|
Velocity Raptor posted:I've been thinking about the supreme court a lot lately due to every decision landing on party lines, and was curious what defines the rules of how Judges get appointed. It would require a constitutional amendment and is therefore impossible.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I've been thinking about the supreme court a lot lately due to every decision landing on party lines, and was curious what defines the rules of how Judges get appointed. a constitutional amendment would be required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Unfortunately any proposal more aggressive than basic court packing would require a constitutional amendment, so it's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/1186307820335063046
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Huh https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1186307694082301952
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
I feel like the inevitable end-game of this sort of behavior will be labeling President Trump a traitor to Trumpism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I've been thinking about the supreme court a lot lately due to every decision landing on party lines, and was curious what defines the rules of how Judges get appointed. Per the constitution, appointments are for life, made by the president, and approved by the senate. Any strictly legislative fixes have to work around those mandates, which is why many of us have been pushing for two justices to be added as as response to Garland (if Democrats win the Senate). Or many justices to be added, depending on your persuasion. Any meaningful long-term fix would require constitutional amendments (much like our fixing our broken-rear end Senate).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
quote:"Sure, I mean show me something that is a crime," Graham replied. "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing." Its a nothingburger. Graham will always oppose impeachment because nothing Trump does is a crime to the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Dammerung posted:I feel like the inevitable end-game of this sort of behavior will be labeling President Trump a traitor to Trumpism. I mean he was always more of an idea, in the sense these chuds are worshiping a Ben Garrison cartoon image of what they want Trump to be rather than Trump the person. So yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Piell posted:It would require a constitutional amendment and is therefore impossible. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:a constitutional amendment would be required. haveblue posted:Unfortunately any proposal more aggressive than basic court packing would require a constitutional amendment, so it's not going to happen. Stickman posted:Per the constitution, appointments are for life, made by the president, and approved by the senate. Any strictly legislative fixes have to work around those mandates, which is why many of us have been pushing for two justices to be added as as response to Garland ( if Democrats win the Senate). Balls. Thanks for the quick responses. We really are all kinds of hosed, aren't we. Edit: it seems more and more like our government can't be fixed from within since each side sees the other as "the enemy" and will probably remain as such until a general revolt from the people forces changes. Velocity Raptor fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Per the constitution, appointments are for life, made by the president, and approved by the senate. Any strictly legislative fixes have to work around those mandates, which is why many of us have been pushing for two justices to be added as as response to Garland ( if Democrats win the Senate). There is a potential bit of wiggle room in it. The constitutions says federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it. It could be argued that that means they aren't necessarily lifetime appointments, or that there are ways one could be a judge during Bad Behavior or something along those lines. We assume it to be a defacto lifetime appointment because there's no age limit specified or years of service listed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Its almost like we vastly over-exaggerate the foresight of a bunch of white slaveowners. Insert Washington's comment about parties as if it was an insightful observation and not oblivious to reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
ryde posted:Its a nothingburger. Graham will always oppose impeachment because nothing Trump does is a crime to the Republicans. This isn't a nothingburger. Does it mean Graham is going to flip? No probably not, but the subtext of this is that Graham feels it's necessary to hedge by laying out the narrative groundwork for him flipping. That is not good for Trump when it comes to the senators that aren't out there selling their souls for him every day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:There is a potential bit of wiggle room in it. The constitutions says federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" and… that's it. It could be argued that that means they aren't necessarily lifetime appointments, or that there are ways one could be a judge during Bad Behavior or something along those lines. We assume it to be a defacto lifetime appointment because there's no age limit specified or years of service listed. Its pretty clear and well established that they meant for article III judges to have lifetime tenure. its also mentioned in more than federalist paper that they're lifetime appointments. There will never be a serious argument that it isn't a lifetime appointment. And it isnt about age or tenure - the idea is that federal judge is independent and cannot be coerced by threats of removal or pay cuts "that there are ways one could be a judge during Bad Behavior or something along those lines" - its call impeachment. It basically only happens if a judge commits a crime or open corruption. It'll never work if you just want to remove a judge for being appointed by a republican or vice versa
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Its pretty clear and well established that they meant for article III judges to have lifetime tenure. its also mentioned in more than federalist paper that they're lifetime appointments. There will never be a serious argument that it isn't a lifetime appointment. And it isnt about age or tenure - the idea is that federal judge is independent and cannot be coerced by threats of removal or pay cuts You're almost assuredly right, but if the left fought like the right, the argument could easily be made, and probably won. Like how every person apparently constitutes a well-regulated militia. Legal merit is not the standard our laws are based on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Balls. Imo this is halfway right- one of our big problems right now is that Democratic Leadership doesn't understand that racist conservatives are the enemy and is constantly looking for ways to compromise with/appeal to them. See for example Democratic governor John Bel Edwards recently banning abortion in Louisiana- with the blessing/support of Democratic Leadership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Edit: it seems more and more like our government can't be fixed from within since each side sees the other as "the enemy" and will probably remain as such until a general revolt from the people forces changes. It certainly can't be fixed until there is at least some major political realignment that breaks the Republican's hold on the Senate. However even then its hard to see how the Senate itself can be fixed, given that smaller rural states would likely lose political power from any reasonable fix and can effectively veto attempts at reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Besides the impossibility of a constitutional amendment to overhaul the Supreme Court like that, requiring a decision to pass by 2 (which would mean essentially it'd usually be 3, 6-3) would mean that many, many cases would come to the court and reach no decision. 5-4 decisions that go to the right suck but it's necessary the court be able to render a decision.quote:It certainly can't be fixed until there is at least some major political realignment that breaks the Republican's hold on the Senate. However even then its hard to see how the Senate itself can be fixed, given that smaller rural states would likely lose political power from any reasonable fix and can effectively veto attempts at reform. Even in red Senate states, many younger people are bluer so there's hope over time(insomuch as we have time, thanks to climate collapse). The best way to fix the Senate remains to be abolishing the filibuster and granting DC and PR statehood if the Democrats get the Senate in 2020. You could *maybe* even lump the other territories in as a state but I don't know how well that would really work with Guam being part of the same "state" as the Virgin Islands etc. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Oct 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
