-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
President Trump completes interviews of Supreme Court candidates, as shortlist shrinks to 3
- Thread starter Phire Phox
- Start date
Just basically demanded loyalty from each and saw who was quickest to say yessir. Oh and which one "looked the part."
"President" trump? Sorry not recognizing illegitimate tinpot dictators installed by foreign powers is my thing.
Somebody under criminal investigation should not be able to appoint a fucking Supreme Court Justice
You'll see the Democrats cave and put somebody in who's gonna overturn roe vs Wade.
And then blame the public when turnout and engagement are terrible as a result of them being spineless cowards.
Clarence Thomas retiring in 2021 or earlier in 2019 or 2021 but the dems use the McConnel rule in the senate, is the only thing that can save us
Well, at least as far as we've been told, he himself isn't under investigation. I mean....he probably is, but we don't know that for sure.
But I agree 100% with your sentiment. When they wrote the Constitution, the founding fathers clearly didn't anticipate the American people electing a complete moron with no knowledge of how government works, who is fairly obviously corrupt, and who prefers dictators to our allies.
Extremely unlikely because Thomas knows dems would use McConnell rule.
Democrats cant stop this. There is no filibuster allowed etc. GOP just needs to keep a unified vote and its done
Yeah. Let's not act that Trump is smart enough here.
Anyone who believes there's a higher power than the law of the land should be automatically disqualified.
Kavanaugh is the one that conservatives are actually split on. Some support him, but quite a few think he's not reliably conservative enough.
If I was a betting man, my money would be on Barrett.
It seems to me that the more helpless members of the Democratic or Republican party are, the more they lash out at their powerless leaders for not doing something about it. I guess it makes people feel better.
Can someone explain this to me or just confirm the below?
So supreme court is 7 people. Positions are only ever changed with a retirement or death - otherwise they are for life?
With this new election, that would make 4 heavy conservatives, 2 heavy liberals, and 1 moderate. Do I have that right?
So doesn't this mean a lot of the supreme court decisions that were made from a socially liberal stance are now going to be up in the air. And doesn't that mean no matter which way the election goes this year and in 2020, all supreme court decisions will be from a socially and economically conservative stance until one of them dies?
So supreme court is 7 people. Positions are only ever changed with a retirement or death - otherwise they are for life?
With this new election, that would make 4 heavy conservatives, 2 heavy liberals, and 1 moderate. Do I have that right?
So doesn't this mean a lot of the supreme court decisions that were made from a socially liberal stance are now going to be up in the air. And doesn't that mean no matter which way the election goes this year and in 2020, all supreme court decisions will be from a socially and economically conservative stance until one of them dies?
What do you think they can do here?
Well, as a woman, she wouldn't be able to lead the cult ;)
Pelosi has done the best she can, schumer hasnt. Don't forget he folded like wet paper on the shutdown over DACA.
9 but yes. This is why McConnell is so happy. No matter what, now republican fuckery in our courts will hold the country back for the next 2 decades at a minimum. SC judges have so much power they're essentially kings, and they will use that to gut any liberal legislation that gains traction irregardless of legality.
The woman is a co-leader of a religious cult and is a self proclaimed "Handmaid"
There's no "fight" to be had here. Donald Trump will select someone because he's President and that person will be approved by the Senate because 51 Senators will vote for him or her. So unless they can find a reason for those 51 not to vote in favor other than "this person is not a liberal," then there's nothing there.
If you buy the ticket, you get the ride. I can't stand the idea of appealing to some power to come save the voters (or non-voters) from themselves. This is what they thought they wanted, let them get it and see if that's still the case.
9 people, not 7.
There are currently four liberal justices: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
There are currently five conservative justices: Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kennedy.
The snag is that Kennedy is libertarian-ish and votes with the liberals on LGBTQ issues, affirmative action, and some abortion decisions. Replacing him with a regular conservative wouldn't change a lot of rulings, but it would change some. And it locks down a 5-4 conservative majority probably until Thomas retires. Maybe longer than that if Ginsburg or Breyer have to step down -- they're both quite old.
......... democrats can all vote no but the pick will still go through.
The Democrats are unable to do anything. Y'all don't know how this works huh?
9 people. The old court was 5-4 in favor of conservatives where one of the conservatives was slightly more moderate on social issues and sided with liberals on occasion. He'll be replaced with a hard-right conservative, leaving no real swing vote.
is it normal for presidents to be interviewing a supreme justice candidate? I feel that things like this and Justice department picks should not be interviewed by the president, keep things separate.
Fuck no. I do not want her anywhere near the Supreme Court. She can go be a Handmaid somewhere else.