Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


from before the 2016 election

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/500560120/senate-republicans-could-block-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees

 

Now some Republicans are suggesting the wait for Scalia's replacement could last much longer, perhaps an entire presidential term, or two. Three Republican senators have said directly that they would consider leaving Scalia's seat empty as long as Clinton is in office.

 

As for Cruz, he suggested there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices. For support, he pointed to a statement made by Justice Stephen Breyer during an interview in which Breyer noted that the court has historically functioned with as few as five or six justices.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Tapper is one of the best in the business because he is willing to do this to either side. 
 

She is demonstrating what is so wrong with way too many people when they start talking about the constitution.  
 

 

I’m very anti-Trump.  I used to also call myself liberal.  
 

Trumpers piss me off, and the more “panicked” the left gets they also piss me off.  Will we, as America, ever get passed this outrage and just focus on governing for the people?  I’m exhausted...

 

If Trump wasn’t so s#!tty, I’d probably stop participating in this s#!t show...

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

8 hours ago, funhusker said:

I’m very anti-Trump.  I used to also call myself liberal.  
 

Trumpers piss me off, and the more “panicked” the left gets they also piss me off.  Will we, as America, ever get passed this outrage and just focus on governing for the people?  I’m exhausted...

 

If Trump wasn’t so s#!tty, I’d probably stop participating in this s#!t show...


When has the government ever governed for the people? By the people, do you mean the rich? Because it sure hasnt been for the middle class since FDR. 
 

Now, if you mean will the government ever get back to doing nothing and not fighting about it and people going about their day not really caring, I think the answer is yes. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Tapper is one of the best in the business because he is willing to do this to either side. 
 

She is demonstrating what is so wrong with way too many people when they start talking about the constitution.  
 

 

 

I agree that Tapper is pretty good at what he does.

 

What he's doing here, though, isn't his best work. He's not wrong - nothing specifically in the constitution denies McConnell the ability to do what he's done to the court over the past six years.

 

The problem with saying "It's not unconstitutional" is that the constitution didn't predict faithless executors of its mechanisms - and it can't, being a 200+ year old document. What we have to look at is the intent of the document.

 

The constitution never intended for a Mitch McConnell to simply not move on judicial nominations by the President. The constitution never intended for a Mitch McConnell to then ram through as many judges under a favorable president as he could in four years. The constitution did not intend for a Mitch McConnell to deny Merrick Garland a vote. The constitution never intended a Mitch McConnell to then ram through a polarized Supreme Court nominee when every poll shows the majority of people don't agree with that action.

 

While Tapper (rightly) points out that those are only polls, I'd wager those polls far more accurately describe the wishes of today's electorate than some broad framework in a 200-year-old document that doesn't specifically address this instance.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

While Tapper (rightly) points out that those are only polls, I'd wager those polls far more accurately describe the wishes of today's electorate than some broad framework in a 200-year-old document that doesn't specifically address this instance.

Sure they do and the woman should have been concentrating on that instead of making up some fake constitutional argument.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

 

After the events of the McConnell Era, I'm fully on board with packing the Supreme Court to right this wrong. We cannot go back half a century in our thinking because a minority party wrestled just enough control over the judiciary to wreak havoc.

 

The courts are an arm of the populace. They should reflect the will of the majority.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:


When has the government ever governed for the people? By the people, do you mean the rich? Because it sure hasnt been for the middle class since FDR. 
 

Now, if you mean will the government ever get back to doing nothing and not fighting about it and people going about their day not really caring, I think the answer is yes. 

Probably why I'm exhausted...

 

I didn't claim the government was great before Trump.

Link to comment

From Knapp's post above, here is the full article link.  Looking ahead a 6-3 majority on the court will have big ramifications.