One thing you don't need a Constitutional amendment for is simply adding more Supreme Court Justices, as the constitution does not establish the size of the court. You just need both houses of Congress (or maybe just the Senate) as well as the White House, and the will to break tradition, something Democrats certainly lack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Amending the Constitution to talk about specific political parties would be a hell of a thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Just #packthecourt
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1186310589955657728 https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1186311062947282947
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
good ol' Mad King rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Amending the Constitution to talk about specific political parties would be a hell of a thing it would, but I think its necessary to acknowledge that they're an inevitability and consider their impact. my first priority for amending the constitution would be overhauling the voting system, including ranked-choice voting and removing the electoral college, with the hopes of making third parties more viable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
We’re a few months away from Trump personally leading the charge against ISIS forces now
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
ryde posted:my first priority for amending the constitution would be overhauling the voting system, including ranked-choice voting and removing the electoral college, with the hopes of making third parties more viable. This is probably the best first step as it will reduce (if not eliminate) electing representatives with <50% popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Objectively insane rhetoric from the president of the U.S.? Huh, must be Monday. I don't know how we get past the normalization and banality of Trump's evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Not if we don't do anything about it. You think Trump wouldn't tell the people stationed there to abandon the nukes and run? US military are not going to willingly surrender nuclear weapons, regardless of the president's whims and the rest of Europe would not tolerate Turkey taking them by force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:US military are not going to willingly surrender nuclear weapons, regardless of the president's whims and the rest of Europe would not tolerate Turkey taking them by force. And even if they did, all US nuclear weapons have a 'disable' feature that damages the firing mechanisms. While Turkey would get the plutonium, the weapons themselves would be useless until rebuilt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:One thing you don't need a Constitutional amendment for is simply adding more Supreme Court Justices, as the constitution does not establish the size of the court. You just need both houses of Congress (or maybe just the Senate) as well as the White House, and the will to break tradition, something Democrats certainly lack. You could, for example, have the appointment to the Supreme Court happen on a strict 4 year schedule instead of "when one of them dies, replace them." You could have 40 SCOTUS justices. You could even have multiple Supreme Courts where 9 of the 40 Judges hear a specific case, like some of the lower courts do, but that one is a little questionable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:US military are not going to willingly surrender nuclear weapons, regardless of the president's whims and the rest of Europe would not tolerate Turkey taking them by force. https://twitter.com/SteveMcCluskey/status/1186265502932520960
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This isn't a nothingburger. Does it mean Graham is going to flip? No probably not, but the subtext of this is that Graham feels it's necessary to hedge by laying out the narrative groundwork for him flipping. It’s a waste of oxygen, he’s demanding praise for pretending to consider an action he will never take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
At least J. Edgar Hoover showed up for the photo op to make it look like he arrested Alvin Karpis himself. There's no way you could repeat the same with Trump and some ISIS fighters
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
There's also the real nuclear option of simply removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over almost anything. The constitution explicitly allows congress to do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:You could, for example, have the appointment to the Supreme Court happen on a strict 4 year schedule instead of "when one of them dies, replace them." You could have 40 SCOTUS justices. You could even have multiple Supreme Courts where 9 of the 40 Judges hear a specific case, like some of the lower courts do, but that one is a little questionable. The constitution requires a singular court set above all other courts so you couldn't do the multi-court plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And even if they did, all US nuclear weapons have a 'disable' feature that damages the firing mechanisms. While Turkey would get the plutonium, the weapons themselves would be useless until rebuilt. Gotta love 2019 where we get to have a serious discussion about the repurcussions of a NATO ally stealing our nukes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If it hasn’t been done already I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a game show where the winners get their debt paid off, while the losers get nothing and lose their possessions as a result. This already happened, in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_Games People who were behind on their car payments had to answer trivia questions to save their car. Every wrong question, the tow truck would raise the car up a little bit more. It was pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The constitution requires a singular court set above all other courts so you couldn't do the multi-court plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Mummy Xzibit posted:Gotta love 2019 where we get to have a serious discussion about the repurcussions of a NATO ally stealing our nukes. Well, when you got the Mad King who only cares about his lovely, failing side hustle... Regardless, this is unlikely to happen. But its 2019, and Trump is president, so 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I've been thinking about the supreme court a lot lately due to every decision landing on party lines, and was curious what defines the rules of how Judges get appointed. That would likely require a constitutional amendment and good luck on getting anything passed in this country that isn't "gently caress the opposition". Republicans are looking at a very good chance of getting at least one more seat in the SC if Trump or another Republican wins in 2020. Imagine a conservative supermajority on the SC. All the progressive reform of the last 50 years would be wiped out within a decade. At this point I feel like Ginsburg is keeping herself alive by force of will. I could see her retiring the day after Election Day if a Dem wins in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 17:25
|
|