08-16-2019, 12:26 AM
(08-15-2019, 10:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Clearly not.
Although I fear this may be in vain I will explain further.The statement was not that the SCOTUS is not "doing well". The statement was that the SCOTUS is not "doing well and (we) wonder if it will heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics'". Since you are confused I will explain what a threat is. A threat is saying if you don't do "X" then "Y" will happen. In this instance the signatory Senators informed the court that they "hope" that the SCOTUS does "X" so "Y" doesn't happen. This is absolutely no different than an organized crime member going into a store and attempting to sell an neighborhood "insurance" policy by stating, "this is a nice place, it would be a shame if something happened to it". If you don't see the comparison then please just state as such and I will cease further attempts to explain this as I don't think I can put this in simpler terms. I do hope that my point has been made clear though.
Yea so lets just say we can agree to disagree about this. Pretty funny this little comment gets you all worked up. But one side denying the other the ability to fill a SCOTUS vacancy and then proceeding to ram through nominees recommended for political purposes doesn't concern you.
