Wondering why selection of a judge is of such high concern of any party? Isn't judge a person that has no affiliation to anybody, to any party? (just curious...)
show me the section of the constitution which states that the make up of the supreme court should be balanced between republicans and democrats.
free US civics lesson: it's not there.
article III, section 1 of the US constitution was written in 1787, and the democratic party was founded in 1828 and the republican party in 1854.
again, your idiotic quote...
the whole point of SCOTUS is to put a check on legislative and executive overreach and provide a forum of last resort for those seeking justice.
do you have any idea how many straw men do you intend to put up on this thread?
or will you just be winging it...like your half-baked takes on US politics and policy?
Call it what you want, but there was a question mark at the end of my posts, and you've so far failed to answer the questions.
They should have shoved her in the freezer and kept their gobs shut.
^
i wonder what sort of end of life directives she had in place.
from what i've read about it her, something along the lines of "use every medical and technical means known to man to keep my heart beating until january 17, 2021" wouldn't be too far off the mark.
even if mcconnell decides he's ready to hold a vote, trump needs to nominate someone first.
trump's not a conservative ideologue like many senate republicans, and it's undeniably in his best interest to wait until after the election.
the first rule of trump is that trump does what's best for trump.
my best guess....he won't nominate someone and try to frame it as out of to respect ginsburg and also to unify the country. then he'll go on the stump every goddamn day ginning up the base telling them that they need to vote for him because if they don't it will result in dead babies.
a lot of 'if's here, but....
if someone is confirmed before the election or if trump loses and mcconnell confirms someone in the lame duck session, biden is going to be under tremendous pressure to stack the court if dems take the senate.
btw, if you haven't seen this documentary, it's worth checking out...
i agree.
but if he did move forward, it would cement his legacy in the pantheon of US conservatives....he would have put the next generation of the court ahead of his personal political interests.
but again, trump has to nominate someone first.
again, i agree.
dollars to donuts, here's who he'll dangle as the pick:
Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia
can't take credit for dreaming up this doomsday scenario, but think about this....
on election night trump and barr do something to stop mail in votes from being counted in a swing state or two....of course democrats will file a lawsuit to ensure that all votes are counted....just like the gore did in 2000.....and bush v. gore quickly made its way up to the supreme court....but this time SCOTUS could only have 8 members and potentially a tie vote.
????
Balancing of the judges? They judge according to affiliation to their party?
Then, considering these circumstances, who can wonder how nowadays the judgements are handled...
And that the "evidence" of the plaintiff is not accessible to the accused? (Navalny case)
Not a chance. He can't wait for the opportunity to gloat that he put a couple of right wingers on the SCOTUS. It gets him adulation from his base, and he has an enormous ego that needs feeding constantly. That's what drives him.
As for McConnell, he will not pass up the opportunity either.
And let's remember this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1f1_story.htmlAs President Trump prepares to announce his replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Democrats are desperate to block the president’s nominee — but are powerless to so. They have no one to blame but themselves. Let’s take a moment to recall the sordid 15-year history of Democratic miscalculations that brought them to this point.
The Democrats’ first mistake was to launch unprecedented filibusters against President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, starting with his 2001 nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, having produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Estrada was a supremely qualified nominee who had the support of a clear majority in the Senate. His confirmation should have been easy.
But Democrats killed his nomination. Why? According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they blocked Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Democrats did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Instead, two years after his nomination, they made Estrada the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It was an extraordinary breach of precedent.
They did not stop with Estrada. Democrats also filibustered nine other Bush circuit-court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. It was, as columnist Robert Novak wrote at the time, “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.”
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.
The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office. When Donald Trump was elected and appointed Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat, apoplectic Democrats made a fatal error: Instead of keeping their powder dry until Kennedy resigned, they filibustered Gorsuch’s nomination. The decision to block such an obviously qualified nominee — praised for his impeccable temperament, character and intellect by legal scholars on both the left and right — freed tradition-bound Republicans to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and confirm him with a simple majority.
Had Democrats not tried to block Gorsuch, they would still have the filibuster. And Republicans, who now have just a single-vote majority, would have a much more difficult time mustering the votes to change Senate rules today. But thanks to Democrats’ miscalculations, the GOP doesn’t have to.
Democrats are accusing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of hypocrisy moving forward with a Supreme Court nominee during an election year. But McConnell never said he would not confirm nominees before midterm elections in the second year of a presidency. Three sitting justices were confirmed in midterm election years: Elena Kagan (August 2010), Samuel A. Alito Jr. (January 2006) and Stephen G. Breyer (August 1994) — as were retired Justice David Souter (October 1990) and Scalia (September 1986). Trump is going to do exactly what Presidents Obama, Bill Clinton and both Bushes did before him: He will nominate a qualified candidate to fill the high court vacancy, and Senate Republicans will confirm his nominee. There is nothing the left can do about it. If Democrats are upset, too bad. They should have confirmed Miguel Estrada.
Don't get all arsey just because you don't like the facts.
You can't have it both ways.
Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks - POLITICONew York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
i'm not going too far down this rabbit hole for your sake, but....
is some of this true? probably.
but what's also true...
Miguel Estrada - WikipediaIn his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Estrada said he had never thought about Roe v. Wade, even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it.
that is a lie. a blatant fucking lie. before the senate judiciary committee when he's up for an appointment as a circuit court judge. it so completely outrageous that he disqualified himself right there.
Last edited by raycarey; 19-09-2020 at 06:37 PM.
strike one
strike two
striiiiike three your out
Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to US Supreme Court
Announcement begins fierce confirmation battle only weeks before presidential election
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
errr....having a bad day, herman?
can't find anything to blame on muslims or islam?
i'm sure you'll find/create something soon enough.
btw, your post doesn't make any sense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)