Jump to content
GoDuBois.com

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MIM307 said:

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.

Thankfully, the constitution has this all laid out and the President has full right to make a nomination from the second they take the oath to the second the next one takes their oath.  The stop gate is that the Senate can say "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been saying for a very long time that these justices appointed to the SCOTUS should rule based on the the LAWS and CONSTITUTION of our country, that goes for ALL judges from our local magistrate up to the SCOTUS. We can not have our justice system being controlled by any party in our country. The Democrats did it through the 8 years of Obama and stacked the Federal level circuit judges with Democrat leaning people. All judges should rule by law, not party beliefs!

Share this post


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

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.

Mim307, that was a rather off the wall comment, but it would provide for the court to maintain an odd number of Justices so that any rulings made while awaiting a new appointee could not result in tie votes.  Is, or was that a realistic thought?  Not really, but it would address the numbers issue if that were a problem, which it really hasn't been historically, to my knowledge.  I believe the process re: tie votes is that no ruling reverts back to the court that had previously ruled on the case in question.  Effectively upholding that courts ruling.

Where this whole issue gets ridiculous seems to stem from the belief that the SC rules more on politics than the law.  Often influenced from decisions we see as contrary to our own political leanings.  I certainly can't say that every decision of the court is what I would personally like to see, but if they follow the law, I can't fault the court while I can disagree with the law.  At that point we can only work to get the law changed.  A tall task frequently, but not impossible. 

Share this post


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

  I'm also aware that it is commonly accepted by Americans that a President's term ends on Election Day

Again so called unwritten rules. You said term. His term would end in January if for some strange reason he is not re elected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...no other decision made by a President can stay in place, without ability to be overturned, like an appointment of a Supreme Court Justice can."

But that is as true on the first day of a president's term as in the last week. That's why the advice and consent of the Senate is required to make the appointment final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this would be mute if we appointed people based on their knowledge of the laws and constitution of our country. All you got to do is listen to both sides and their arguments to see my very point, THEY are afraid one side or the other is going to get a judge that favors that party. This is wrong in many ways and you just need to look back at the FISA crap and how a PARTY controlling anything is not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President is not a King that appoints a Justice.   

The Senate needs to confirm or another nomination needs to be considered.

That's the check and balance in place.

If it can sail because the Senate is mostly one party and votes to confirm, then the system worked as designed.

If the Senate is composed of an opposing party and they vote not to confirm, then the system worked as designed.

There's really no reason to discuss what the founders already carefully considered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Guest pstan said:

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

Thank you for remembering me. 

The president has the right/duty to fill the vacancy, as does the senate.  Ginsburg was a great lady.   Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Titan said:

The President is not a King that appoints a Justice.   

The Senate needs to confirm or another nomination needs to be considered.

That's the check and balance in place.

If it can sail because the Senate is mostly one party and votes to confirm, then the system worked as designed.

If the Senate is composed of an opposing party and they vote not to confirm, then the system worked as designed.

There's really no reason to discuss what the founders already carefully considered.

 

With all due respect to our Founding Fathers, their work has been amended 27 times.  The Constitution is a living document that must be continually looked at in order to have a strong and effective government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, NikonSniper said:

Fact is if this was anyone other than Trump you would have never heard a word on this....

Normally, I'd say you're correct but, we heard about it four years ago, too. 

This actually isn't even a Trump thing. This is the spawn of Mitch McConnell.


"Be still, my fingers, be still" - fedup

Share this post


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

With all due respect to our Founding Fathers, their work has been amended 27 times.  The Constitution is a living document that must be continually looked at in order to have a strong and effective government. 

That is true .... but you're looking to limit the powers of a particular branch because of convenience and present circumstances.   

Again, if you get your way .... which other powers do you think should end at the 6 month mark before the end of a term?

 

 

Share this post


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

With all due respect to our Founding Fathers, their work has been amended 27 times.  The Constitution is a living document that must be continually looked at in order to have a strong and effective government. 

The Constitution is not a "living document".  Interpretation doesn't change with time, only with amendments.   The words written mean what they meant when they were written, same with amendments at the time they were added.

If a change is needed, then there are (3) avenues of amendment. 

