Sn4tteRBoxXeR

Forum Members
  • Content count

    5,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sn4tteRBoxXeR

  • Rank
    Veteran Falcon
  • Birthday 04/01/1869

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    ccccc

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,237 profile views
  1. When you can't define yourself, it makes the opposition's job a **** of a lot easier
  2. I'm really getting sick of beto the dude is even younger and less experienced than Obama was
  3. Jessica Jones rocked, both seasons... I guess I will have to give TP a try if it's truly better.
  4. This is clearly a riddle
  5. when your face hurts but you have a duty to keep laughing
  6. Warren looking really d**n sharp on the socialist question
  7. Then maybe this is the more appropriate response
  8. I get what you are saying. But you Court Pack when you can. You don't Court Pack every single year. Then once the Court is Packed, you back off. It's much less likely that a divided Exec/Senate will confirm justices because of McConnell's Precedent. So your statement is irrelevent because it's literally impossible to pack the court in divided government. The question is, given the chance, should a Dem Pres+Senate pack the Court? Term limits is about increasing the turnover of the SC, however more Turnover does not mean a more representative Court when the Senate is so biased towards Red States. Does an expiring Justice induce the Senate to approve a President's nominee? McConnell proved that answer to be "negative." So increasing the turnover is not a solution. It's a non-answer by Booker.
  9. The seed of this thread, your original statement, was nonsensical: court packing is impossible with a noncompliant Senate.
  10. The issue is a Supreme Court that isn't representative of the country's politics. Court Packing is a derogatory term that solves that issue. Court packing inherently requires a cooperative President and Senate. Term limits does not solve the issue of misrepresentation. It only increases the turnover of the court. On court packing, if solving misrepresentation comes down to turning the Supreme Court into a 420 seat body, then so be it. What difference does it make.
  11. then term limits is irrelevent
  12. They exist in the UK and Austrailia don't they?
  13. Term limits on the supreme court* does nothing when a Senate refuses to confirm justices *Booker's response to court-packing
  14. Justice Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/clarence-thomas-first-amendment-libel.html