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.
Wonder what the GOP will think of the "Ted Cruz rule" where no nominees are considered during the entire presidential term. Since Ted suggested that if Hillary won, there's no reason not to implement it should Trump get re-elected and since the Senate is far better for Democrats in 2020 and 2022.
I'd agree to all but that last part. I'd rather "if nobody is chosen by Congress, all members will be removed and elections held to find people who will work together."
Perfect. Like a mistrial.
Pick a whole new jury...
Fitting.
That would help, since what's the point if the public has no voice in the process today?
Even though some unemployed angry SJW people who have the time and the funds can go around harassing our elected representatives, so one could argue that some members of the public do have influence.
I make my proposal in the spirit of handing responsibility to the people if Congress fails to do their jobs, and make it politically disadvantageous for members of Congress to not come to the process without a political agenda.
Because the judiciary should NEVER have ANY political agenda. It has to be limited 100% to the plain language of the Constitution, and the intent of the document. And never about what any individual WANTS/WISHES it to be instead.
We've let this institution that is supposed to be apolitical, be hijacked by the radical left, and now, the entire thing is literally on fire.
We see that we cannot ever let this happen again. We need reform - to ensure Congress has no ability or incentive to conduct themselves in this fashion.
Great idea. Apt purpose now and Kavenaugh is out.
He s political operative for Trump.
Wonder what the GOP will think of the "Ted Cruz rule" where no nominees are considered during the entire presidential term. Since Ted suggested that if Hillary won, there's no reason not to implement it should Trump get re-elected and since the Senate is far better for Democrats in 2020 and 2022.
"since the Senate is far better for Democrats in 2020 and 2022"
And hillary was going to beat Trump!
In the current climate she would not go as far as Brett Kavanaugh. Dianne Feinstein already questioned her on her beliefs and whether she would attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade. The New York Times (for whatever it is worth) claimed that she was a member of the People of Praise:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise. That, if true, could be a battle cry for the left. It would be doubling down Amy Barrett's commitment to the unborn child. The Kavanaugh confirmation could look like a cake-walk.
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.
