Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Trump's New SCJ and what you think at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by ShivaTD Nonsense. Not nonsense at all. You Tube You Tube...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2018, 10:32 AM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,554
Thanks: 1,966
Thanked 13,206 Times in 8,268 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Nonsense.
Not nonsense at all.

__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2018, 11:16 AM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,879
Thanks: 1,056
Thanked 3,434 Times in 1,905 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
This is a serious problem that the Republican rule change in the Senate could very easily result in. Just follow this logical sequence of events.

Accepting the confirmation of Gorsuch and the future confirmation of Kavanaugh based upon our current partisan confirmation process.

Democrats, in the future, secure a majority in the house, a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and control of the White House. With that control they reduce the number of Supreme Court justices to seven with seniority being used to remove two justices from the Supreme Court. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be removed because they'd be the two most recent members appointed to the Supreme Court.

Then six months later the Congress and the President expand the court back to nine justices and they get to pick the justices to fill the new seats on the Supreme Court.

BINGO - You have a left leaning Supreme Court almost instantly because the process was turned political by Republicans in 2017 and they exploited it to pack the Supreme Court based upon partisanship.

Removing any necessity for even the appearance of a bipartisan requirement in the confirmation process opens the door to the complete corruptions of the Supreme Court based upon partisanship. That's the Pandora's box that Mitch McConnell opened up with the rule change to a majority vote for confirmation of Supreme Court justices. While Harry Reid can be condemned for removing the 60-vote requirement for lower court appointments the removal of that requirement for the Supreme Court was exponentially worse of America. An appeals court judge cannot change Supreme Court precedent but a Supreme Court judge can.
Um no, it doesn't work that way. With the exception of impeachment, no justice can be involuntarily removed from the bench. The constitution grants them a lifetime appointment by not specifying a time or age limit and for very good reason.
Now, the constitution does not set a fixed number of justices and the number has varied through history. A president could choose to nominate additional justices and then the senate could confirm, raising the total number of justices. In the reverse, a justice could retire and the president could choose not to appoint anyone, thereby lowering the total. But nobody can change the number of justices by simply dismissing them.
This is the main reason, despite liberals screaming about it, that there was no constitutional problem with the senate never considering Garland. The president can appoint as many people as he wants, the senate can offer its advice and consent on all, some or none, but nobody gets confirmed until they do.
All-in-all a nifty little separation of powers, pretty smart fellows those founding fathers.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lurch907 For This Useful Post:
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2018, 04:27 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,273
Thanks: 12,507
Thanked 4,524 Times in 2,902 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
This is a serious problem that the Republican rule change in the Senate could very easily result in. Just follow this logical sequence of events.

Accepting the confirmation of Gorsuch and the future confirmation of Kavanaugh based upon our current partisan confirmation process.

Democrats, in the future, secure a majority in the house, a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and control of the White House. With that control they reduce the number of Supreme Court justices to seven with seniority being used to remove two justices from the Supreme Court. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be removed because they'd be the two most recent members appointed to the Supreme Court.

Then six months later the Congress and the President expand the court back to nine justices and they get to pick the justices to fill the new seats on the Supreme Court.

BINGO - You have a left leaning Supreme Court almost instantly because the process was turned political by Republicans in 2017 and they exploited it to pack the Supreme Court based upon partisanship.

Removing any necessity for even the appearance of a bipartisan requirement in the confirmation process opens the door to the complete corruptions of the Supreme Court based upon partisanship. That's the Pandora's box that Mitch McConnell opened up with the rule change to a majority vote for confirmation of Supreme Court justices. While Harry Reid can be condemned for removing the 60-vote requirement for lower court appointments the removal of that requirement for the Supreme Court was exponentially worse of America. An appeals court judge cannot change Supreme Court precedent but a Supreme Court judge can.
Are you suggesting, then, that the Democrats have been above "partisanship" in the nominating process?

If so, then let us see just how many Democrats vote for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh (with the possible exception of a few red-state Democrats who are up for re-election in 2018).
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2018, 06:53 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,368
Thanks: 11,749
Thanked 12,617 Times in 7,406 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907 View Post
Um no, it doesn't work that way. With the exception of impeachment, no justice can be involuntarily removed from the bench. The constitution grants them a lifetime appointment by not specifying a time or age limit and for very good reason.
Now, the constitution does not set a fixed number of justices and the number has varied through history. A president could choose to nominate additional justices and then the senate could confirm, raising the total number of justices. In the reverse, a justice could retire and the president could choose not to appoint anyone, thereby lowering the total. But nobody can change the number of justices by simply dismissing them.
This is the main reason, despite liberals screaming about it, that there was no constitutional problem with the senate never considering Garland. The president can appoint as many people as he wants, the senate can offer its advice and consent on all, some or none, but nobody gets confirmed until they do.
All-in-all a nifty little separation of powers, pretty smart fellows those founding fathers.
The problem is the Founders never anticipated the ruthless dishonesty of the Democrats in their unquenchable thirst for power. The SCOTUS has been a convenient vehicle for implementing unpopular Left wing policies such as abortion, same sex marriage and DACA they couldn't get enacted by the legislative process. It would by naive to assume they wouldn't impeach Trump appointed justices to regain control over their super legislature. The charges wouldn't matter, the ends justify the means.

