Who is the bigger threat to democracy trump or biden?
- Thread starter mcmurtry66
- Start date
I agree with all of this. They are also going to make it very difficult for someone like me to make a living.
But what you wrote has nothing to do with an end of democracy or a judicial branch beholden to Donald J. Trump, or even a question about the legitimacy or integrity of the judicial system or the individual judges.
No. I’m saying it’s part of the executive branch and isn’t intended to e part of checks and balances.
No. What Trump says us different from being authoritarian. The Hatch Act applies to the bureaucracy. That said, only the naive believe it isn’t already political. See Lois Lerner.
Not originally, but it has evolved that way. It's the real version of the Deep State. Obviously, people disagree about whether it should act that way.
You don't think fundamentally changing voting rights and election safeguards/integrity are threats to democracy?
No one was assuming Trump was going to put on a crown and scepter and all the branches of government were going to genuflect. And a politicized judge should have their integrity questioned.
So now who's being naive, Kay? Bowl accused me of saying I thought judges didn't have biases, political leanings, and were perfectly objective. I assume he'll now criticize you for this.
Do you have any proof that the judges Trump appointed are more politicized than other federal judges? Do you realize that many judges in the United States at the state level are elected, and so have to run political campaigns?
As for "fudamental" changing things, I'm not sure I agree with that because I'm not sure what you are talking about. I"m not sure you understand how the litigation process works, the appellate process, or what it is judges can and cannot do, let alone the very real constraints they have on their power and decisionmaking.
Last edited:
When there is a failure of Trump to capture 100% of his predicted votes in any primary during the coming months, red rats will start running off the sinking ship.
Not really.
The administrative state is quite a different animal now vs. the 19th century. I don't think the Framers could have predicted just how big it would get, and how much it would do in our present system.
Anecdotal, Mark. Just my experience. And for what it's worth, you don't strike me as miserable at all. I enjoy your posts and wish you posted more.
He doesn't want to get banned, and we all know how tempermental you can be.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. You're the superbest awesome moderator out there!
I'm not sure who Kay is.
Also, if you're saying all judges inherently have political biases, you're probably right. They're human, after all. That said, the appointees Trump is picking from the Federalist Society list should be questioned - and more often than not, challenged. The Federalist Society didn't invest all their time and effort into creating a stable of potential judges for the interest of impartiality.
I don't actually know off the top of my head if an Obama or Clinton appointee is more 'politicized' than a Trump appointee. I would assume so, but to your point I don't have proof of that. That said, the unprecedented number of appointees Trump made in his first term gave him an unprecedented impact on shaping the courts.
And there have been fundamental changes to voting rights. This is a recent example.
The biggest threat to the republic is an uninformed/apathetic citizenry.
(On both sides)
(On both sides)
That's quite the straw man. I never claimed 150 judges are loyal to Trump. And Scheindlin (is she related to Arbitrator Judy?) is not complaining that the judges Trump appointed are conservative. You need to read the entire piece. Here's a portion:
"The Trump legacy of judicial appointments is most apparent in the recent behavior of the supreme court. A new term has been coined – the shadow docket – which refers to the sudden uptick in emergency requests filed by the government. In the 16 years preceding the Trump presidency only eight such requests were filed, and, of those, only four were granted. By contrast, during Trump’s four-year term, 41 such applications were made, of which 24 were granted – a 70% success rate that supported Trump’s policies. These cases are heard without full briefing, without oral argument, and often result in a single-sentence order as opposed to a full reasoned opinion.
[Four specific cases are then discussed].
"In each of these cases, the supreme court deprived the affected parties of a chance to be fully heard and often deprived the appellate courts of the chance to review the ruling of the trial courts. This unprecedented haste, and acquiescence to the importuning of the executive branch, gave the appearance that the supreme court was no longer an independent and co-equal branch of government but rather a partner of the Trump-led executive branch."
Look, I said earlier that the judiciary remains a guardrail. I'm convinced, though, that it's not nearly as strong and as high as it used to be and needs to be, and I'm concerned it wouldn't be particularly effective (or even particularly interested, at least with respect to the Supreme Court) in keeping a President Trump in check.
