Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And he likely can't. Trump does not appear to be as smart as he thinks he is. He has likely kicked off a Constitutional crisis. And a good part of the Republican Senators understand that.
The situatlion called for a mildly centrist conservative. Trump went the other way. It is doubtful he can win but if he does he sets the hounds of hell loose. Given a democrat victory you end up with 15 guys on in USSC. And lots of other damaging garbage. It will likely end up with a new Constitution.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. Particularly dangerous with a minority government.
You couldn't be more wrong. Trump needs to replace Scalia with someone just as conservative or close to it. The Supreme Court is balanced that way.
Your post has so much fantasy in it. A new Constitution? Boy, someones been drinking a lot of that kool-aide.
The Democrats were sorely tempted but basically declined. I actually think it was a Republican mistake. They finally went too far and got a response. Modulated but still bad.
If the Democrats had wanted to overthrow the system they could have done so. We could for instance now have 15 judges on the USSC with Senate rules that make it virtually impossible to remove themd.
The crucial thing is that neither party cripples these mechanisms. As I said...if you do it could well end up with a new Constitution.
So be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
The best part is, he is only 49 (the average age of an individual appointed to the SCOTUS is 52) so he will (God willing) have long term impact. The average age of retirement/death of a SCOTUS Justice is 82.
Ginsberg is 83
Kennedy is 80
Bryer is 78
Thomas is 68
Alito is 66
Sotomayor is 62
Roberts is 55
Kegan is 50
So if Ginsberg and Kennedy retire - and maybe even Bryer, then....that is going to a good thing if the other nominees are cut from the same cloth as Gorsuch!!
There will be some response to the treatment Republicans reserved to Garland last year... it's only to be expected, Republicans should not have done what they did and listen to Obama's nominee.
I don't understand why Republicans are so upset with the Democrats expected action, when they are the ones who created that situation...
Actually I did.
As I am an Independent I would love to see both parties go down in flames for what they have done to this country. If the Dems do the same stunt that simply proves they are no better and possibly worse. Sotomayor was passed through in spite of her lack of qualifications and her questionable position regarding the Constitution.
I too, lean independent these days. My candidate lost in the Democratic primary.
But this judge nominee thinks the suffering should rot in pain at the end of their lives. Death with dignity is something I care about and hope is available one day when my own time comes. This judge would surely make that not possible.
The Democrats were sorely tempted but basically declined. I actually think it was a Republican mistake. They finally went too far and got a response. Modulated but still bad.
If the Democrats had wanted to overthrow the system they could have done so. We could for instance now have 15 judges on the USSC with Senate rules that make it virtually impossible to remove themd.
The crucial thing is that neither party cripples these mechanisms. As I said...if you do it could well end up with a new Constitution.
So be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Isn't that what was said to the dems when they decided to use it? Well, this seems like the natural result. They set a precedent after 40 years of senate tradition.
You couldn't be more wrong. Trump needs to replace Scalia with someone just as conservative or close to it. The Supreme Court is balanced that way.
Your post has so much fantasy in it. A new Constitution? Boy, someones been drinking a lot of that kool-aide.
And your post shows the standard right wing inability to understand the unintended consequences of their actions.
I don't want a new Constitution though I think it inevitable, or the threat of one causes significant changes to the existing one. The issue will be the Senate I think.
That you do not understand the ramification of a Senate rule change simply shows why people like Trump govern so badly.
You need to see Joe Biden who set the rules on lame duck presidents' nominees.
"It's not fair" said Biden "to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision. . . .saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election."
"Mr. Biden went so far as to say that Mr. Bush shouldn’t even bother to nominate anyone, much less have the Senate approve the pick — exactly the stance Republicans are now taking toward Mr. Obama" (referring to Garland).
Garland was a lame duck president's nominee, nominated well into the political season. Republicans were just following Biden's lead. It's hadn't been done in years before and hasn't been done since Biden set out these rules.
Merkley will get what he wants. Majority rules via nuclear option.
I don't think most Americans respect Merkley's view of majority rules. We want compromise. We want bi-partisan decisions from both parties in Congress. That is no longer possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
