The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[schriznoeder]

 

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

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.

What if the remaining members of the SC nominated a temp replacement?

[TGHusker]

35 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What if the remaining members of the SC nominated a temp replacement?

Now that is an out of the box thought.  However, the constitution gives that right to the president and to the Senate to confirm.

[schriznoeder]

I just finished listening to Sasse's opening remarks. If he would practice even 10% of what he preaches, I might gain an ounce or two of respect for him. Until that happens (I'm not holding my breath), he's nothing more than just another Trump shill.

 

 

[Moiraine]

If for no other reason, the courts should be packed because a disaster like Trump who likely has broken dozens of laws and not been taken down for them by a corrupt GOP House (pre 2018) and corrupt GOP Senate should not have been able to pick 3 justices (or even 1).

[commando]

why bother with these hearings?   it's a forgone conclusion.   there is absolutely nothing that can come out that would change the outcome.  the republicans don't care about a single thing other then approving the nomination.   it could be satan up for the vote and they would vote yes. it's all for show and doesn't matter.

[Moiraine]

They are using way too many words about this recusal stuff.

No Supreme Court justice nominated by a president should be able to decide whether that president gets re-elected, period.

[TGHusker]

I've heard a little bit of the confirmation hearing today.  Love her or not, Amy Barrett is one smart, knowledgeable jurist.  I somehow think she won't be a scorched earth conservative that the liberals are fearing. 

[DevoHusker]

5 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I've heard a little bit of the confirmation hearing today.  Love her or not, Amy Barrett is one smart, knowledgeable jurist.  I somehow think she won't be a scorched earth conservative that the liberals are fearing. 

I had similar thoughts about Merrick Garland. They both seem like good candidates for SCOTUS. Too bad both will be censured due to politics.

[TGHusker]

34 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I had similar thoughts about Merrick Garland. They both seem like good candidates for SCOTUS. Too bad both will be censured due to politics.

Yes all of the fear monger stuff just makes monsters out of very qualified people. The court needs quality judges from different backgrounds and experiences. I think Barrett will eventually be considered an intellectual heavyweight on the court and may become the first female Chief Justice unless Biden gets the opportunity to promote Kağan to that place of honor 

[teachercd]

On 10/12/2020 at 11:24 AM, schriznoeder said:

I just finished listening to Sasse's opening remarks. If he would practice even 10% of what he preaches, I might gain an ounce or two of respect for him. Until that happens (I'm not holding my breath), he's nothing more than just another Trump shill.

 

 

He is right.  

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

He is right.  

 

He often says the right things.

[RedDenver]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[RedDenver]