So you supported your point of “you don’t need to be a judge previously to be nominated” is backed up by someone you think is a terrible judge? Strong.
That's only true because there's no shortage of conservative judges itching to issue rulings straight out of the 1890s (remember, judicial activism is only bad if it's of the liberal type). If there were no such judges, we'd be looking at Supreme Court Justice Ivanka Trump. And you'd be all for it.
Won’t happen. Napoli tank has criticized Trump too much. His pick will be someone who has always been superfluous in their praise of Trump.
Good Twitter thread on why simply threatening to pack the SCOTUS can create changes in how the court operates.
Ahem. Look at what's squatting in the Oval Office (unless he's at Mar a Lago for the 300th golf outing of his tenure) even as we speak. Anyway, Amy Coney Barrett is 100% Catholic-school educated. Before her appointment, she probably spent her weekends screaming "Don't Kill Your Baby!" outside women's clinics.
I've only ever seen the left doing this as a mockery of Mitch's word. I dunno if any of them actually believe that should be the case. That said, we're 44 days out from the election and 70-ish from inauguration. There's not enough time for anything to get done on this, even if both parties weren't so completely polarized. There'd have to be an unprecidented disregard for laws to make that happen, which I don't put past this administration. But the way it's been done for two centuries? Not gonna happen.
You're not wrong about that. The thing both sides of our party is guilty of is letting perfect be the enemy of good, and even now I still see people refusing to even consider Biden because of [insert pet issue here] The GOP voters saw the opportunity of a lifetime and have run with it. I give them credit for that. Awful, awful credit, but they've more or less gotten Christian Sharia Law in their grasp and if Biden loses well have fewer abortion rights than Ireland FFS.
I would welcome an expansion of the Supreme Court. But I have no doubt if that expansion was implemented by Democrats the Republicans would sue all the way to the Supreme Court. Then you have a conservative Supreme Court deciding the constitutionality of something that is clearly within the purview of Congress. There would be a rash of conservative agitators claiming expansion of the court, or how it was done, was illegal. Roberts could even tag along to that nonsense with a long list of technicalities.
Pelosi floated the idea of impeaching Trump again to make sure the Senate wouldn't be able to have time to ram the confirmation through. Interesting.
Which shows that impeachment is simply a political weapon. On what charge? She'll think of something. And Trump is the threat to democracy?
When political parties can improve their judicial chances by simply adding beholden judges to SCOTUS at will, the court becomes a partisan instrument. Justices will be added simply to facilitate the legislative agenda of the current party in control. And that will probably entail keeping the other party from ever getting control. And if you're okay with that, remember that it may not be your side that gets the upper hand. If you endorse this strategy for your own side, you're validating it for the other side.
Why irony? Yes, every President appoints justices they think will align with their views, but that's often not the case. The current Chief Justice, for instance, has been far from reliably conservative. But the President normally only gets the opportunity when chance allows (a Justice dies or retires). He might shift the balance of the court, but only by at most one Justice at a time. By packing the court, a President could shift the balance at will. Let's just say Trump wins in November, holds the Senate, and gets the House back. If he then announced he was going to increase the size of the court but two, appoint two additional justices, then impose a rule requiring a two-thirds majority to add any more justices, would you be fine with this? My guess is probably not. What would you do to prevent something like that from happening?
You could start by not making up bullshit excuses for not voting on a well qualified, moderate candidate as a way to spite a president from the other party.
The qualifications to be on the Supreme Court are essentially whatever the Senate at the time says they are. Here's what the Constitution says: There is no express requirement in the Constitution that the justices are lawyers, citizens, of a certain age or whatever. If he could rustle up the votes, we could have Justice Ivanka Trump.
Do you really think it’s a good idea to impeach the President over and over until you get him/her out of office?
If and when he does things that merit impeachment and removal from office, as this particular president has, yes.
“a legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God." -Amy Coney Barrett Lovely, another fucking theocrat.
If a president refuses to stop committing crimes, should your elected representatives stop trying to hold him accountable?
I think it's an excellent idea to keep someone with the attention span of a flea as distracted as possible until November 3rd.
