Goodbye student loan bailout. SCOTUS rules.

[RussellCasse]

McConnell is the enemy of the people and a backstabbing RINO POS. I give this bastard no credit for anything. This man has done severe damage to the the Republican Party ( conservatives ) and our country.

As far as judges.. No majority leader is going to confirm a lame-duck presidents SCOTUS nominee from another party. A coke can could have sent through judges thanks to Dingy Harry eliminating the 60 vote threshold to confirm.

Exactly. Rino Mitch didn’t do a damn thing he didn’t HAVE to do. And he felt badly enough about it that he tried to make it up to his fellow dems by strategically getting Merrick as head of the FBI.

Mitch is the definition of RINO POS. The left desperately wants to keep Mitch around with this ignorant talking point.

I will say again for whoever needs to hear it. When the left praises a “Republican”, there is ALWAYS a reason for it. Be smarter folks.

 

[nail1988]

Typical RAT 🐀

 

[BamaFan1137]

How? This was doomed from the start, as everyone said. Hiden had no standing to do this. The latest effort will be smacked down for the same reason.

The turtle played his role to perfection. Everyone did.

Hiden's role was to say the dems cared about student loan borrowers, we gonna help them.

The RINOs role was to say hell no this costs taxpayers too much (which it does).

So Hiden offers up a plan that never had a chance of succeeding. It easily got shot down. The next one will as well by the same SC.

So why do this? To make the case that we need to EXPAND THE SC. That's the main reason why they did this.

Notice Hiden didn't offer any plan that had a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

Notice the RINOs didn't offer ANY alternatives.

That tells you all you need to know: Neither side wanted to address the problem. This could have EASILY been fixed if they wanted to actually help borrowers:

1 - Cap interest rates at 5% That immediately is a massive help to all borrowers.
2 - Give borrowers a tax credit of 5% of the amount paid for all on-time payments.

Those two things alone could have been EASILY passed if EITHER side was serious about helping borrowers.

Instead, the dems and RINOs played their same ole Good Cop / Bad Cop routine.

If the SCOTUS was 6-3 in the other direction, student loan forgiveness would have been rubber stamped.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

A dem that stole 2 court seats from the Dems. You guys are so sad.

What is SO LAUGHABLE is that a friggin lib socialist here is trying to tell US who the good guys are! LOLOLOL Stick to your communism, son.....you are WAY out of your lane here

 

[Capt Ron 1]

If the SCOTUS was 6-3 in the other direction, student loan forgiveness would have been rubber stamped.

Because they NEVER, EVER follow our Constitution...making it impossible for them to be REAL Americans. How can you call yourself an American if you rule by your politics instead of our founding documents? I think it is impossible

 

[BamaFan1137]

Because they NEVER, EVER follow our Constitution...making it impossible for them to be REAL Americans. How can you call yourself an American if you rule by your politics instead of our founding documents? I think it is impossible

They will abide the constitution so long as it doesn't bump heads with the narrative. If it serves their needs, they'll absolutely use it.

 

[kalimgoodman]

He got along to get along for political purposes on an issue in which he had no choice. What did he do to the person that conservatives denied on the court? Recommended that person as head of FBI.

Why do you think that is?

He has made deals with the devil and betrayed conservatives time and time again on legislation as well as support in elections.

He is also the man responsible for crippling the Tea Party. He is a Rino and there are hundreds of examples. But I get it, the left wants to paint the Uniparty Rinos as conservatives. It’s an interesting strategy, that people who pay attention will see through.

And no, I won’t take the bait any further. Thx though.

You can not like him because he's not extreme enough for you but to call him a RINO is sad. It is sad because it shows how all or nothing the extremes can be.

 

[kalimgoodman]

If the SCOTUS was 6-3 in the other direction, student loan forgiveness would have been rubber stamped.

This is true. That is Mitch with Trump assistance gift to Republicans.

 

[NavigatorII]

This is true. That is Mitch with Trump assistance gift to Republicans.

Too bad. You reap what you sow. Harry Reid showed us the way. 😍

 

[kalimgoodman]

Too bad. You reap what you sow. Harry Reid showed us the way. 😍

Harry Reid never did what Mitch did.

