Jump to content
GoDuBois.com
dubois_15801

Justice Ginsburg

Recommended Posts

This whole thing reminds me of baseball's unwritten rules.  It's stupid.  If they were rules, they'd be written.  In this case, the rules are written and are being followed.  This is the USA, not the UK.  There are no gentleman's agreements.  Why does one side think the other side should cut them a break?  If your were Donald Trump, do you think the other side is worthy of receiving a break?  How terrible have they treated him since day 1?  If I were Donald Trump, during my announcement of who I'm recommending, I'd have both middle fingers high in the air the entire time.  

Both parties are using this as another opportunity to divide us.  Don't buy the hype.  Politicians will do what politicians do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lyndsey33 said:

That would be GREAT

This is one of the ways I look at the election.  If trump wins, they will burn down the cities and riot and loot.. But, it will stay in the cities.  Law and order will eventually happen. If Biden wins, all bets are off. They will burn the the cities and then think since they won with Biden, they will come out to suburban and rural areas. Because just like now, they will feel that no matter what they will not be prosecuted and will feel free to do it. Liberals will let them do it. Then you WILL be past the point of No return. People, better get their heads out of the sand if they think if they vote Biden it will be nicey nice. They are going to roll him over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cacao said:

This whole thing reminds me of baseball's unwritten rules.  It's stupid.  If they were rules, they'd be written.  In this case, the rules are written and are being followed.  This is the USA, not the UK.  There are no gentleman's agreements.  Why does one side think the other side should cut them a break?  If your were Donald Trump, do you think the other side is worthy of receiving a break?  How terrible have they treated him since day 1?  If I were Donald Trump, during my announcement of who I'm recommending, I'd have both middle fingers high in the air the entire time.  

Both parties are using this as another opportunity to divide us.  Don't buy the hype.  Politicians will do what politicians do.  

If the shoe was on the  other  foot it would be over in 15 days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope some of the Biden fans really truly understand that poor man is NOT competent.  If you vote for Biden you are really voting for Harris--and she is DEFINITELY not worthy of your votes.  Please don't vote for those two just because you don't like Trump.  For all that is Holy vote third party if you must. 


"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pstan

Conman has been uncharacteristically quiet on this subject,,, Maybe he is on vacation or agrees with everything posted so far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment barring a sitting President from naming a Supreme Court Justice during the last 6 months of his/her term.  I was against Obama trying to nominate Garland in 2016 and that was right at the 6th month mark left in his term.  I am against Trump attempting to nominate one with less than 2 months to go in his term. 

NPR provides some food for thought in this article:  https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Obviously we can't trust our elected officials to not play politics.  So let's amend the constitution to stop the politicking with our Supreme Court nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MIM307 said:

Ideally, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment barring a sitting President from naming a Supreme Court Justice during the last 6 months of his/her term.  I was against Obama trying to nominate Garland in 2016 and that was right at the 6th month mark left in his term.  I am against Trump attempting to nominate one with less than 2 months to go in his term. 

NPR provides some food for thought in this article:  https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Obviously we can't trust our elected officials to not play politics.  So let's amend the constitution to stop the politicking with our Supreme Court nominees.

Ok, if you do that...what if a sitting President is within a month of your proposed 6 month no naming a justice timeline?  Would you then like to see an amendment that says 9 months?  After that, within a year, would you want a 3rd amendment for 12 months?  When will it end.  Look, like it or not, politicians are elected to serve a specific amount of time.  The constitution allots them that time and they have certain powers within that time.  One day the tables will be turned and I would expect the other side to do the same.  

Politics is a blood sport.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cacao said:

Ok, if you do that...what if a sitting President is within a month of your proposed 6 month no naming a justice timeline?  Would you then like to see an amendment that says 9 months?  After that, within a year, would you want a 3rd amendment for 12 months?  When will it end.  Look, like it or not, politicians are elected to serve a specific amount of time.  The constitution allots them that time and they have certain powers within that time.  One day the tables will be turned and I would expect the other side to do the same.  

Politics is a blood sport.

 

Actually, I expect worse things to happen when the tables are turned. And then worse when the pendulum swings back again, etc., etc.

The unfortunate reality is that politics are becoming more and more partisan which feeds the extremists on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cacao said:

Ok, if you do that...what if a sitting President is within a month of your proposed 6 month no naming a justice timeline?  Would you then like to see an amendment that says 9 months?  After that, within a year, would you want a 3rd amendment for 12 months?  When will it end.  Look, like it or not, politicians are elected to serve a specific amount of time.  The constitution allots them that time and they have certain powers within that time.  One day the tables will be turned and I would expect the other side to do the same.  

Politics is a blood sport.

 

I went with 6 months as it was the precedent point in 2016 the Republicans used for not moving Garland's nomination through.  I feel at 6 months left, you have used the majority of your time as President and should not be able to bring forth a nomination at that time.  One foot out the door and all that.

I agree with you point regarding elected officials term limits. Unfortunately a Supreme Court Justice has no term limit so the President,  and legislature,  appointing the nominee have the power to leave "their guy" in power far longer than the term limits.  To address this, I propose no nominations be brought forth in the last 6 months of a President's term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MIM307 said:

Ideally, I'd like to see a constitutional amendment barring a sitting President from naming a Supreme Court Justice during the last 6 months of his/her term.  I was against Obama trying to nominate Garland in 2016 and that was right at the 6th month mark left in his term.  I am against Trump attempting to nominate one with less than 2 months to go in his term. 