If it only empowers the GOP to maintain control, even though it is a minority party, then we have deep problems.  If a 6-3 court affects voting rights and redistricting - which is hugely important in this census year, then we have huge problems that will affect us for a generation.  While I am conservative, I do not want a court that minimizes the rights of minorities, the rights of all voters, one that empowers one particular party, one that diminishes the pursuit of happiness of all people - including those that want to immigrate to the USA.  - those things are not in the spirit of our founding documents.

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/trumps-new-supreme-court-is-coming-for-the-next-elections.html

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

While I am conservative, I do not want a court that minimizes the rights of minorities, the rights of all voters, one that empowers one particular party, one that diminishes the pursuit of happiness of all people - including those that want to immigrate to the USA.  - those things are not in the spirit of our founding documents.

 

Agree.  I don't care who is President, I am extremely uncomfortable with them being able to put 3 judges on the court in 4 years.  The court should be balanced and it's not going to be for a very long time.

 

I'm pretty conservative also.  But, I also believe my stance and views on things are not the only ones that are important.  Everyone should have their rights protected and the constitution should be picked over just based on what you like or dislike.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Agree.  I don't care who is President, I am extremely uncomfortable with them being able to put 3 judges on the court in 4 years.  The court should be balanced and it's not going to be for a very long time.

 

I'm pretty conservative also.  But, I also believe my stance and views on things are not the only ones that are important.  Everyone should have their rights protected and the constitution should be picked over just based on what you like or dislike.

Exactly - there should be no wonder as to why we are as polarized as we are today.    Parties don't have a long term view of our democracy - what is good for all people at all times and not just the here and now.  What actually is best for the parties is to have a healthy 'disinterest' in power and a healthy interest in the common good because one day the chickens will come home to roost - the GOP may be soundly defeated in either this election or then next.  They will be defeated because they have placed power over

progress that benefits all.  This census year is huge  as state legislatures will be creating districts based on the census and that will affect us for 10 years.  Therefore the supreme court decisions must be fair and equable in this area.

 

Personally, I agree with the idea to limit supreme court terms to 18 years.  It allows potentially 3 different presidents to make nominations ( of course more if some of those presidents only serve 4 years). This would be more reflective of what the majority of the voters want - basically what Biden is saying - Let the voters decide by who they elect in Nov.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

 

 

Personally, I agree with the idea to limit supreme court terms to 18 years.  It allows potentially 3 different presidents to make nominations ( of course more if some of those presidents only serve 4 years). This would be more reflective of what the majority of the voters want - basically what Biden is saying - Let the voters decide by who they elect in Nov.

 

When I first heard this I didn't like it.  I thought it would add to the politicization of the court.  However, I've come 180 on this.  I think it would take away politicization of the court.  The justices would turn over more giving more President's a chance to nominate someone.  

 

One part that sticks out that would need to be structured is when exactly are the 18 year terms for each one.  You need to have them spaced out evenly.  So, that would mean that if there are 9 justices, one would be nominated for the court every 2 years.  Then, what happens if one steps down or dies mid term?  Does the replacement just carry out that term and then they are done?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

When I first heard this I didn't like it.  I thought it would add to the politicization of the court.  However, I've come 180 on this.  I think it would take away politicization of the court.  The justices would turn over more giving more President's a chance to nominate someone.  

 

One part that sticks out that would need to be structured is when exactly are the 18 year terms for each one.  You need to have them spaced out evenly.  So, that would mean that if there are 9 justices, one would be nominated for the court every 2 years.  Then, what happens if one steps down or dies mid term?  Does the replacement just carry out that term and then they are done?

Regarding the bold, I would favor that the replacement  just serve out that expiring term.  This would be an opportunity for the president and the Senate to show some 'statesmanship' (unimaginable in our current environment).  The president could nominate someone of the same philosophical bent ad the jurist who died in office.  The president could nominate an "elder jurist" - a qualified jurist who has the wisdom of age and experience but has never served on the SC and is content wt a short term.    Of course the opposite could occur - the President could nominate a partisan hack, like a Ted Cruz, for purely political reasons - philosophical balance considerations be damned.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...