President Donald Trump

**bsnub** · 15-09-2018, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Maanaam

leaving the country with, not a wise old man, but a partisan mercenary.

That is why as I posted above that I believe there will have to be a constitutional amendment to term limit SC judges to ten years.

**Maanaam** · 15-09-2018, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

That is why as I posted above that I believe there will have to be a constitutional amendment to term limit SC judges to ten years.

I didn't read the bit about ten year limit, but I think it's a good idea. But in keeping with democratic principles and the worth of having wise old men and women in place, make it a ten year term but can be re-appointed by an alternate governing party. Truly guaruntee that a SCOTUS appointment is non-political and for the good of the country.

**RPETER65** · 15-09-2018, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

The system of checks and balances the founders put in place has been changed by the GOP. There is supposed to be a 60 vote super majority for all SC justices with that in place there is now way this guy would get in. The GOP did away with the requirement for a super majority so now they just need 50 votes.

Is is there anything in the constitution about a 60 vote majority to approve a Supreme Court Justice?

**harrybarracuda** · 15-09-2018, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Is is there anything in the constitution about a 60 vote majority to approve a Supreme Court Justice?

Don't you know what's in your own constitution?

**RPETER65** · 16-09-2018, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Don't you know what's in your own constitution?

What I do know is nothing in the constitution talks about a 60 vote majority to confirm.

**RPETER65** · 16-09-2018, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

That is why as I posted above that I believe there will have to be a constitutional amendment to term limit SC judges to ten years.

With the US being deeply divided seems a constitutional amendment on the Supreme Court is more wishful thinking than possibility of reality.

**Humbert** · 16-09-2018, 06:06 AM

Article 3 of the constitution is pretty clear about justices serving lifetime terms. Placing limits on the length of terms is not going to happen.

**Maanaam** · 16-09-2018, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Placing limits on the length of terms is not going to happen.

But it should. And maybe this Trump appointment will spur the push for an ammendment.

**uncle junior** · 16-09-2018, 07:56 AM

A breakdown of what Manafort is forfeiting.......nothing about bank accounts in the Caymens or Panama.......

Two of the Manhattan apartments, in SoHo, are estimated to be worth $3.2 million and $4.1 million, according to an estimate by Zillow, the online real estate company. Mr. Manafort’s apartment in Trump Tower in Midtown has an estimated value of $3 million.

The most valuable real estate Mr. Manafort has agreed to give up is his home in the Hamptons, which is estimated to be worth $7.3 million, according to Zillow. The website says the two-story, 5,600-square-foot house in Water Mill has 10 bedrooms, a swimming pool and a tennis court.

The brownstone townhouse in the upscale neighborhood of Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, is estimated to be worth $4.1 million.
The assets will end up in the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Fund, which is used to cover costs related to law enforcement. The fund can also be used to finance “certain general investigative expenses,” according to the Justice Department’s website.

The first four and a half months of the special counsel investigation cost taxpayers nearly $7 million, including $3.2 million in direct spending by Mr. Mueller’s team. The investigation has lasted about 16 months.

In Mr. Manafort’s trial in Virginia, prosecutors highlighted his lavish lifestyle, including presenting evidence that he wired millions of dollars from secret overseas bank accounts to buy and renovate homes in places like the Hamptons and suburban Washington.

Under the agreement, announced at a federal court hearing in Washington, Mr. Manafort was charged with two counts of conspiracy that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. He originally faced seven charges brought by the special counsel, including obstruction of justice, failure to register as a foreign agent and conspiracy to launder money.

Mr. Manafort was convicted last month in a Virginia federal court of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failure to disclose a foreign bank account. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining 10 counts, and the judge declared a mistrial on those charges.

According to court documents, Mr. Manafort negotiated to give up his SoHo apartment on Baxter Street for his house in Arlington, Va., which prosecutors considered for the forfeiture deal. The house in Virginia is estimated to be worth $1.7 million. He also gave up his Trump Tower apartment so he could retain another bank account, the plea deal said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/15/u...imes&smtyp=cur

**Humbert** · 16-09-2018, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Maanaam

But it should

Personally, I see no rational argument for it. The Dems need to avoid going down rabbit holes in the pursuit of purity. Democrats champion enough fringe issues that distract us from the real issues of economic justice.

**Maanaam** · 16-09-2018, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Personally, I see no rational argument for it.

How about a panel of partisan judges that, for instance, always favour one political party over the other because each panelist was appointed during that party's rule. They're there for life and the otherparty is forever on the back foot and pushing shit uphill.

**bsnub** · 16-09-2018, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

What I do know is nothing in the constitution talks about a 60 vote majority to confirm.

Where did I mention the constitution you blathering idiot. I said the "system of check and balances".

Originally Posted by RPETER65

With the US being deeply divided seems a constitutional amendment on the Supreme Court is more wishful thinking than possibility of reality.

Your reading comprehension is as usual completely shit. Did you slip over this part;

Originally Posted by bsnub

I would tend to think that in approximately ten years there will be a constitutional amendment to term limit SC judges.

I highlighted the key part of my comment that you seem to have skipped over you geriatric old fool.

That said the country is not as divided as you would like to see it. Your party is in a demographic death spiral to use the words of your own party. Conservatives are aging rapidly and dying off they are not being replaced by new young voters. Couple that with the fact that the country is becoming more and more brown. This is most likely the last hurrah for the GOP in its current incarnation.