NPR provides some food for thought in this article:  https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Obviously we can't trust our elected officials to not play politics.  So let's amend the constitution to stop the politicking with our Supreme Court nominees.

I respectfully disagree.  He is president until he isn't any longer.  Justice Ginsberg made a statement to that effect when the Obama administration was looking to name a judge.  You cannot stop the passage of time.  The seat is empty and needs filled.  What if another justice or two passes in the interim.  Then what?  People have the right to speedy trials. 


"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, disgruntled said:

I respectfully disagree.  He is president until he isn't any longer.  Justice Ginsberg made a statement to that effect when the Obama administration was looking to name a judge.  You cannot stop the passage of time.  The seat is empty and needs filled.  What if another justice or two passes in the interim.  Then what?  People have the right to speedy trials. 

I respect your opinion but disagree.  The case in 2016 and now with RGB highlight the need for the issue of a late term President appointing a Supreme Court Justice.  It's time to have the conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MIM307 said:

I went with 6 months as it was the precedent point in 2016 the Republicans used for not moving Garland's nomination through.  I feel at 6 months left, you have used the majority of your time as President and should not be able to bring forth a nomination at that time.  One foot out the door and all that.

I agree with you point regarding elected officials term limits. Unfortunately a Supreme Court Justice has no term limit so the President,  and legislature,  appointing the nominee have the power to leave "their guy" in power far longer than the term limits.  To address this, I propose no nominations be brought forth in the last 6 months of a President's term.

The founders specifically designed the justice position to have no term limits for a reason.

They also designed the Presidential term as 4 years.  

Why do you feel the need to "address" this?

What other limited powers do YOU want to suggest a President no longer retain at the 3.5 year mark?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vader said:

Actually, I expect worse things to happen when the tables are turned. And then worse when the pendulum swings back again, etc., etc.

The unfortunate reality is that politics are becoming more and more partisan which feeds the extremists on both sides.

The implosion of the USA has been happening for many years.  The cause has many variables.  I'm of the opinion that it all began when the family (nuclear family) began to be devalued.  Everything starts at home.  Nowadays, children grow up confused and lost.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MIM307 said:

I respect your opinion but disagree.  The case in 2016 and now with RGB highlight the need for the issue of a late term President appointing a Supreme Court Justice.  It's time to have the conversation. 

Does your suggestion hold true if you make the assumption that the sitting President will be reelected to a second term?

Is there any other decision or action that you feel a sitting President shouldn't be allowed to make in the waning months of their current term?

11 hours ago, sunflake said:

Ruth herself said 8 is NOT a good number..

Maybe when the Supreme Court is faced with an even number of Justices and no replacement is imminent we should allow the President to bench a selection of their choice until such time as an odd number of Justices is restored via a new appointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pwacm said:

FYI Trump's term doesn't end in November. 

I am aware it doesn't end in November, but rather January.  I'm also aware that it is commonly accepted by Americans that a President's term ends on Election Day and the next few months are referred to as a "lame duck" period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MIM307 said:

I went with 6 months as it was the precedent point in 2016 the Republicans used for not moving Garland's nomination through.  I feel at 6 months left, you have used the majority of your time as President and should not be able to bring forth a nomination at that time.  One foot out the door and all that.

That's illogical to me because it goes against the logic of the law.  You are allowing emotion to lead and change law.  Either the President has the right or it doesn't.  No grey area/grace period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hipower said:

Does your suggestion hold true if you make the assumption that the sitting President will be reelected to a second term?

Is there any other decision or action that you feel a sitting President shouldn't be allowed to make in the waning months of their current term?

Maybe when the Supreme Court is faced with an even number of Justices and no replacement is imminent we should allow the President to bench a selection of their choice until such time as an odd number of Justices is restored via a new appointment.

Yes.  The end of the term would be the end of the 1st term or the 2nd.  If the sitting President is confident he/she will be re-elected, then he/she should wait until after election day to make the nomination.

I feel the decision of Supreme Court Justice should not be made in the waning months of a President's term because it can not be overturned as a law, or other decision, can be after the President leaves office. I will argue that the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is the most important decision a President can make and thus should be made while he/she is in the majority of his/her term.

I'd be interested to discuss your proposal to bench a selection of their choice more.  Tell me what that looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cacao said:

That's illogical to me because it goes against the logic of the law.  You are allowing emotion to lead and change law.  Either the President has the right or it doesn't.  No grey area/grace period.

It's not emotional for me.  It's in fact very logical.  As I just responded to Hipower: I feel the decision of Supreme Court Justice should not be made in the waning months of a President's term because it can not be overturned as a law, or other decision, can be after the President leaves office. I will argue that the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is the most important decision a President can make and thus should be made while he/she is in the majority of his/her term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Titan said:

The founders specifically designed the justice position to have no term limits for a reason.

They also designed the Presidential term as 4 years.  

Why do you feel the need to "address" this?

What other limited powers do YOU want to suggest a President no longer retain at the 3.5 year mark?

 

I agree with the Justice position having no term limits.  100%.

I also agree with the term limit of the Presidency as 8 years total.

I feel the need to address this because no other decision made by a President can stay in place, without ability to be overturned, like aan appointment of a Supreme Court Justice can.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...