Reid never ignored the constitution and held up a seat and then switched the rules to rush in a seat.

Reid just removed the filibuster.

Do you not follow politics?

 

[ghost_of_ukalum1988]

Harry Reid never did what Mitch did.

Reid never ignored the constitution and held up a seat and then switched the rules to rush in a seat.

Reid just removed the filibuster.

Do you not follow politics?

The Constitution doesn’t say that the Senate is absolutely obligated to conduct hearings and vote on a Presidential nominee, whether it be an undersecretary deputy director of some obscure agency, a Cabinet-level official, or a justice to the SCOTUS.

What Mitch and the Senate GOP leadership did to Merrick Garland’s nomination was pure bare knuckles politics.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

What Mitch and the Senate GOP leadership did to Merrick Garland’s nomination was pure bare knuckles politics.

It was a typical uniparty scam.

Mitch said months before the nomination that pub position was that the incoming president should nominate the new SC justice. This was a position that the dems agreed with in the past, but now they wanted to pick one.

So obama nomiates Garland. It's important to note that Garland WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIS PICK if he knew the nomination process wouldn't have been stalled.

He picked Garland cause he knew Mitch would stall. Garland was a 'moderate' compared to the picks obama wanted.

So they pick a ringer, media immediately spins that obama tried to 'reach across the isle' but still 'mean ole republicans' won't budge.

All designed to fool the sheep. Hell look at @kalimgoodman post, he thinks Mitch violated the Constitution LOL

Mitch and obama were on the same page with the Garland nomination. It was all a uniparty scam.

 

[kalimgoodman]

The Constitution doesn’t say that the Senate is absolutely obligated to conduct hearings and vote on a Presidential nominee, whether it be an undersecretary deputy director of some obscure agency, a Cabinet-level official, or a justice to the SCOTUS.

What Mitch and the Senate GOP leadership did to Merrick Garland’s nomination was pure bare knuckles politics.

Yeah it doesn't, but that move completely politicized the courts.

That's why the left is calling to expand the courts. The constitution allows for it but as Biden said, it would completely destroy the courts.

 

[ghost_of_ukalum1988]

Yeah it doesn't, but that move completely politicized the courts.

That's why the left is calling to expand the courts. The constitution allows for it but as Biden said, it would completely destroy the courts.

The politicization of the courts incurred a major inflection point when leftists conducted a character assassin campaign on Robert Bork during the Reagan administration.

 

[BamaFan1137]

The politicization of the courts incurred a major inflection point when leftists conducted a character assassin campaign on Robert Bork during the Reagan administration.

This. 1000 times this.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Yeah it doesn't, but that move completely politicized the courts.

That's why the left is calling to expand the courts. The constitution allows for it but as Biden said, it would completely destroy the courts.

That isn't true. You can blame the Republicans for the past and you can try to blame the Republicans for future mistakes that your party may make...but that claim is garbage.

If the Dems somehow manage to expand the court, that decision and mistake will lay with them.

 

[NavigatorII]

Harry Reid never did what Mitch did.
Reid never ignored the constitution and held up a seat and then switched the rules to rush in a seat.
Reid just removed the filibuster.

Do you even read what you post?? 😂

 

[RayGravesGhost]

navi doesn't know that Reid changed the filibuster rules 🤣

 

[kalimgoodman]

The politicization of the courts incurred a major inflection point when leftists conducted a character assassin campaign on Robert Bork during the Reagan administration.

This. 1000 times this.

You call that politicizing the court? He was asked questions at hearing and gave some uncomfortable answers. That is literally what the hearings are for, to be asked questions, to determine if they are worth a lifetime appointment. Even Republicans bailed on him.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Do you even read what you post?? 😂

What's the problem?

 

[kalimgoodman]

navi doesn't know that Reid changed the filibuster rules 🤣

I hope that's not the case 😕

 

[kalimgoodman]

That isn't true. You can blame the Republicans for the past and you can try to blame the Republicans for future mistakes that your party may make...but that claim is garbage.

If the Dems somehow manage to expand the court, that decision and mistake will lay with them.

Which part isn't true? I'm so ready for this debate.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

There's actually a quite logical argument to be made for expanding the court: Have the number of SC Justices match the number of Circuit Courts we have.