I'm starting my weekend. Au revoir.
Enough about Bowl. What about me again?
I'm a one and done. If I end up single again for any reason I plan to stay that way.
REPORT: If it was a heterosexual couple, it would be fine.
There’s a joke there somewhere about what’s going on there compared to what normally goes on in that room but I can’t make it work.
All of Twitter has been trying to make that work for the past half hour, so you're not alone.
R
As long as Joe wasn’t smelling anyone’s hair . . . .
I'm debating you and Ohio Guy here in the same thread. You're going to have to allow for some slippage in attribution of argument.
The shadow docket issues and the specific decisions she references all appear to be garden-variety conservative issues. I probably disagree with the majority in every one.
Let's reach some agreement: we both agree that judges cannot and do not approach every issue in front of them 100% objectively and without reference to their political, moral, and experiential prior. They are human. Yet, I think we'd both agree the structure of the judiciary and the legal system constrains those political biases, and the judiciary remains a guardrail against executive overreach. I'm more optimistic about it continuing to be one in the future than you are.
Have a great weekend.
@DANC you read this???? hahahaha. brad's a solid poster but this is a nice reminder of the difference between a solid poster and a member of the dream team. danc how many you think you take on at once, when you have your gatling gun out, dozen? more?
OK, then, assuming you're correct...
If Stephen Miller played a military officer in a new Star Wars movie, what uniform would fit him best?
Is there one that would make the Nazi's look reasonable? If so, that one.OK, then, assuming you're correct...
If Stephen Miller played a military officer in a new Star Wars movie, what uniform would fit him best?
Huh?
You mean Standard Issue thinks there is a way to make Nazis look reasonable? Is that what you meant to post??
No, it was supposed to be absurd.
Badly done on my part. He would be whatever could possibly be worse than the Nazi's.
Last edited:
It's far different than just saying "that the judges he appointed are conservative jurists."
Trump appointed only judges who either are members of The Federalist Society thenselves or who were expressly approved/endorsed by The Federalist Society.
How the Federalist Society Became the De Facto Selector of Republican Supreme Court Justices
During last year’s campaign, Donald Trump offered an unprecedented guarantee regarding any potential Supreme Court nomination. The Republican nominee...
So, the current Republican system is (1) nobody can become a federal judge unless The Federalist Society endorses them, which is the counterpart to (2) nobody can run for office as a Republican unless Trump approves them. Such decisions have little to do with traditional Republican values or with recognition of brilliant conservative legal opinions.
These "conservative jurists" seem to have been vetted not for brilliant conservative legal thinking but instead because of how The Federalist Society noticed their biases in favor of certain political positions without regard to any case that might later arrive in their courts.
So, Trump did not just appoint generic all-purpose "conservative jurists" who could honestly reach a range of conservative opinions on the same issues. That's not what happened,
So the Biden admin would by race or sexuality preference.It's far different than just saying "that the judges he appointed are conservative jurists."
Trump appointed only judges who either are members of The Federalist Society thenselves or who were expressly approved/endorsed by The Federalist Society.
How the Federalist Society Became the De Facto Selector of Republican Supreme Court Justices
During last year’s campaign, Donald Trump offered an unprecedented guarantee regarding any potential Supreme Court nomination. The Republican nominee...slate.com
So, the current Republican system is (1) nobody can become a federal judge unless The Federalist Society endorses them, which is the counterpart to (2) nobody can run for office as a Republican unless Trump approves them. Such decisions have little to do with traditional Republican values or with recognition of brilliant conservative legal opinions.
These "conservative jurists" seem to have been vetted not for brilliant conservative legal thinking but instead because of how The Federalist Society noticed their biases in favor of certain political positions without regard to any case that might later arrive in their courts.
So, Trump did not just appoint generic all-purpose "conservative jurists" who could honestly reach a range of conservative opinions on the same issues. That's not what happened,
Aren't Christie, Haley, Desantis and Sununu (and others) already looking for their escape routes down the mooring ropes from the Trump sinking ship to the dock?
Candidates weren't talking about Trump alternatives before.
