So, let's pretend that trump's entire story about being illegally spied on is true, you think that the Dems should all skate? Nothing was outside of the law?
General Live Now: ACB Supreme Court Nomination Confirmation Vote
- Thread starter jerk
- Start date
I'm sure they are building their case.
I do not think all dems should be held accountable for the actions of a few if that is the case.
Building a case for a while now eh.....seems like a nothing burger.
I think that this is where we disagree. I think that they have a case but I don't think it will go anywhere. I'd love to be wrong. But throughout history, there have always been rulers and peasants. One set of laws for the rulers and another set for the peasants. Just the way it is. Hillary smashed evidence with a hammer after being subpoenaed. If me or you did that we would have a big ol schlong in us in prison as we are typing this.
Maybe. Doesn't appear to be nothing.
What proof do you have? If you have some you should present it to the authorities or else you yourself are complicit imo
How would I have evidence?
No, I would. I think the idea that partisan presidents appoint justices means it will always be partisan.
You're so sure, surely you have evidence.....
I am sure. I have no evidence.
Are you saying that if I searched your OG, Facebook,or posts here I’d find a post saying that the liberal court should be packed and term limits?
He spoke to 5 suburban house wives
No way I could have based my position on what I see happening. Impossible!
Just to be clear that was sarcasm
On other topics speaking to a couple Midwest women was all the evidence needed.
Did you always whine this much?
Sir Are you saying women can’t make their own mind up on treasonous acts? Seems very sexist
No where have I said that.....
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Ideally lifetime appointments would lead to an absence of bias in the judicial branch.
I think that's the point.
I've always worried about the term 'activist judges'. I felt like this was a very strange accusation when I watch Republicans champion their conservative choice. I thought the point was to choose a judge that is consistent with legal precedent? How could choosing somebody intentionally as conservative not be an activist action?
But it's also true that it's within the Constitution to make that court whatever number of bodies needed to appropriately represent America.
Each body dilutes the vote. And maybe that's a good thing too.
Currently the six conservative judges (by way if senator population representation) represent less Americans than the three less conservative judges. normally that shouldn't matter since judges aren't elected and aren't representatives of the people. But it is concerning that both the presidency is chosen by the minority, the senate, and the judicial branch.
Even in a representative Republic you would expect to see a translation of democratic votes into proportional representation in general theme and trend.
The moderating saucer plate of the Senate has an arguable role to remain. But I have a hard time justifying the increasing divide between citizen wishes and an executive branch and a judicial branch that are chosen by an amplified antidemocratic minority. Regardless you find the majority voice only appearing in the house. And surely that isn't the intent of a representative Republic.
I think that's the point.
I've always worried about the term 'activist judges'. I felt like this was a very strange accusation when I watch Republicans champion their conservative choice. I thought the point was to choose a judge that is consistent with legal precedent? How could choosing somebody intentionally as conservative not be an activist action?
But it's also true that it's within the Constitution to make that court whatever number of bodies needed to appropriately represent America.
Each body dilutes the vote. And maybe that's a good thing too.
Currently the six conservative judges (by way if senator population representation) represent less Americans than the three less conservative judges. normally that shouldn't matter since judges aren't elected and aren't representatives of the people. But it is concerning that both the presidency is chosen by the minority, the senate, and the judicial branch.
Even in a representative Republic you would expect to see a translation of democratic votes into proportional representation in general theme and trend.
The moderating saucer plate of the Senate has an arguable role to remain. But I have a hard time justifying the increasing divide between citizen wishes and an executive branch and a judicial branch that are chosen by an amplified antidemocratic minority. Regardless you find the majority voice only appearing in the house. And surely that isn't the intent of a representative Republic.
Do you think Judge Amy is an activist judge?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I don't know. I've got no say in it, there was no stopping it. So I didn't waste my time watching the confirmation. She's going to be a supreme Court Justice no matter what.
I think that it seems a double standard to complain about activist judges while also championing how conservative your picks are. I can't remember hearing anyone brag about how liberal their picks are. I think my point is that it just confirms these are political appointments and not the neutral justice above all selections that you imagine.
I agree, judges should be neutral politically and follow the "document" and legal precedence. i think Judge Amy doe's that and was a fine pick. I do understand the apprehension of why people were upset about Trump selecting a judge this close to the election, but there's nothing legally stopping him from doing it. I wish Judge Amy was judged on her body of work, and not because Trump selected her.
We haven't had a left leaning SCOTUS in either of our lifetimes.