• TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Number 1

    Nowhere in the constitution does it limit the amount of SC justices. We can have 9 or 9000 if we really want.

    Number 2

    DC and Puerto Rico should have been states decades ago. Guam, too.

    Number 3

    The policies of Harris/Walz are what 70+% of the country wants. If they are far left, then I am the Queen of England

    Number 4

    Tell snaggletooth to shut the fuck up and die already. This fucking lich has been the root cause of the court needing to be fixed

    #VOTE!

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      4 months ago

      “By the way, on packing the Supreme Court … you may know this already. It’s unconstitutional.”

      It’s not unconstitutional if you fucking pack the court with people who aren’t fucking traitorous fascists. What are ya gonna do? Sue all the way to the supreme court???

      Fuck that weird old strokey bastard. You know what you do when you lose fuck face? Get good or go home.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        4 months ago

        He knows how this works. McConnell spent decades setting up the current Supreme Court to be the monster that it is, and he doesn’t want that work undone in a single Presidential Administration.

    • ricecake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      4 months ago

      The segment of the constitution relating to the supreme court is preposterously small. It’s very weird that people think that no one is capable of actually reading the damned thing.

      Never mentions any number of judges. Mentions numbers in a bunch of other places, and gets so detailed as to specify how to break up the initial batch of senators to ensure rolling terms.

      But no, they specifically intended for there to be a specific number of justices that they just opted not to write down: 6 5 6 7 9 10 7 9 justices, just like the constitution forgot to dictate.

      Other fun fact: you can pass a law that says the supreme court can’t hear appeals to certain types of cases. It’s explicitly stated that you could just write the supreme court out of hearing any case that involved the supreme court or any Justice, an executive who appointed any member of said court, or just about anything.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        you could just write the supreme court out of hearing any case that involved the supreme court or any Justice, an executive who appointed any member of said court, or just about anything.

        Yes, please!

        Since the constitutional amendment process is literally impossible and has been for at least 40 years, SCOTUS is the final verdict on any constitutional matter.

        Even if it WASN’T fundamentally broken, it’s the mother and father of all conflicts of interest to make it the final arbiter on matters pertaining to itself and the ex president/wannabe dictator that appointed a plurality of them.

      • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Other fun fact: you can pass a law that says the supreme court can’t hear appeals to certain types of cases.

        This is interesting, how would appeals work? Would there be a special committee formed by Congress, or would the circuit court be the final word?

        • ricecake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          There’s no defined process. The constitution just specifies that the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction except where Congress defines exceptions.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

          Since Congress also has authority to actually create and organize the lower courts, they can do almost whatever they please.
          The only thing that can’t do is diminish or expand the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_jurisdiction_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

          So they can’t put a different court in charge of cases involving two states disagreeing over ownership of a river or it’s water, or ambassadors and such.

          So if Congress wanted it to be a single use court nominated, appointed and dissolved for one special case they could. Or they could say it just stops at the federal appeals court, the state court or wherever they want.

          Personally, I think a single use court established for special high profile cases with a large potential for conflict of interest would be best. There’s some trickiness that would be involved, since Congress can’t actually appoint judges, only the executive can. So if the case involved the current sitting executive (in my opinion only in their personal capacity, as cases involving the office of the president lack the personal liability that makes for a conflict of interest), then they would still need to be the one to make the appointment. Might be able to sidestep it by having the house select already appointed judges without the conflict to hear the case, but it’s very close to appointment with extra steps.

          In any case, other than the caveat that’s never happened, it would be so much more clearly unbiased.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Don’t forget Samoa and the other island terrories. It’s a bit of a tricky situation because of population size and such but there shouldn’t be a single person on American territory without voting Congressional representation.

      • ricecake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think we should welcome any and all territories to become states or leave as they desire, but I also think that staying a territory should remain an option.

        Given how lack of representation tends to kneecap funding allocation for things like infrastructure I think they would be unwise to eschew statehood, but I know that, specifically in Puerto Rico, there are groups that against statehood but also against going their own way.
        Forcing statehood feels wrong, but so does cutting people off from what support they do get from us, to say nothing of them being US citizens.

        I do think we should extend full citizenship to anyone from the territories though. Just because it’s not a state doesn’t mean it’s not the US.

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This fucking lich has been the root cause of the court needing to be fixed

      Pretty sure the Lich is literally based on him. If I was coming up with a tabletop and wanted an “undead asshole, lord of assholes” I would certainly use his likeness.

      His history is fucking wild. He graduated top of his classes and graduated college with a PoliSci, then went on to join MLKs March and speech “I have a dream” in person. Then he was appointed party whip by Frist. That time as whip is probably why he’s such a hard-line ass-bag of bones now.

    • ignism@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There is no “left” in USA, Democrats would be centre at best in Europe. Sure from the GOP pov they seem left, but that’s because republicans are extremely to the right.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      For number 2. Some people have been fighting since the late 19th century to make Washington DC a state.

  • GraniteM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    During his speech, Spectrum reports that McConnell called the Walz-Harris ticket “the far left of the Democratic Party.”

    “And by the way, that’s most Democrats today,” McConnell said, according to Spectrum.

    Oh, no! Harris and Walz are representing the will of the majority of the people! Whatever the fuck is to be done about democracy?!

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s also not possible for most democrats to be on the far left of their party (unless the remaining minority are on average even further to the right of their party). If everyone’s further left than you’re expecting, that’s just the party’s new average center position.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        4 months ago

        Majority of Americans: Support policies X, Y, and Z.