That would expand the SC to 13 members. As it stands now, 4 of the 9 SC Justices have to handle multiple circuit courts. Expanding the SC to 13 justices would distribute the work equally.

So why doesn't the left ever make that argument for expanding the court? That argument is easy for everyone to understand, and totally logical.

But the left has never mentioned it. Why?

Because if they use that argument for expanding the SC to 13 Justices, then it could be used when a Republican was President as well. The left only uses the 'expand the court' argument when there is a dem in the White House.

The left didn't want to expand the court during Trump's first term. Did you notice that?

 

[Mdfgator]

Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez call for changes to the Supreme Court — POLITICO

The calls come after the Supreme Court handed down a slate of decisions decried by many Democrats.

apple.news

The dominator weighs in

 

[RayGravesGhost]

There's actually a quite logical argument to be made for expanding the court: Have the number of SC Justices match the number of Circuit Courts we have.

That would expand the SC to 13 members. As it stands now, 4 of the 9 SC Justices have to handle multiple circuit courts. Expanding the SC to 13 justices would distribute the work equally.

So why doesn't the left ever make that argument for expanding the court? That argument is easy for everyone to understand, and totally logical.

But the left has never mentioned it. Why?

OK. This must be a joke right?

I mean this idiot was complaining about Biden expanding the court at the beginning of his presidential term

Are conservatives that short of memory they don't remember bitching about this very thing less than 3 years ago?

Because if they use that argument for expanding the SC to 13 Justices, then it could be used when a Republican was President as well. The left only uses the 'expand the court' argument when there is a dem in the White House.

What?

The dems have proposed expansion for the SCOTUS going back to 1937


https://supremecourthistory.org/sch...ies/fdr-courtpacking-controversy-full-script/
FDR & The Court Packing Controversy: Full Script
INTRODUCTION

In February 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt submitted a plan to Congress for increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices from nine to as many as fifteen.

His proposal ignited a political powder keg that would burn into the heat of summer.

The left didn't want to expand the court during Trump's first term. Did you notice that?

 

[kalimgoodman]

OK. This must be a joke right?

I mean this idiot was complaining about Biden expanding the court at the beginning of his presidential term

Are conservatives that short of memory they don't remember bitching about this very thing less than 3 years ago?



What?

The dems have proposed expansion for the SCOTUS going back to 1937


https://supremecourthistory.org/sch...ies/fdr-courtpacking-controversy-full-script/
FDR & The Court Packing Controversy: Full Script
INTRODUCTION

In February 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt submitted a plan to Congress for increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices from nine to as many as fifteen.

His proposal ignited a political powder keg that would burn into the heat of summer.

View embedded media

Are you for expanding the courts?

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Are you for expanding the courts?

No. I actually don't think its necessary to increase the number but there are other reforms I think are necessary to bring an unchecked branch of government back inline.

One solution I've read is to have 15 or so justices but only 9 are active at a given time and the active list rotates. More like the enbanc panels of the district appeal courts.

Transparency & ethics should be its strictest at the SCOTUS level

As well as a complete revamping of the whole nomination review process

Right now that's a joke of lying and hiding from actual answers about a nominee that does no service to the public whatsoever

 

[kalimgoodman]

No. I actually don't think its necessary to increase the number but there are other reforms I think are necessary to bring an unchecked branch of government back inline.

One solution I've read is to have 15 or so justices but only 9 are active at a given time and the active list rotates. More like the enbanc panels of the district appeal courts.

Transparency & ethics should be its strictest at the SCOTUS level

As well as a complete revamping of the whole nomination review process

Right now that's a joke of lying and hiding from actual answers about a nominee that does no service to the public whatsoever

I am 100% for expanding the courts. I did a deep dive a few years back and it makes sense. The original 9 came from the 9 circuit courts, we now have 13, so theoretically 13 makes sense.

I had this debate months ago with @BamaFan1137 or fatman and Biden should sell that. I just don't think he'll ever do it.

