Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

What's more important to you, a majority in Congress plus POTUS, or a majority in the SCOTUS?
This boils down to, in very simple terms, lawmaking vs. law interpreting. I know it's not that simple but you will have to factor in the variables.

The problem here is the assumption...
That any of them are worthy of the offices they hold...
two thirds of them are completely worthless (period)

None of them are going to fix any REAL PROBLEMS
This is like a fashion window dressing poll - Lavender or Burnt Umber - the agony

Chizzang wrote:The problem here is the assumption...
That any of them are worthy of the offices they hold...
two thirds of them are completely worthless regardless of which side they sit on politically

None of them are going to fix any of this countries REAL PROBLEMS
This is like a fashion window dressing poll - Lavender or Burnt Umber - the agony

OK. Go from a theoretical standpoint. The way the system is designed.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:The problem here is the assumption...
That any of them are worthy of the offices they hold...
two thirds of them are completely worthless regardless of which side they sit on politically

None of them are going to fix any of this countries REAL PROBLEMS
This is like a fashion window dressing poll - Lavender or Burnt Umber - the agony

OK. Go from a theoretical standpoint. The way the system is designed.

Can I appoint my children and my friends..?

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: OK. Go from a theoretical standpoint. The way the system is designed.

Can I appoint my children and my friends..?

You have zero of each, so YES.

This is an immediate vs long term gratification issue.

And since I’m undiagnosed ADD, I SAY POTUS PLUS COTUS!!!!

ALSO COITUS!!!!

93henfan wrote:This is an immediate vs long term gratification issue.

And since I’m undiagnosed ADD, I SAY POTUS PLUS COTUS!!!!

ALSO COITUS!!!!

Holla!!!!

Why are you yelling?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Can I appoint my children and my friends..?

You have zero of each, so YES.

*Zing..!!!

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Can I appoint my children and my friends..?

You have zero of each, so YES.

KAPOW

CAA Flagship wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Can I appoint my children and my friends..?

You have zero of each, so YES.

BOOM goes the dynamite. My preference would be all 3,but because that is not the question, would have to go with an effective POTUS and Congress.keyword is effective, not the indecisive Congress we have now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't vote, but I will complain where's pee in the butt?

If you have the majority in both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and sufficient will you can control the majority of the Supreme Court. That's especially true in today's environment where both parties have made it clear that they will slap the filibuster out of the way to get what they want. If a Party has a one vote majority in the House, a one vote majority in the Senate, and the Presidency it can simply increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to whatever level it has to to pack the Court. And I think even somebody as old as me (60) may live to see that now.

When the Democrats gain control...and I don't think there's any question that that's going to happen unless there are some really dramatic changes to trends that have been in place for over 40 years...I don't think they are going to accept a "conservative" majority Supreme Court. And they will have the power to change the situation.

Chizzang wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: You have zero of each, so YES.

*Zing..!!!

Buck up! There’s no finer skin on CS than getting an oh no from Chizzang!

I voted for POTUS + Congress on the chicken/egg theory. Unless you have this, you can’t have the potential to affect SCOTUS.

JohnStOnge wrote:If you have the majority in both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and sufficient will you can control the majority of the Supreme Court. That's especially true in today's environment where both parties have made it clear that they will slap the filibuster out of the way to get what they want. If a Party has a one vote majority in the House, a one vote majority in the Senate, and the Presidency it can simply increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to whatever level it has to to pack the Court. And I think even somebody as old as me (60) may live to see that now.

When the Democrats gain control...and I don't think there's any question that that's going to happen unless there are some really dramatic changes to trends that have been in place for over 40 years...I don't think they are going to accept a "conservative" majority Supreme Court. And they will have the power to change the situation.

Your OCD is off the charts. Court packing will never happen for political reasons.

JohnStOnge wrote:If you have the majority in both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and sufficient will you can control the majority of the Supreme Court. That's especially true in today's environment where both parties have made it clear that they will slap the filibuster out of the way to get what they want. If a Party has a one vote majority in the House, a one vote majority in the Senate, and the Presidency it can simply increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to whatever level it has to to pack the Court. And I think even somebody as old as me (60) may live to see that now.

When the Democrats gain control...and I don't think there's any question that that's going to happen unless there are some really dramatic changes to trends that have been in place for over 40 years...I don't think they are going to accept a "conservative" majority Supreme Court. And they will have the power to change the situation.

Why do you repeat the same nonsense over and over and over?
NUMEROUS years a party has had the POTUS and control of both houses since 1869 (when SCOTUS was set at 9), a SCOTUS makeup not to their liking, and SCOTUS has stayed at 9. Not even FDR changed it, and he threatened to. Not a single donk or conk POTUS has since. Not gonna happen.

Rob Iola wrote:I didn't vote, but I will complain where's pee in the butt?

I actually typed it in but deleted it because I really wanted to see how this vote would go.

Ivytalk wrote:I voted for POTUS + Congress on the chicken/egg theory. Unless you have this, you can’t have the potential to affect SCOTUS.

There is no caveat in this where you can't have both in favor of your leaning. The question is what is more important to you. Essentially, which one has a greater impact on your life?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I voted for POTUS + Congress on the chicken/egg theory. Unless you have this, you can’t have the potential to affect SCOTUS.

