1627 points and 1263 comments yet no longer on the front page.
A moderator, please explain.
951–960 of 1001 posts
1627 points and 1263 comments yet no longer on the front page.
A moderator, please explain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. > and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme…
"Advice and Consent ". I'm pretty sure "consent" is where we get the need for Senate confirmation, and you'd have to strike that word to allow a direct appointment.
It’s way more open to interpretation than you’re suggesting. It has never been challenged.
The era of the US is coming to an end, Anericans have lost all moral authority, and the world has discovered over the last 4 years how exist without the US being central.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. > and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme…
That word consent means something...
And my overall point here is that the Supreme Court would decide whether the move was legal. If the court is now stacked, well that’s just tough shit. There is no other immediate remedy except to amend the constitution. Good luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how friendly they would have been if Scalia had managed to overturn abortion.
I mean they both seemed to have good sportsmanship. Is life not but a game?
Now that I feel secure, I can see where you're coming from when you call it a game though.
RBG was also the voice of reason when Justice Kavanaugh was under attack by an unhinged mob. She truly could see beyond politics, and will be missed by both sides of the aisle.
I still don't understand how, putting aside the rape allegations, kavanaugh's outbursts about Clinton conspiracy theories, "I like beer", and flat out lies about things like "Devil's triangle" being a drinking game didn't disqualify him. You can say that the rape wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that the outbursts were him having a bad day (it's not like SCOTUS is a very exclusive position /s). But that li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans do not always win but do play more hardball, and that is not a compliment. They aggressively use anti (small d) democratic tactics like gerrymandering, disfranchisement, etc. They also enjoy a large structural advantage in the Senate, because the average State is more rural and much more white than the average American. Should Democrats win the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should prioritize (sma…
The Republican Supreme Court can say any law passed by a Democrat is unconstitutional. So good look with reforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s talk like this that truly disgusts me. And it only comes from the left. Anyone in a position of power that effectively promotes opposing views is labeled as pure evil. The more effective, the more evil. Just because your side is losing does not mean the other side is working for Satan. It’s talk like that that leads to violence.
Ah, my poor innocent friend. Let me disabuse you of your "only the left" naïveté. For, you see, I have just googled "Obama destroy America", and I'm going to share the first result with you. It's titled "Democrats, like Obama, trying to destroy America": https://www.kenoshanews.com/opinion/writer-democrats-like-ob... The author is upset, it seems, that the Democratic Party is making progress on their policy agenda af…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you imagine a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock in a Bush v Gore type situation?
In all the reading I’ve done on that case, it really seems like the biggest mistake the SCOTUS made was accepting the case in the first place.