 

[nail1988]

Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez call for changes to the Supreme Court — POLITICO

The calls come after the Supreme Court handed down a slate of decisions decried by many Democrats.

apple.news

The dominator weighs in

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Conservatives want to impeach everyone in the democratic party but don't want to impeach SCOTUS judges that are caught on the take

 

[Mdfgator]

Conservatives want to impeach everyone in the democratic party but don't want to impeach SCOTUS judges that are caught on the take

Can’t have judges getting wined and dined that’s crazy shit if true.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Can’t have judges getting wined and dined that’s crazy shit if true.

It is true. Clarence confirmed it and so did Alito. Alito even wrote an op-ed about it 😆.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

If the SCOTUS was 6-3 in the other direction, student loan forgiveness would have been rubber stamped.

Of course.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Conservatives want to impeach everyone in the democratic party but don't want to impeach SCOTUS judges that are caught on the take

I actually agree with this, Sotomayer should probably be removed.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Are you for expanding the courts?

One of them agreed with my point and still called me an idiot for expressing it, the other (who claims he has me on Ignore) literally lifted my argument.

Then....they started arguing with each other.

Best free entertainment on the internet.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

malone claims that republicans have wanted to expand the courts (they haven't) and that democrats just brought this up as an idea (they first brought it up in 1937)

So is malone interested in expanding the courts right now to 13 or 15

Biden would be selecting those new 4 to 6 justices right?

So where are you on Biden doing that since you're in favor of court expansion?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

malone claims that republicans have wanted to expand the courts (they haven't)

What?

So is malone interested in expanding the courts right now to 13 or 15

I didn't state what I was interested in. I simply pointed out there was a logical argument to be made for expanding the court to equal the number of circuit courts.

I added why the left won't make that argument, proving this is all political for them.

Biden would be selecting those new 4 to 6 justices right?

Whoever the president was at the time the court was expanded.

So where are you on Biden doing that since you're in favor of court expansion?

I am? Where are you on latex pools being sold in Albany, NY, since you are in favor of pedophilia being legalized?

 

[Mdfgator]

malone claims that republicans have wanted to expand the courts (they haven't) and that democrats just brought this up as an idea (they first brought it up in 1937)

So is malone interested in expanding the courts right now to 13 or 15

Biden would be selecting those new 4 to 6 justices right?

So where are you on Biden doing that since you're in favor of court expansion?

You’re debating the dumbest person on the board, a board that’s filled with very every dumb people.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

What?

So you weren't one of the critics to the idea of the Biden administration even researching court reform ideas?

I didn't state what I was interested in. I simply pointed out there was a logical argument to be made for expanding the court to equal the number of circuit courts.

I added why the left won't make that argument, proving this is all political for them.

Where do you think that idea came from....the political right?

If that's logical tell me what's logical with Marco Rubio's bill to fix the number of justices at nine?

Is that illogical in your mind?
Why would the GOP be trying to fix the number of judges?

Would they be in favor of Rubio's idea if they were in the minority?

Whoever the president was at the time the court was expanded.

And if that legislation was passed under a democratic president you wouldn't be in opposition to the idea?

I am? Where are you on latex pools being sold in Albany, NY, since you are in favor of pedophilia being legalized?

Seems you're no different in your criticism of the dems

So you're not in favor of expansion for strictly political reasons since you find the idea at the least "logical"

So what's your logical support for being against expansion beyond your political partisanship?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So you weren't one of the critics to the idea of the Biden administration even researching court reform ideas?




Where do you think that idea came from....the political right?

If that's logical tell me what's logical with Marco Rubio's bill to fix the number of justices at nine?

Is that illogical in your mind?
Why would the GOP be trying to fix the number of judges?

Would they be in favor of Rubio's idea if they were in the minority?



And if that legislation was passed under a democratic president you wouldn't be in opposition to the idea?




Seems you're no different in your criticism of the dems

So you're not in favor of expansion for strictly political reasons since you find the idea at the least "logical"

So what's your logical support for being against expansion beyond your political partisanship?

I dunno man, I think my premise that there was a logical argument to be made for court expansion totally short-circuited your brain and you didn't know how to proceed.

Because you have been told that the right is against court expansion and the left is for it. So when someone on the right says there's a logical argument to be made for court expansion, you had a mental aneurysm.