Look at the way Obamacare was passed with one sleazy parliamentary maneuver after another. The SCOTUS twice rewrote portions of Obamacare so it could claim the law passed Constitutional muster. The SCOTUS is just to valuable to the Left to let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2018, 06:38 PM
Bat Bat is offline
Hinged
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,953
Thanks: 84
Thanked 1,326 Times in 798 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
For almost 150 years--since The Judiciary Act of 1869--the number of SCOTUS justices has been set at nine.

FDR's attempt to pack the court, in the 1930s, was firmly rebuffed.
The liberal Time Magazine proposed a SCOTUS of 27 Justices yesterday.

Why the Supreme Court Should Have 27 Justices, Not 9 | Time

My opinion, we don't need more government, we need less of it.

Based upon the author's argument of population as his reasoning for increasing the size of the Supreme Court, why isn't he arguing to increase the size of the Senate and the House? Both of which I am opposed to.

The author also seems to have forgotten that the appellate courts have increased in number quite a bit since 1869.

Personally, I'd be just fine with a SCOTUS of 3 or 5 people provided all of them focused strictly upon The Constitution itself and nothing else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bat For This Useful Post:
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2018, 08:33 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,980
Thanks: 938
Thanked 1,546 Times in 1,246 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The problem is the Founders never anticipated the ruthless dishonesty of the Democrats in their unquenchable thirst for power. The SCOTUS has been a convenient vehicle for implementing unpopular Left wing policies such as abortion, same sex marriage and DACA they couldn't get enacted by the legislative process. It would by naive to assume they wouldn't impeach Trump appointed justices to regain control over their super legislature. The charges wouldn't matter, the ends justify the means.

Look at the way Obamacare was passed with one sleazy parliamentary maneuver after another. The SCOTUS twice rewrote portions of Obamacare so it could claim the law passed Constitutional muster. The SCOTUS is just to valuable to the Left to let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way.
11 months remaining in BO's term at the time of Scalia's death and the Senate stalled until tRump was pres!! That's textbook "unquenchable thirst for power."
__________________
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values."
French President Emmanuel Macron
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2018, 06:35 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,865
Thanks: 8,360
Thanked 5,894 Times in 3,381 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
11 months remaining in BO's term at the time of Scalia's death and the Senate stalled until tRump was pres!! That's textbook "unquenchable thirst for power."
Once again, they were simply following the road map laid out by the Democrats during Bush's final year in office as to not give a hearing to a nominee of a president in the president's final year in office. Why is it that the left seems to gloss over that fact every time they bring up the Merrick Garland issue? And the one that made that rule was Obama's VP.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:22 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,368
Thanks: 11,749
Thanked 12,617 Times in 7,406 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
11 months remaining in BO's term at the time of Scalia's death and the Senate stalled until tRump was pres!! That's textbook "unquenchable thirst for power."
There is no required time table for Senate confirmation. Nor is the refusal to confirm Garland an expansion of Senate power.

Political opponents have delayed or sabotaged confirmations for partisan political reasons in the past such as, Miguel Estrada. But whining about phony injustices is second nature to Democrats.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2018, 01:30 PM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 1,632
Thanked 1,733 Times in 1,064 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairy Jello View Post
"We hate the pick!"

"Who is the pick?"

"We don't know but we hate it!"

Morons.

Women’s March accidentally reveals group planned to oppose Trump’s nominee no matter who it was




I don't remember any right leaning person being shocked that Obama picked extreme leftwingers like Kagan and Sotomayor for the supreme court. I don't remember Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck,Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or any other right leaning political commentator was saying "Gee I thought Obama was going to pick someone conservative or even moderate to the supreme court". Anyone who thought Obama was going to appoint someone other than a left winger was a brain dead moron. Trump is perceived by the left to a conservative.Heck many Trump-tards think Trump falsely believe Trump is a conservative. So logic would dictate that in a republican controlled house and senate that Trump will pick a conservative to the supreme court. A conservative justice is someone the left doesn't want on the supreme court. It doesn't take a political science major to figure this out. So it is foolish to mock left wingers for opposing the appointment of a conservative justice to the supreme court even though they don't know who it is.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2018, 01:33 PM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 1,632
Thanked 1,733 Times in 1,064 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
11 months remaining in BO's term at the time of Scalia's death and the Senate stalled until tRump was pres!! That's textbook "unquenchable thirst for power."
Biden Rule.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...s-in-1992.html
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, anthony, brett, court, justice, kavanaugh, ken, new, nominated, scj, succeed, supreme, think, trump, what, you

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0