A
I actually thought there was hope for the guy. Bad miscalculation on my part. Jizz to the face insults definitely cross a line. Not sure why these guys (and invariably it's the far-righties) frequently resort to sexualized (and often homosexualized) insults when they're backed into a corner. Lots of baggage, no doubt.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Splitting hairs. I was wrong about it being illegal but it doesn't change my point that the move was bull shit and the only people defending it are hyper partisan hacks.
That was the first time that excuse was ever used. Thus, it was a stolen seat that people have every right to think something should be done to address it.
I am guessing the things Brad brought being discussed by those professors aren't illegal either
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my biggest pet peeves is misusing language intentionally.
First time ever used maybe, but the idea is nothing new. This stuff has been going on since the beginning. Nothing happening today is anything new. Hell, politics led us to a civil war.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Excuse me for using the wrong word. Personally, I think it should be illegal for a government official to purposely refuse to do their job.
Brad claimed just because it was legal means it wasn't stolen. I don't agree with that even if they didn't put up a law for it. They probably never envisioned that something like that would happen
Congress could pass a law requiring nominees to be voted on within a certain period of time if they want and could get the votes for it. Say four months, give or take. That should be enough.
It would only hold up until the opposition party held both houses of Congress and decided to repeal it.
To pass it sure, but once the opportunity came up where a party found it useful to repeal, they would.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don’t think the Dems would do that unless they got something in return.
They'd have to have the perfect storm of a filibuster proof Senate and a President of the same party. Don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
To be honest, I'm not even sure they could pass such a law, and even if they could, I'm not sure there would be any mechanism to enforce it. It's an accepted Constitutional axiom that one legislature cannot bind subsequent legislatures. This is one reason each house must pass its own rules package every two years. So even if Congress purported to pass a law requiring the Senate to act within four months, if a future Senate ignored said law, I don't see how anything could be done about it. I don't think they'd even have to repeal. They'd just claim the law was an unconstitutional example of legislative entrenchment, and that's it.
In your eyes that is true but not in Hikory's eyes
I said the same thing at the time it was going on.
The Democrats want to do away with the filibuster the away it is now (and I agree it should be changed) but they didn't want to do away with it when they were in the minority. If both sides were sincere and really wanted to change the rules then why not change the rules but make the new rules take effect AFTER the next election and a new senate is seated since neither side knows who'll be in the minority.
I agree but it would require a constitutional amendment.
I think that is probably true in the world today when we have a bunch of 2 year olds in congress. For example, it used to take 2/3 or 60 (can't remember which) votes to approve a supreme court justice so I guess that was a senate rule and it had been followed for years until McConnell came along and changed it. Like you say one side would ignore the law/rule when it was to their advantage and would try to hold the other side to it when it was to their advantage.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I'm not sure it would. Although it might take a constitutional crisis.
Imagine if Obama had said in March 2016 (McConnell made his statement in February right after Scalia died): my legal advisors have informed me that the Senate must do their duty, and that in the common law, silence may be read as consent after a reasonable amount of time has passed with no objection. So today I nominate Merrick Garland. If the Senate does not hold a vote on his nomination in 6 months time (or whatever normal time historically took place+some leeway), the Executive Branch will consider Judge Garland confirmed and he will take his seat on the Court in the fall term.
Then Garland shows up to the Court. What happens? At that point, I think you've forced the SCt's hand, and the ball is in their court. Given Roberts prioritization of the Court's legitimacy and public image, I'm not sure what he would do in that situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
We discussed this exact same scenario at the time. My memory is fuzzy, but I think we decided that it would have worked if Roberts had let him in.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Had Roberts let him in, that's game, set, match. The Court would have debated it, for sure, but I'm not sure it would generate an opinion. If the SCt. let him sit, though, It would have been accepted; I don't see Ryan and McConnell moving to impeach Garland or Obama for that.
It would have galvanized Republicans in that election and now, with them talking about how the Dems "illegitimately" put a justice on the Court. But in the end, what is legitimate is what is accepted.
… protect and defend the constitution of the United States … is the key phrase in every oath of office and military oath …Dems, please rein in your radicals:
Tyranny of the minority: Liberal law profs urge Biden to defy the courts and the public
They are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. In other words, they want a…thehill.com
In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.
. . .
Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks was celebrated for her appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” after declaring that Americans are “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has questioned the need for a Supreme Court.
In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
So the danger is now “constitutionalism,” as opposed to what Tushnet and Belkin call “popular constitutionalism.”
Many have called for the court to be packed with liberal appointees to bring it back to what Biden views as “normal.” Some of these calls before Biden’s Supreme Court commission echoed the same views as Tushnet and Belkin. Indeed, they cite Harvard professor Nikolas Bowie, who rejected the notion that “the constitutional interpretation held by a majority of Supreme Court justices should be ‘superior’ to the interpretations held by majorities of the other branches.”
The content is protected speech … but bothersome as a popular opinion.
Minnesota is an interesting state, perhaps even moreso than Illiinois where Chicago clearly carries the vote despite the majority of the geographic area being Republican.
Minnesota has the Twin Cities, which are notoriously far left (see Reagan), despite the suburbs being right of center (more churches up here than anywhere in Chicagoland outside of Wheaton.
As you leave the cities, things seem much more conservative. Yet you have unions with power up in the Iron Range and they tend to push a left-leaning vote, despite many of the constituents being blue collar, conservatives (e.g., type that Trump outperforms with).
I thought Mitch’s actions were quite predictable… and in hindsight prescient
Nancy said elections have consequences…
One of her consequences was a loss of the Senate and Trump‘s 3 nominees.
The complaints are still sour grapes.
Last edited:
Given that the CONSTITUTION says SCs be appointed on the advice and CONSENT of the Senate, he would be violating the Constitution and could be easily impeached.
The SC could also refuse to include Garland in any deliberations.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Under the common law, silence can be interpreted as consent in certain circumstances. That's the crux of the whole hypothetical.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
He warned the Dems not to do what they did on Obama appointees and said it would come back to haunt them when the Repubs had the votes. That's what Giggity was sarcastically referring to.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Interesting factoid:
- The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
I'm one who said at the time that part of me wanted Obama to send him over just to force the court's hand, but in hindsight it's good he didn't. The Repubs were morally in the wrong, but it wasn't worth forcing a constitutional crisis over.
You win every forum thread you reply to...for the #1 most stupid comment. Congrats.
All
All your Bream Team is embarrassing to you- hope your divorce settles fairly, and hope you see the light about the racists you consort with: DanC, Lucy, CRay- anytime anywhere
Lucy is a parody account and it’s the Dream Team. Not quite as good as the 92 squad, but close.
Nah, as Brad alluded to, that Supreme Court seat was a clear cut case of payback is a bitch.
If you don’t like the Supreme Court, blame Harry Reid - Roll Call
Opinion — Harry Reid put politics ahead of principle in 2013 and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.
And they invoked that nuclear option after holding up Bush judicial appointments for years. I have zero sympathy for the Democrats on that one. They changed long established norms and it blew up in their face exactly like they were warned it would.
Similar threads