You don't have to take it from me either;

https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/11/da...r-republicans/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ral-looks-like

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-a-shrinking-republican-party/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/635115001/

This country in 5 years 10 years and beyond will continue to move to the left. It is demographically unstoppable.

**harrybarracuda** · 16-09-2018, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

What I do know is nothing in the constitution talks about a 60 vote majority to confirm.

Then why are you asking, you stupid man?

**Humbert** · 16-09-2018, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Maanaam

How about a panel of partisan judges that, for instance, always favour one political party over the other because each panelist was appointed during that party's rule.

The country has survived thus far with the situation the way it is. Making appointments every 10 years would probably inject even more politics into the court. And how would you cycle their terms? In rotation? All at once. A very impractical idea. I think the country gains from their years of experience on the bench.

**bsnub** · 16-09-2018, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

I think the country gains from their years of experience on the bench.

We will see how you feel about that when Rov v Wade is overturned, corporations and big oil are litterly unshackled etc etc because of these two shills that the GOP has rubber stamped through the senate.

**Humbert** · 16-09-2018, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

We will see how you feel about that when Rov v Wade is overturned, corporations and big oil are litterly unshackled etc etc because of these two shills that the GOP has rubber stamped through the senate.

I'm fully aware of the ramifications of these issues so spare me the pendantry. Term limits provide no guarantee that the court would be less political, in fact it might end up even more so.

**bsnub** · 16-09-2018, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Term limits provide no guarantee that the court would be less political, in fact it might end up even more so.

I do not agree. These two bozos will sit on the court for the rest of your life Bert. They will make many horrendous rulings over that time period. All the while America will be demographically a different more progressive nation. There is no doubt that many people will be horrified by the rulings of these two shills over the coming decades as the they will fly in the face of a nation that does not resemble them at all.

**Maanaam** · 16-09-2018, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Making appointments every 10 years would probably inject even more politics into the court.

Yes it would. Keep in mind that "10 years" is an arbitrary number for the sake of the argument only.

Originally Posted by Humbert

I think the country gains from their years of experience on the bench.

Yes indeed! This is why I talk about "wise old men and women" with reverence, and why I suggested they could be re-appointed but with the caveat that the re-appointment comes from the opposing political party.

Originally Posted by Humbert

And how would you cycle their terms? In rotation? All at once. A very impractical idea.

The panel are not all appointed at the same time. The xx years term does not imply the entire panel is replaced simultaneously, just that panelists are not there permamently.

Originally Posted by bsnub

All the while America will be demographically a different more progressive nation. There is no doubt that many people will be horrified by the rulings of these two shills over the coming decades as the they will fly in the face of a nation that does not resemble them at all.

Yes, that is the crux of it. You have an obnoxious president currently, and he will be gone soon, yet his pick for a SC judge will remain for decades, long after Trump is run out of town.

**RPETER65** · 17-09-2018, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Where did I mention the constitution you blathering idiot. I said the "system of check and balances".

Your reading comprehension is as usual completely shit. Did you slip over this part;

I highlighted the key part of my comment that you seem to have skipped over you geriatric old fool.

That said the country is not as divided as you would like to see it. Your party is in a demographic death spiral to use the words of your own party. Conservatives are aging rapidly and dying off they are not being replaced by new young voters. Couple that with the fact that the country is becoming more and more brown. This is most likely the last hurrah for the GOP in its current incarnation.

You don't have to take it from me either;

https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/11/da...r-republicans/

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ral-looks-like

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/14/trump-owns-a-shrinking-republican-party/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/635115001/

This country in 5 years 10 years and beyond will continue to move to the left. It is demographically unstoppable.

No snubs nubs it was I who mentioned the constitution in a reply to your post,this was a reply to harry.Anyway the reason for asking was to see if you were saying the 60 vote majority you spoke of was supported by anything in the constitution .

**bsnub** · 17-09-2018, 05:03 AM

^ I will tell you one thing that is not in the constitution you blathering old fool. God nor Christianity.

**RPETER65** · 17-09-2018, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ I will tell you one thing that is not in the constitution you blathering old fool. God nor Christianity.

If if you kept up on the thread you would know I that I knew it was not in the constitution,just checking to see if you thought that might be a reason for going back to the 60 vote requirement.

**bsnub** · 17-09-2018, 07:22 AM

^ Learn to read and write you blathering idiot.

**RPETER65** · 17-09-2018, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ I will tell you one thing that is not in the constitution you blathering old fool. God nor Christianity.

If if you kept up on the thread you would know I that I knew it was not in the constitution,just checking to see if you thought that might be a reason for going back to the 60 vote requirement.

**RPETER65** · 17-09-2018, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Learn to read and write you blathering idiot.

So so no comment on the 60 vote rule to confirm a superior court justice,as I thought you were just talking out of your butt.

**bsnub** · 17-09-2018, 08:31 AM

You fucking idiot what are you on about? The 60 vote rule was an integral part of our system of checks and balances removing it damaged democracy in this country and allowed one party to nominate more extreme judges as is happening now. It was put in place for a reason so the court would not tilt to far in one direction ideologically. Clearly you are to stupid to understand such basic fact.

Now go change your diapers you senile old fool.

Thread: President Donald Trump

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions