-
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.
Politico:Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
If she could remain there until 2020, that puts her seat on the same timeline as Scalia's empty one following his death. Democrats could then hold the nomination until after the 2020 election as there was a precedent set by the Republicans in 2016. They'd certainly cry about it but it shouldn't matter given their own actions in the same situation.
that's not really up to us, unfortunately, since we are in the minority in the senate. the republicans can pass anyone they like really.
They couldn't because (1) republicans have a majority already in the senate (2) The Senate changed SCOTUS appointment rules to only require a majority and be immune to 60-vote filibuster override.
If any SCOTUS member has to retire or dies before Jan 3d, 2021 then the republicans will get to appoint someone else. Anthony Kennedy made the "smart" move (from a idealogical standpoint) in retiring at age 81 so a republican guarantee replaces him, RBG made the dumb move of hanging on while democrats controlled everything because I guess she either liked her job/power too much or she never imagined Republicans controlling the senate or a republican in the white house.
After Jan 3d 2021 who knows, it'll depend on who controls the senate and who is elected to the white house.
She's doing well and will work for home for another week or so while she continues to recover. She will return to the court after that.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/6845...-signs-of-cancer-will-return-to-supreme-court
A sitting president that is undergoing multiple criminal investigations should not be allowed be allowed to pack the courts. Every one of his fillings should be impeached immediately if found guilty.
There are currently zero criminal ongoing known investigations against Trump. Its possible the Mueller investigations may turn up formal filings, but there is currently nothing on the record. That would be one of those "seemed smart at the time!" moves that would backfire badly in the future, as it would be trivial for any county or state prosecutor to start criminal proceedings against future presidents (that would have to be stayed until they are out of office) and then claim "oh, this democrat can't appoint a supreme court nominee, he's under investigation and you guys passed a law 15 years ago saying ..."
There is a process to remove a President who is unfit for office, and that is impeachment. Trying to create weird workarounds to avoid impeaching a President but strip him of his (or her) powers is a bad idea.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an investigation on obstruction of justice a criminal investigation? Also all of his business deals are undergoing investigations. It's just weird to be how someone can be choosing judges, who can potentially be cronies, while there are ongoing investigations from obstruction, campaign finance, Trump foundation and Trumps personal businesses.
Not officially, its obvious he's been target no.1 for a while and because Trump's a moron he believed it. Who do you think Individual 1 is?
edit: Here's a thread examining the FBI task force created in secret by the FBI after Trump fired Comey under suspicious circumstances, which was the predecessor to Mueller's investigation.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ny...on-behalf-of-russia-after-firing-comey.92943/
Last edited:
If he's impeached there is still a Republican President and a Republican majority Senate.
Indeed there is, just because they'll be there the government shouldn't try to force him out. I agree the difficult part will be getting past the senate to impeach.
Yeah, this is a rather ghoulish thing to talk about openly. I don't have a problem with an administration doing some contingency planning for how they might handle an unexpected vacancy on the court, but it's pretty distasteful to float that in public with a particular justice's name attached.
Today I learned that SCOTUS term limits would require a constitutional amendment which basically means Democrats have no other option besides the hydrogen bomb equivalent of court packing should the worst happen.
Jesus titty fucking Christ on a holiday shutdown golfing trip
Jesus titty fucking Christ on a holiday shutdown golfing trip
As an elegant a solution term limits would be, it requires far more political capital than court packing. Court packing needs Dem cooperation (no small feat considering FDR couldn't do it). Term limits would require Dem and GOP cooperation as well as the assent of multiple GOP states.