brazil
(80 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:07 PM
Original message |
The Supreme Court can operate fine with 7 justices |
|
That issue can wait, and the Democratic Senators must filibuster any business that is not related to preventing disasters or rescue efforts.
This is the #1 priority for the country. Everything else can wait. Until we can be confident that that country can respond swiftly to another Katrina or 9/11, nothing else matters.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:25 PM
Response to Original message |
Tamyrlin79
(944 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:32 PM
Response to Original message |
2. In fact, in the early days of the Republic... |
|
I think that the USSC only had like five or six justices and was later increased.
|
Danmel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:33 PM
Response to Original message |
3. As long as it's an ODD number |
|
Hey Chief Justice Stevens! I like it!
|
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. There is no Constitutional requirement for an "odd number"!! |
|
Or any OTHER number, for that matter.
|
wildflower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Absolutely. Nominated. And another reason it should wait: |
|
A new Supreme Court appointed by this administration will fundamentally change this country for 30 years. It is essential that Democrats do all they can to stop it. No matter how "swiftly" the administration wants it done.
This is the fork in the road for all of us.
|
Joanne98
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 10:13 AM
Response to Original message |