Comments by "Ricardo Cabeza" (@ricardocabeza6006) on "So Is Biden Going to Pack the Supreme Court, Or What?" video.

  1.  @jamesyoung1022 ... How is the court rigged? Because vacancies occurred during Trump’s Presidency? Because you don’t like it?
    2
  2. What if we legislate we add four justices 12 years from now? Or is this just about getting the people you want in there?
    1
  3. Bad time to mention that roughly 25% of the founding fathers lived beyond 80 years?... I think they knew what they were doing with life time appointments.
    1
  4. We already have a representative body of individuals from each state. But thanks.
    1
  5. The job of the president is to appoint justices as necessary. Not maintain a “balanced” court. Something tells me if it was “out of balance” in the other direction, you’d be content.
    1
  6.  @kellyburket6955 ... Not a fan of Alexander Hamilton huh? Lincoln and MLK are bad people too?
    1
  7.  @jamesyoung1022 ... No. I’m just confused at how following the constitutional process is “rigging the court”. Can you tell me where in the constitution the Senate is obligated to confirm a nomination? Stating that the court needs to be “balanced” implies this is simply about power. It’s not about adding seats for any other reason. And in the future, a majority of those seats will go back and forth between which party appointed them, as it always has.
    1
  8.  @jamesyoung1022 ... Aritcle 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. “and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court” Article 1 Section 5 “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings” If you notice. “Advice and Consent”. What do you think consent means? What do you think determine the rules of their proceedings means? So yes, it was within the senate’s constitutional authority to not even have a hearing. If the Senate does not want to consent to the nomination, that’s the end of it. I’m sorry you haven’t read the constitution before. Check it out sometime.
    1
  9.  @jamesyoung1022 ... So referencing the constitution is playing games? Can you please reference where the constitution states a hearing must be held? And you don’t have to buy it, you just have to read it.
    1
  10.  @jamesyoung1022 ... Ok. I get it now. This isn’t about the constitution. You’re just upset that things have not gone the way you want them to. It’s ok. It’s understandable. It’s frustrating. But you have to shrug it off. Because next time, the constitution won’t go the Republicans way. This is how the history of our politics has gone for over two centuries now. It bounces left and right and, we end up somewhere in the middle.
    1
  11.  @jamesyoung1022 ... Based on that comment, it’s safe to assume you have not read SB202. Just like you have not read the constitution. You are simply parroting a narrative fueled by emotions, unsubstantiated by any fact or policy. If I’m incorrect in this assumption, feel free to list the specific sections of SB202 you don’t like.
    1
  12.  @iceink ... hahaha. See. It’s not about “balancing” the Supreme Court. You don’t care if it’s “balanced”. You only care if your political party has control. Congratulations, you’ve achieved tribalism.
    1
  13.  @iceink ... Yeah is that what the dictionary says? Oh wait, never mind. Facts don’t matter anymore. It’s just about your feelings.
    1
  14. What!? You have to prove you live in that state to vote in that state!? That’s crazy! How unfair for all the people that don’t live there...
    1
  15. Cool. So probability says it will be mostly white people...
    1
  16. You just need an odd number. 3,5,7 works just fine.
    1