OT: A Michigan Man on the SCOTUS?
No vote. No hearings. Nothing.
Sorry bud, it’s happening if you like it or not. There’s a couple surpreme court justices I dislike (not naming) but I accept them because that’s how this country works.
You "accept" them as though you have a choice to not to? You accept them because you, individually, are not in power to do anything about it, like the rest of us.
I’d be a lot less concerned if we followed a consistent norm on how the country worked
Here's a link to the constitution; you may choose to read the entire document.
http://constitutionus.com/
I feel like our government is quite removed from what was laid out in the Constitution. If you read it and feel our government is a logical extension from that document... Until you add two hundred years of corruption, greed, and sloth.
Well, clearly "corruption, greed, and sloth" have a home with no boundaries on the political spectrum, as is evidenced throughout history. However, the constitution does apply, therefore it outlines various items - such as appointments by the President, with the consent of the Senate and also electoral college. Two items that many fail to understand, which was my point in linking.
1 in 25 is still a chance...though there was news out today that the leading candidates are from D.C. and Chicago.
Time will tell...
After the Democrats retake the presidency and Senate his impact would be diminished as there will be an expansion of the court to counteract McConnell's brazen refusal to allow Garland's hearings.
Doubt that will ever happen. It's been at 9 since 1869; FDR tried and failed to increase the number. Both parties have had the White House, Senate, and House and the number hasn't changed in nearly 150 years.
Perhaps but never say never. At no point previously had a Senate Majority Leader not allowed hearings on a SCOTUS nominee either, had they?
Uh... about that... Pierce Butler, Thomas Matthews, William Micou, Edward Bradford, and John Read all say hi. All weren't voted on when nominated. Butler and Matthews did end up on the court later, though, so Garland (of course) could always be nominated again later (as those two were).
Butler was nominated and overwhelmingly confirmed -- am I missing something? On the others,you're right, my knowledge of such political machinations from the 1800's is lacking.
However, I believe my point about the size of the SCOTUS having been variable in response to political calculus is relevant. McConnell played a card which had been long dormant. What is to stop the Democrats from responding in kind?
“Butler was nominated and overwhelmingly confirmed -- am I missing something?”
Yes. He was confirmed on his second nomination.
I think a more workable solution would be to advocate term limits for Justices. If Justices served, say, 10 years, with a predictable end to their term, it wouldn't be quite so apocalyptic every time one left.
10 years first seem long enough but 15 seems too long. I agree there should be term limits. No one in government should have a job until they die.
I tried to say 10 years doesn't seem long enough.
An expansion of the court? That would be a Orwellian approach to getting your way. Not how our country is supposed to work, ever.
That kind of power play breaks our Republic.
The court has been expanded in the past. Last time I checked "our Republic" is still here
The Republic is already broken by Citizens United.. We're just negotiating terms now.
"That kind of power play breaks our Republic"
So does refusing to hold hearings to consider a SCOTUS nominee from a sitting President. Didn't stop Mitch McConnell.
Not going to lie... this is the first time I have ever thought that the country breaking up into three parts was a (remote) possibility.
As a guy leaning Democrat....hell no
Political posts are now accepted,
based on the recent podcast !!
You misudnstand the "No Politics" policy. Political posts are ALWAYS accepted, provided they agree with Brian's hard-left leanings.
I have had the pleasure of talking to Brian some. Some might say a lot.
While I might characterize myself as "hard left," I doubt if I would say that about Brian, though, of course, he can speak for himself. From my POV Brian is an ultimate rationalist (unlike me) and his POVs may fall all over the political spectrum. I have never found him to be knee jerk in his opinions.
How about Harvard grad Merrick Garland?
Please lock this thread. I don't want to know anyone's political opinions on this site.
Whiny liberal tears sure are delicious.
It's comments like that which bring the level of the conversation below an acceptable threshold.
I won't hold it against UM as you're probably a Walverine, anyway.
So your response to a shitty comment is another? I don't get the feeling of sarcasm here because of your time in the first part. If you're going to chastise, stay above, don't sink below.
Sorry I don't meet your standards but my feeling is bullies and idiots need to be confronted.
Every day I cry I become more hardened and more radical in my hatred towards cowards and bullies like yourself.
I think you got lost . But I've undoubtedly read your posts on other sites.
How about fuck you asshole tears? How do you like those jackass?
Yes, they sure are !
Yes, they sure are !
So are racist conservatives rantings.
Oh For Fuck's Sake......
GO BLUE
The only reasonable/valid nominee is Merrick Garland.
Anyone else would simply be a perpetuation of theft and fraud.
This is gonna get locked soon me thinks.
But whatever. Whoever Trump picks for SC Justice is gonna be someone he wants to overturn Roe v Wade. This in turn makes them an asshole, regardless if the went to Michigan.
Yep, you managed to stoop lower then everyone.
Let's educate you about over turning Roe V Wade. It doesn't make abortion illegal. All it will do is turn the issue back to each state to decide on how they want to regulate the practice of abortion. And there is absolutely no guarantee that the SCOTUS would over turn it.
Too bad.
Mods, please delete this thread
so few people can actually have a conversation from differing viewpoints, without being disrespectful
its a sad state
Yep, we have devolved into a tribal, borderline personality disorder having, zero empathy or understanding, telephone tough guy, society. No accountability for our words or actions.
I blame social media and the everyone is special and gets a trophy mentality.
i.e. Trophies. My daughter and I raced my wife and sons home the other day. My daughter said that we would get trophies for winning and that the other car would get participation trophies for being losers. Maybe we have the whole thing backwards. When we were kids we'd get trophies for winning and if you lost you just went on with your life. Today, we give trophies to the winners and ribbons to the losers so that they have a momento of their failure.
Naw. Kids today are wimps.
The kids aren't asking for trophies, the parents are forcing them upon their children.
Your the idiot generation giving them... YOU are the problem... let's blame the kids for how WE raise them...
This logic isn't hard to comprehend...