had absolute authority on the final say in matters, the Congress had Congressional oversight over the Judiciary.  At some point in our history, the SC did not have the final say in matters.   Now, I don't know what this means or how it played out long ago.  It's certainly not taught.  It appears in line with the founders thoughts of there is no absolute authority, yet who makes the final decision?  I don't know.  The SC decided it did, and apparently everyone went along with it.  

 

Again, I don't have an inkling as to this process, how it worked or failed.  But I don't mind a commision to consider such things.  Are there issues that you feel the SC had too much say in a matter to be absolute?  I'm betting you do.  I do.  Perhaps there's another way other than bowing to a SC decision as final.  I imagine a shit ton of Conservatives would be for this idea...if they gave it thought.  

Like I said, I have no idea what that looks like.  I've only known one system, as have you, which was not the system of the Founders.  Might considering such things be of value, or are you closed off to any consideration?  I mean, that's kind of the conservative thing.....disliking change.  

Point ultimately being that while Democrats are looking for ways to offset the SC, don't you think a reconsideration of the founders ideals were to be worthy?  Or just closed period?    





 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Rogue

[Starkiller]

Of course they should re-balance the federal courts. But Biden won’t do it and I doubt all 50 Democratic senators would either.

[El Guapo]

5 hours ago, Rogue said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/09/biden-supreme-court-reform-commission-480582

 

The left may want to pack the courts, but the man in charge does not, so why not cool your jets and stop being so partisan reactionary to every little thing that may or may not amount to anything?  I know, but, but, Trump!  Right?  It's gotta end somewhere.  

There are alternatives.  One that I had read several months ago was that prior to the SC claiming it had absolute authority on the final say in matters, the Congress had Congressional oversight over the Judiciary.  At some point in our history, the SC did not have the final say in matters.   Now, I don't know what this means or how it played out long ago.  It's certainly not taught.  It appears in line with the founders thoughts of there is no absolute authority, yet who makes the final decision?  I don't know.  The SC decided it did, and apparently everyone went along with it.  

 

Again, I don't have an inkling as to this process, how it worked or failed.  But I don't mind a commision to consider such things.  Are there issues that you feel the SC had too much say in a matter to be absolute?  I'm betting you do.  I do.  Perhaps there's another way other than bowing to a SC decision as final.  I imagine a shit ton of Conservatives would be for this idea...if they gave it thought.  

Like I said, I have no idea what that looks like.  I've only known one system, as have you, which was not the system of the Founders.  Might considering such things be of value, or are you closed off to any consideration?  I mean, that's kind of the conservative thing.....disliking change.  

Point ultimately being that while Democrats are looking for ways to offset the SC, don't you think a reconsideration of the founders ideals were to be worthy?  Or just closed period?    





 

So congress can overturn SC decisions? And congress can reverse itself any time it changes party dominance? That seems like a nightmare.

 

No, I do not agree with this. As a conservative, I prefer a ruling by a liberal SC than a liberal congress.  The SC is more intelligent, freer from outside press, not influenced by money donors, etc. 

[El Guapo]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/547539-ny-times-beclowns-itself-by-normalizing-court-packing-to-balance-the
 

I’m sure there are a lot of conservatives on this commission...lol

[reo]

19 hours ago, El Guapo said:

So congress can overturn SC decisions? And congress can reverse itself any time it changes party dominance? That seems like a nightmare.

 

No, I do not agree with this. As a conservative, I prefer a ruling by a liberal SC than a liberal congress.  The SC is more intelligent, freer from outside press, not influenced by money donors, etc. 

 

McConnell blocks Dems from filling a seat by saying a president in an election year should wait until after an election to fill a seat and blocks all votes on Obama's nominee to steal a seat on the bench then refuses to play by his own rule in order to steal another..... If Republicans want to do anything legally possible to pack the courts with conservatives then they can't complain when Dems do everything legally possible to do the same with liberals. 

 

Deal with it. 

[luvyablue256]

2 hours ago, reo said:

 

McConnell blocks Dems from filling a seat by saying a president in an election year should wait until after an election to fill a seat and blocks all votes on Obama's nominee to steal a seat on the bench then refuses to play by his own rule in order to steal another..... If Republicans want to do anything legally possible to pack the courts with conservatives then they can't complain when Dems do everything legally possible to do the same with liberals. 

 

Deal with it. 

 

Plain & simple

[El Guapo]

5 hours ago, reo said:

 

McConnell blocks Dems from filling a seat by saying a president in an election year should wait until after an election to fill a seat and blocks all votes on Obama's nominee to steal a seat on the bench then refuses to play by his own rule in order to steal another..... If Republicans want to do anything legally possible to pack the courts with conservatives then they can't complain when Dems do everything legally possible to do the same with liberals. 

 

Deal with it. 

Packing the court is expanding the number of judges. Filling an opening is not packing. It is the benefit of winning the presidency and having a senate majority. Deal with that and get your facts and rhetoric straight.

[pat]

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

Packing the court is expanding the number of judges. Filling an opening is not packing. It is the benefit of winning the presidency and having a senate majority. Deal with that and get your facts and rhetoric straight.

 

Setting the size of the court is also a benefit of controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress.  It shouldn't be hard to deal with, you yourself noted you wouldn't mind a liberal SC.