ILikePie5

Why would I do that as scum...?

https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Light_Yagami

You claimed last and BP is usually claimed by scum lol. That's just POE

If it's not warren then it's Croc or Pie

I think the GRAMPS/role cop thing might've been a gambit by oro/warren to save oro

Yeahhh because it encourages town not to lynch him and scum not to kill him

BearMan was confirmed to not have the same affiliation as Oro, not confirmed to be town, so TP is between me, you, Croc, and him

also, please claim

Both skittlez and me are confirmed not to be scum.

Three of us are scum. Therefore five of us will be on the suspect list:

Misterchris

Speedrace

Crocodile

ILikePie5

Warren42

I want to be hearing from ALL of you why you aren't scum.

Those are just my observations about why other people do support him.

I know many of you are still in school, and haven't the faintest idea what the real world is. Offered a free education, you're hooked, lined and sinkered. I paid for mine, thanks. So can you.

Wait as in talk more/let Oro get back on

Also I agree that there's another TP;  I am NOT a TP though

That only leaves you, Pie. Are you a TP?

I am Beloved Princess. If I get lynched a DP is skipped. If I get night killed the NP is skipped.

Imagine conflating Anarchists with right-wing.

Orangmanbad brings out serious delusions of granduer.

Not sure why Danielle is so hung up on legal precedents.

We have a constitution for that. It's the penultimate legal precedent right behind the god-given rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Lol @ trying to turn your blatant reading comprehension failure into "mental gymnastics" on my part. Take a seat. 

hi everyone i got some interesting results 

I never said it was different than what FDR did "lmao" nor did I say I agree with it. I said the opposite -- that I don't like the idea of court packing and that it was bad for democracy and the judicial system... but we've already established you're barely literate so it doesn't surprise me you got that wrong. 

Right... I  never said there was. I've already clarified but it's obvious you still have no idea what I meant. I said "Packing the court is very bad for democracy and the judicial system, but Democrats have no choice if certain precedents are not adhered to." The precedents I am referring to are ones like the rulings on gay marriage and healthcare which I just specified in my last post. In other words, if Dems think these issues are on the table because ACB will not follow Supreme Court precedent, they think it's justifiable to pack the court because these issues are that important to them. I wasn't talking at all about the "historical precedent" of appointing judges, which is why the article you shared about it was useless and wholly irrelevant to my point. 

Next time just say you don't know what I'm referring to instead of acting like I'm "wrong" when you have no idea what I'm talking about. 

The real paradox is that having diverse State jurisdictions CREATES the cultural differences that make the EC necessary for cohesion.

Abolishing the states would really send chaos across the nation at this point. 

How else would you resolve one culture that cherishes property rights and another culture that cherishes the rights of the government to own and manage everything?

Yeah, the article was useless. I was talking about about LEGAL precedents as in the judicial principle of stare decisis, not the historical precedent of choosing a Justice.  

But we can talk about historical precedent if you want to. The last time a Democratic president nominated a Justice with a Republican controlled Senate was in 1865 and the Senate confirmed him. The last time a Republican president nominated a Justice with a Democrat controlled Senate was in 1988 and 1991. Both times the Democrats confirmed the far-right judges of Scalia and Thomas. 

2016 was the first time since the Civil War that a nominee (whose name had not been withdrawn) did not get considered by the Senate for confirmation, so that author trying desperately to  convince Republicans in a right-wing media publication that they are somehow adhering to precedent and decency is amusing. 

Regarding your point about winning the Senate, Republicans are arguing that because they won the Senate in 2018 that they ought to be able to appoint a SCOTUS nominee despite the impending election, the exact opposite of their position in 2016. But it's worth noting that Republicans got 20 million less votes and 20 million less percentage points than Democrats in their Senate races. If majority rule is wrong then minority rule is definitely wrong. 

that is a contradiction in terms. McConnel blocked an appointment because it was "too close to an election" and is now ramming through a confirmation weeks before an election. Those are exact opposite things done a few years apart. That is rank hypocrisy and political game playing with the courts. IE he is politicizing the courts. So don't be surprised or whiney when the dems respond in kind. McConnel started this, be pissed at him when the dems are forced to answer. 

There are a majority of states.

Relax with the gaslighting.

Only difference is FDR had a somewhat legit reason of doing it looking at the circumstances. Even as a Conservative/Moderate, I think FDR's policy was essential in helping the return of the economy due to the lack of knowledge we knew.

In 2020, there is no need for that

Also let's made it clear that court packing is a shitty and crooked thing to do. FDR did it in 1937 and it's always sat distasteful in my mouth despise his amazing legacy

I could see Graham losing honestly. The Democrats are shoving 57M at the Democratic nominee

They will just impeach the judges when they eventually get 60 Senators.

Libtards love dictators.

Packing the court is very bad for democracy and the judicial system, but Democrats have no choice if certain precedents are not adhered to.

are you serious? it has never happened? so Merrick Garland is on the supreme court? oh wait, no. because the republicans whined that a year away from an election was just too close. they needed to wait till after the election to fill the position. 

If they hadn't blocked Obama's picks for the courts then you would absolutely have a point, but they did do that. Then rushed to fill all the vacancies they created once trump was elected. That is court packing. Years of playing political games with the courts have made them political. Republicans have no moral high ground to cry about it when the democrats respond. I know republicans will cry about it anyway (they do love to play the victim). But the republicans started this. 

History is written by the violent mob.

I just can't believe he was too lazy to even gloss over the ABC article. It was written by a Trump Hater for fucks sake.

For the non-lazy, here is right wing propaganda explaining why HB is wrong about the term "court packing"