There is no caveat in this where you can't have both in favor of your leaning. The question is what is more important to you. Essentially, which one has a greater impact on your life?

I’m not sure either has had much impact on my life so...pee in the butt?

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:If you have the majority in both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and sufficient will you can control the majority of the Supreme Court. That's especially true in today's environment where both parties have made it clear that they will slap the filibuster out of the way to get what they want. If a Party has a one vote majority in the House, a one vote majority in the Senate, and the Presidency it can simply increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to whatever level it has to to pack the Court. And I think even somebody as old as me (60) may live to see that now.

When the Democrats gain control...and I don't think there's any question that that's going to happen unless there are some really dramatic changes to trends that have been in place for over 40 years...I don't think they are going to accept a "conservative" majority Supreme Court. And they will have the power to change the situation.

Why do you repeat the same nonsense over and over and over?
NUMEROUS years a party has had the POTUS and control of both houses since 1869 (when SCOTUS was set at 9), a SCOTUS makeup not to their liking, and SCOTUS has stayed at 9. Not even FDR changed it, and he threatened to. Not a single donk or conk POTUS has since. Not gonna happen.

The rules have changed. 10 years ago nobody would have gotten rid of the filibuster to get federal judges in general confirmed but the Democrats changed that. 10 years ago nobody would've gotten rid of the filibuster to get a Supreme Court Justice on but the Republicans changed that. If they can do it, I think they will do it. And a time will come when they can do it.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:If you have the majority in both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and sufficient will you can control the majority of the Supreme Court. That's especially true in today's environment where both parties have made it clear that they will slap the filibuster out of the way to get what they want. If a Party has a one vote majority in the House, a one vote majority in the Senate, and the Presidency it can simply increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court to whatever level it has to to pack the Court. And I think even somebody as old as me (60) may live to see that now.

When the Democrats gain control...and I don't think there's any question that that's going to happen unless there are some really dramatic changes to trends that have been in place for over 40 years...I don't think they are going to accept a "conservative" majority Supreme Court. And they will have the power to change the situation.

Your OCD is off the charts. Court packing will never happen for political reasons.

I think it WILL happen for political reasons. What is the downside, politically, for Democrats if they gain power and do it? Again: The demographic trends are in their favor. The groups that might object to them doing it are shrinking in terms of proportions of the population. Their supporters are really pissed off right now by the fact that a minority controls the government. When they gain control it's going to be pitchforks time. Their supporters are going to want blood. Figuratively, of course.

It used to be that the filibuster kind of kept a buffer on things. It used to be that each side went along with the idea that they had to have at least 60 votes in the Senate to get things done. But that buffer has obviously been severely compromised at this point. Things have changed. The Democrats started it then the Republicans put the nail in by eliminating the filibuster in order to get Gorsich in. I can't believe any of you guys think that the Democrats won't do whatever they have to do to nix whatever Supreme Court advantage the Republicans get when they inevitably gain control of the Executive and Legislative branches.

JohnStOnge wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Why do you repeat the same nonsense over and over and over?
NUMEROUS years a party has had the POTUS and control of both houses since 1869 (when SCOTUS was set at 9), a SCOTUS makeup not to their liking, and SCOTUS has stayed at 9. Not even FDR changed it, and he threatened to. Not a single donk or conk POTUS has since. Not gonna happen.

The rules have changed. 10 years ago nobody would have gotten rid of the filibuster to get federal judges in general confirmed but the Democrats changed that. 10 years ago nobody would've gotten rid of the filibuster to get a Supreme Court Justice on but the Republicans changed that. If they can do it, I think they will do it. And a time will come when they can do it.

Just send a thank you card to Harry Reid, somewhere in Nevada.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Your OCD is off the charts. Court packing will never happen for political reasons.

I think it WILL happen for political reasons. What is the downside, politically, for Democrats if they gain power and do it? Again: The demographic trends are in their favor. The groups that might object to them doing it are shrinking in terms of proportions of the population. Their supporters are really pissed off right now by the fact that a minority controls the government. When they gain control it's going to be pitchforks time. Their supporters are going to want blood. Figuratively, of course.

Ivy is right. It won't happen for political reasons. Its not just conks who would be universally against it- most independents would too, and even some donks. They would have to have the POTUS and a super super majority in Congress to do that, because not all donks in Congress would vote for it. And if it ever got to that point, before it did, the donks would have already had the opportunity to nominate & confirm several SCOTUS justices into the 9 member court we have now, thereby negating the need for your court packing dream.
But you go right ahead and keep believing the court packing nonsense if it makes you feel better. Anything to help relieve your TDS is probably good for you.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Your OCD is off the charts. Court packing will never happen for political reasons.

I think it WILL happen for political reasons. What is the downside, politically, for Democrats if they gain power and do it? Again: The demographic trends are in their favor. The groups that might object to them doing it are shrinking in terms of proportions of the population. Their supporters are really pissed off right now by the fact that a minority controls the government. When they gain control it's going to be pitchforks time. Their supporters are going to want blood. Figuratively, of course.

Is this a serious question?