        Democrats: Put policies X, Y, and Z into their platform.

        Republicans: Extreme socialist Demoncrabs want to destroy America!!!

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Literally every dem presidential candidate is the Most Furthest Leftistest candidate in history.

      Biden was the most leftist politician ever the year he beat Sanders. Clinton was an extremists Marxist in 2016. Obama was literally Stalin in 2008. John Kerry was going to be to the left of the Vietcong in 2004. Al Gore was a Manchurian deep state CCP asset in 2000. Etc, etc.

      So of course we just now discover the ultra-left agenda of a California AG and her friend the Minnesota hog father two months before the general election. Shame McConnell didn’t think to warn us sooner.

  • Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    4 months ago

    Is this guy delusional? After the way his party treated him in the convention, he still doubles down that the problem is the democrats?

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d rather he stroke out and have to sit drooling all over himself in a puddle of his own shit trapped in his mind and unable to communicate with anyone for a few years. Death is too easy for this asshole.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Fun fact, Congress can change the size of the Supreme Court at will for any reason.

    They SHRUNK the court in 1866 from 9 to 7 because they just fucking hated Andrew Johnson THAT MUCH and they wanted to deny him a nomination.

    After Johnson was out, they raised it back up to 9 in 1869, Granting 2, and it stayed that way ever since.

    https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution

    “The Supreme Court had just ruled that paper money was unconstitutional, which would have ‘wreaked havoc’ with the U.S. Treasury, says Marcus. But Grant and Congress quickly confirmed two new justices who reversed the Court’s decision in the earlier case, saving the Republicans from having to undo the nation’s entire system of legal tender.”

    • Hazzia@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Supreme Court had just ruled that paper money was unconstitutional

      Jesus and I thought our court was making the most dumbass decisions. Wierdly gives me hope that the Harris administration can fix a whole bumcha bullshit though.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That was a little different, they didn’t actually change the size of the court, they just maintained the vacancy.

        In 1866 they actually went and said “Nah, 7 is good.” Which not only kept Johnson from filling a vacancy, it bounced someone else out.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    4 months ago

    what an assholish shitstain.

    he’s totally okay with handing fascists over as long as those fascists “promise” to give him a seat at the table when they take over the country

    and you know what they say about people who sit at the table of fascists? (they’re also fascists)

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 months ago

    So he doesn’t want DC or PR statehood, giving federal representation to millions of otherwise disenfranchised US citizens because…he thinks they’ll elect Democrats. Cool.

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      the other downside of DC statehood is that we’d have to change the slogan on our license plates, as they currently read “taxation without representation” for this very reason. just think of how silly all the old license plates would be if all of a sudden we actually did have representation.

  • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 months ago

    I see the man behind “making election day a national holiday is a power grab by the democrats”[1] is rolling out some new hits. Never ceases to amaze that he can get away with saying this stuff out loud.


    1. 1 ↩︎

    • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well, of course. Consider your own reference. Mitch knows they are wildly unpopular, and making it easier for the common folk they’ve been fucking over for years to vote would be disastrous for them.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    GOD if only they were RIGHT about how “dangerous” democrats were. IF ONLY THE DEMOCRATS WEREN’T COWARDS and would actually do this shit

  • elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    4 months ago

    By the way, on packing the Supreme Court … you may know this already. It’s unconstitutional.

    The only things the constitution has to say on the matter of the supreme court are: there has to be one, the supreme court judges should be paid, and the president can appoint supreme court justices with the advice and consent of the senate. It is completely silent on matters of how many supreme court justices there should be, or how long their terms should be.

    For all his many, many faults, Mitch McConnell is not a profoundly stupid man, so I’m sure he knows this. Since he very likely knows this already, he probably has a reason for lying to the public on the matter. If the president does appoint several more justices, it’s not like the Republicans can sue: no lower court would take the case, and the supreme court would already be packed with people who will actually be faithful to the constitution. So legal threats are a complete non-starter. That just leaves non-legal threats, which is what I think this is. I think Glitch is previewing the Republican strategy in the case of Harris getting more justices hired, which is they’ll stoke up the fear and hatred of their idiotic, mouth breathing supporters. It’s a thinly-veiled threat of treason.

  • Carrick1973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    Isn’t this fucker dead yet? I have a bottle of scotch waiting for this asshole’s demise. Same as Betsy DeVoss and her shitty brother; and the final Koch brother…

    • noride@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nah, he’ll never die. You can’t kill a flesh-golem directly, you have to find its master and break the summon.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      He is going to die. When I don’t know. But I heard speculation that he has some kind of skin cancer and degenerative disorders (as exemplified by him just suddenly freezing and needing someone to tap his shoulder to get him to come around).

      But even if he dies before I finish this comment he has already groomed his successor to take place. Despite being in alleged democracy these people have their shit done in a way that their own party will never really change.

  • Socsa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    This from Mr “elections have consequences” himself.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, this isn’t hypocrisy, he’s acknowledging that there will be consequences for the GOP.

      All I can say is that I hope that the consequences destroy the GOP.

  • cheeseburger@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    3 months ago

    McConnell called the Walz-Harris ticket “the far left of the Democratic Party.”

    😆😆😆

  • Fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This motherfucker is actually older than a Galapagos tortoise. Also, when did they unpause him? I thought his OS froze and he was shuffled off to hospice.

  • finley@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “Oh, no! I could be held accountable for my unfathomable corruption!”

    [ geriatric tortoise noises ]