Schumer calls for delaying Gorsuch vote because of Trump-Russia probe - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52000269]Well, let's do some simple 1st grade math to figure it out! If we have 4 judges with liberal interpretations, one swing judge, and 3 judges with conservative interpretations, what do you add to balance the court? Bonus points: What is the outcome if we add in Garland, who has a liberal interpretation of the constitution?[/QUOTE] You're just reinforcing my belief that the Republican party is more concerned about acheiving their agenda over making the country better as a whole.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52000288]You're just reinforcing my belief that the Republican party is more concerned about acheiving their agenda over making the country better as a whole.[/QUOTE] Thank you for proving that you have no clue what the difference is between a congressman and a judge.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52000308]Thank you for proving that you have no clue what the difference is between a congressman and a judge.[/QUOTE] Congress blocked a perfect reasonable judge though

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52000419]Congress blocked a perfect reasonable judge though[/QUOTE] They blocked a judge that would have created a voting bloc. I expect the same if a liberal judge dies and a conservative one is nominated to replace them.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52000428]They blocked a judge that would have created a voting bloc. I expect the same if a liberal judge dies and a conservative one is nominated to replace them.[/QUOTE] I guess partisan bickering over a functioning government is the norm now then.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52000438]I guess partisan bickering over a functioning government is the norm now then.[/QUOTE] I don't get your constant equating of not wanting a very real and important change to happen, one that would have far reaching effects, as nothing more than partisanship. If Congress people aren't supposed to do what they think is good and stop what they think is bad, then what are they supposed to do?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52000428]They blocked a judge that would have created a voting bloc. I expect the same if a liberal judge dies and a conservative one is nominated to replace them.[/QUOTE] If a liberal judge goes tomorrow, I highly doubt Trump & the Republican Senate will nominate another left-leaning judge to keep things balanced. This whole keeping the court balanced thing isn't how it's supposed to work. Nominating judges is in the president's job description, and Americans knowingly vote for a presidential candidate expecting him/her to keep the Supreme Court full & running efficiently for the next four years.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52000269]Well, let's do some simple 1st grade math to figure it out! If we have 4 judges with liberal interpretations, one swing judge, and 3 judges with conservative interpretations, what do you add to balance the court? Bonus points: What is the outcome if we add in Garland, who has a liberal interpretation of the constitution?[/QUOTE] That just depends on your interpretation of what constitutes liberal and conservative. From my point of view (and from a European point of view in general) the entire SC is right-leaning. From the point of view of a right-wing extremist, the entire SC is left-leaning. "Balancing" the SC means nothing if you can't objectively pinpoint what the "center" is. The way of doing it that would make the most sense in a democracy would be to have the SC be balanced to fit the population's political affinities -after all, it makes no sense to "balance" the court in a way that would benefit the minority- which is what happens when a president -which was elected by the population- appoints someone for the SC. But kudos for completely missing the point and being incredibly condescending nonetheless.