1.  Starting in Congress.

2.  A convention of states.

3.  Revolution


The word "orange" the for color does not evolve into the color blue, that would be an example of a living word.  Same with any of the words of the Constitution, thus it isn't a living document. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dubois_15801 said:

The Constitution is not a "living document".  Interpretation doesn't change with time, only with amendments.   The words written mean what they meant when they were written, same with amendments at the time they were added.

If a change is needed, then there are (3) avenues of amendment. 

1.  Starting in Congress.

2.  A convention of states.

3.  Revolution


The word "orange" the for color does not evolve into the color blue, that would be an example of a living word.  Same with any of the words of the Constitution, thus it isn't a living document. 
 

I completely disagree.  The reason the constitution is amended is because it's a living document.  It lives and breathes every day as we exercise the freedoms it provides us.   We continually examine the words written over 200 years ago and apply them to our daily lives.  The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned where their work would be taken today.  It is the most sacred responsibility of the American citizens to assure that the constitution continues to represent the needs of the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Titan said:

That is true .... but you're looking to limit the powers of a particular branch because of convenience and present circumstances.   

Again, if you get your way .... which other powers do you think should end at the 6 month mark before the end of a term?

 

 

I have stated several times in this thread that I see the need to the to limit when a sitting President can bring forth a Supreme Court nomination because there are no checks and balances for that nomination, once approved.  Therefore I would support the discussion of an amendment to limit when in his/her term a President could make a Supreme Court nomination.   I can think of no other Presidential powers that are as permanent and as long lasting as Supreme Court nomination, therefore I do not propose any other amendments limiting Presidential powers during the last 6 months of his/her time in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 8:07 AM, MIM307 said:

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.  

Maybe not a term limit for SCOTUS per se, but rather a mandatory retirement age would be beneficial.  Let's face it--the older we get, the less time there is on our clock and it would provide for far less drama when this happens the next time.  There is no way an 87 year old should still be "working." 


"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
20 minutes ago, disgruntled said:

Maybe not a term limit for SCOTUS per se, but rather a mandatory retirement age would be beneficial.  Let's face it--the older we get, the less time there is on our clock and it would provide for far less drama when this happens the next time.  There is no way an 87 year old should still be "working." 

I agree 100% with a proposed retirement age.  This would also need a constitutional amendment to change.

Share this post


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

I have stated several times in this thread that I see the need to the to limit when a sitting President can bring forth a Supreme Court nomination because there are no checks and balances for that nomination, once approved.  Therefore I would support the discussion of an amendment to limit when in his/her term a President could make a Supreme Court nomination.   I can think of no other Presidential powers that are as permanent and as long lasting as Supreme Court nomination, therefore I do not propose any other amendments limiting Presidential powers during the last 6 months of his/her time in office.

It will never happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Keyser Soze said:

Never will happen. There would be a better chance of the 18th Amendment coming back than some stupid idea of limiting the President's power during the final months of his term.

I'd bet nearly every amendment started as someone's "stupid idea."  ;)

Have good one, Keys.

Share this post


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

I completely disagree.  The reason the constitution is amended is because it's a living document.  It lives and breathes every day as we exercise the freedoms it provides us.   We continually examine the words written over 200 years ago and apply them to our daily lives.  The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned where their work would be taken today.  It is the most sacred responsibility of the American citizens to assure that the constitution continues to represent the needs of the country. 

A living document changes as interpretation of given words changes.     Apple = an apple in 1787, but now is the name for what was a grapefruit back then.   (just using an extreme example of work/meaning change, not actual).

Example: the word "militia".   Back in the day the entirety of the People were the militia, first line being males ages 17-to 45 years old, second line extending to older males.   Today, the militia(which is different from "a militia") is primarily considered the National Guard and whatever State Guard forces any respective state has as the "organized militia".   The People now being the "unorganized militia."    Mind you, the National Guard was created in 1903 - so who are the militia that the Founding Fathers had in mind?  .....the People.

The Constitution doesn't change that way, it changes by amendments - making it more of an "evolving document".  If there is a conflict in meaning between original text and an amendment, the amendment supersedes original text and is retroactive.  An example of that is how Senators are put into office.   Originally the respective state legislatures elected their federal Senators, then in 1913 it changed under Amendment XVII for them to be elected by popular vote.  That wasn't a "living change", that was an actual textual change with an amendment.

 

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...