The votes are there!
- Thread starter Lucy01
- Start date
Depends on what votes you're talking about.
Most Americans Want To Wait Until After The Election To Fill The Supreme Court Vacancy
Most Americans Want To Wait Until After The Election To Fill The Supreme Court Vacancy
Not sure how that would work with the constitutional lifetime appointment thing. I've seen proposals that would move SC Justices to the lower courts at the end of their terms -- so they would still have a lifetime "job" -- but I'm not sure that would fly.
The Contempt of “Notorious ACB”
In its assumption that women are all the same, this manages to be cruel to both the former justice and her successor.
But whatever else is true, I think it must be excruciating to stand next to the most contemptible president in history, knowing you wouldn’t leave your teenage daughters alone in a room with him, pretending he is worthy of the office he holds. It must be brutal to have two cherished children adopted from a country that same president described as a shithole, and still pretend that he is fit to serve. It must be mortifying to be described as a constitutional powerhouse; a subtle and independent legal thinker, when you have been selected by a president and Senate that have already told you precisely how you must rule in the cases you have yet to hear. It must be demeaning to have one’s own rich and complete legal and jurisprudential worldview, developed over decades in opposition to the worldview of Justice Ginsburg, tidily recast as Notorious 2.0, just so the GOP can, once again, troll the libs.
Some states have mandatory retirement at 70. The justice can elect senior status and participate in hearings on a limited basis but they’re out. This has often come as a con amendment. Things can be done that make more sense than expansion. Mandatory retirement, term limit, reassignment to inferior courts etc. with as old as people live now lifetime apptmts may not be in our best interests and if constl amendment is reqd so be it
I see you are still waging WAR on women!The Contempt of “Notorious ACB”
In its assumption that women are all the same, this manages to be cruel to both the former justice and her successor.slate.com
But whatever else is true, I think it must be excruciating to stand next to the most contemptible president in history, knowing you wouldn’t leave your teenage daughters alone in a room with him, pretending he is worthy of the office he holds. It must be brutal to have two cherished children adopted from a country that same president described as a shithole, and still pretend that he is fit to serve. It must be mortifying to be described as a constitutional powerhouse; a subtle and independent legal thinker, when you have been selected by a president and Senate that have already told you precisely how you must rule in the cases you have yet to hear. It must be demeaning to have one’s own rich and complete legal and jurisprudential worldview, developed over decades in opposition to the worldview of Justice Ginsburg, tidily recast as Notorious 2.0, just so the GOP can, once again, troll the libs.
President Trump describe Haiti perfectly!
Yeah, but you're talking about getting a Constitutional Amendment passed to do any of that. How many Republican controlled states are going to do that after the Court has been stacked in their favor?
Stacked in their favor? Just because more justices have been appointed by republican presidents in now way indicated the court is “stacked”
Every Dem that questions her should ask her if she intends to recuse herself from any matters concerning Trump, esp any questions about the election. They should ask her to tell the American people that she would in effect do so, and repeat it over and over...
The Dem Challengers should also Campaign in their respective states and register voters while GOP Senators who are already trailing and behind in funds are forced to be in DC voting to confirm her. They can worry about nullifying the temporary advantage once the new Senate takes their seats...
Last edited:
Yes. This needs to be done in the private meetings, and if she tries to weasel out of answering she needs to be grilled on it in the public hearings. She also needs to be made to answer about any discussion of loyalty she may have had with Trump.
It would be more interesting if "they" asked her to quote from the Bible or read a Bible quote to her and asked her to comment about the quote.
I think her reaction would be about the same as when "they" quoted Trump's tax return to him and asked him to comment. He walked out.
Tax lawyers help me out -- income from "naming rights" and "consulting fees" is just ordinary income, right? I get the impression Trump doesn't really own very many properties himself that might create complicated calculations for depreciation, deferred income and other such tax advantages. How could a billionaire (which Trump claims to be) owe only $750? (Snicker)
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I like her because she is guided by the original intent of the Constitutional Authors. Now if that was a way to end abortion I would be for it if it is done constitutionally. The truth is Roe vs Wade is bad law because it is not law. The court should not be able to create laws from the bench. Since Roe vs Wade was not done by having a law passed and signed by the President at the time it is on flimsy ground. It is why those who want abortion go crazy when they think a new justice will do away with it. If it was a passed law then a justice could not do it.
If we never had "court created laws" then Black people would not have the vote. You honestly think White Southerners would have enacted laws giving POC the right to vote? They attacked them for trying to go to the same school or even daring to sit at the same public lunch counter...
You may want to brush up on your American History. Btw, exactly WHEN was America "great"?
You getting ready to burn some Republicans who dare to disagree with you?
If Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Court was rejected by large margins, the current mouth breather small timers have no chance at all to make it happen.
Roosevelt's beef with the Court was over legislation. Today's beef is with the Court's legitimacy.
Not necessarily. "Retired" justices already assume senior status, and continue to hear cases in lower courts. There are some questions as to whether or not senior status itself is constitutional, but if it is (and I doubt the courts would rule otherwise at this point), then the argument could be made that making senior status mandatory would still meet the constitutional obligation to allow judges to keep their office, so long as the justices' salaries are not reduced upon transition from active to senior.
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk; I'm just suggesting that it's at least theoretically possible to make it happen without needing a constitutional amendment.
