Politics-What's on your mind?

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by homoe

Lindsey Graham sides with Trump on filling Supreme Court vacancy: 'I fully understand'


Of course he flip flopped, all of those surprised raise your hand!

I suspect that if he didn't side with Trump he'd be shoved out of the closet before he took his next breath.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

I suspect that if he didn't side with Trump he'd be shoved out of the closet before he took his next breath.

Correct AND of course he'd never be invited to golf with Trump again.....

[homoe]

~~
In my humble opinion what does it matter what they have said in the past! With the exception of a perhaps one or two, few have the backbone to stand up to Trump or live up to the courage of their convictions!



https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senat...212231780.html

[homoe]

PHOENIX (AP) — If Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly wins a seat in the U.S. Senate, he could take office as early as Nov. 30, shrinking the GOP’s Senate majority at a crucial moment and complicating the path to confirmation for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Kelly has maintained a consistent polling lead over Republican Sen. Martha McSally, who was appointed to the seat held by John McCain, who died in 2018.

Because the contest is a special election to finish McCain’s term, the winner could be sworn in as soon as the results are officially certified. Other winners in the November election won’t take office until January.

Trump has pledged to nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who died Friday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed that Trump’s nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

If Kelly wins, the timing when he formally takes office could be crucial in determining who replaces Ginsburg. It could eliminate a Republican vote in favor of Trump’s nominee — the GOP currently has 53 seats in the 100-member chamber — or require McConnell to speed up the nomination process.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-s...050916130.html

[Cin]

This whole idea of stacking the supreme court seems to go against the spirit of what the supreme court supposedly does, which is constitutional review. When the Supreme Court justices' rulings reflect the party that simultaneously controls the presidency and the senate at the time of the justices' appointments, it says that the supreme court will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that was in control at the time of the appointments, not according to the constitution. It reminds me how some religious leaders use the parts of the bible that fit their agenda to interpret God's laws. Supreme court justices use the parts of the constitution and interpret those parts to fit their liberal or conservative agenda. Adding 2 more justices when a democrat gets in the White House, as I've heard proposed as a possible solution to the conservative majority problem, won't do a thing to address the sad state of constitutional review. Just the fact that at one point the Supreme Court decides that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell, 2003), and then at another point that they are disallowed (Citizens United, 2010) shows there is more going on than simply trying to best of one's ability as a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution fairly and accurately. It might make more sense to have Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality be merely advisory and non-binding. I doubt that will ever happen though. We will continue to battle for the right to stack the Supreme Court with like minded individuals, true and honorable constitutional review be damned.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Cin

This whole idea of stacking the supreme court seems to go against the spirit of what the supreme court supposedly does, which is constitutional review. When the Supreme Court justices' rulings reflect the party that simultaneously controls the presidency and the senate at the time of the justices' appointments, it says that the supreme court will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that was in control at the time of the appointments, not according to the constitution. It reminds me how some religious leaders use the parts of the bible that fit their agenda to interpret God's laws. Supreme court justices use the parts of the constitution and interpret those parts to fit their liberal or conservative agenda. Adding 2 more justices when a democrat gets in the White House, as I've heard proposed as a possible solution to the conservative majority problem, won't do a thing to address the sad state of constitutional review. Just the fact that at one point the Supreme Court decides that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell, 2003), and then at another point that they are disallowed (Citizens United, 2010) shows there is more going on than simply trying to best of one's ability as a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution fairly and accurately. It might make more sense to have Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality be merely advisory and non-binding. I doubt that will ever happen though. We will continue to battle for the right to stack the Supreme Court with like minded individuals, true and honorable constitutional review be damned.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is short-sighted in the extreme to even suggest it. If we add justices every time there is a power shift, aren't we going to end up with like 37 justices eventually?

It just sets a terrible precedent. If anyone is going to try to pull something like this, let it be the GOP and we will take the high road against it.

[homoe]

IF ONLY! Too bad he's such a liar....

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I wholeheartedly agree. It is short-sighted in the extreme to even suggest it. If we add justices every time there is a power shift, aren't we going to end up with like 37 justices eventually?

It just sets a terrible precedent. If anyone is going to try to pull something like this, let it be the GOP and we will take the high road against it.

Yes, it is a terrible precedent.

I'm also uncomfortable with packing the court with justices who will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party who appointed them instead of according to the constitution. I get that interpreting the constitution allows for a bit of manipulating/maneuvering just like interpreting the law in general does. But I think a judge needs to start the interpreting from a place of integrity, openness and honesty. There needs to be a willingness to be impartial and uphold the spirit of the constitution even while understanding that it was a different time so things change, meaning becomes obscured or irrelevant, allowing for dispassionate review and interpretation.

Of course justices are human beings and human beings have prejudices and personal belief systems but one is not on the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution according to one's beliefs. Once that becomes the norm we may as well remove constitutional review from the job description. Again I know it happens, it can't be helped. justices can't remove their beliefs from their motivations. But when it is not only accepted as a given, but is the exact reason the particular person is chosen to be a Supreme Court justice then I question the validity of the rulings the Court makes. Even the idea that the American people choose a president and through that choice should expect the Supreme Court justices appointed by that president to allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that controlled the presidency and the senate at that time and not according to constitutional review is to my mind bizarre. A judge at least should give lip service to being impartial. Judges should judge with impartiality. I know democrats are expected to appoint liberal justices and republicans conservative ones. I get that. But lately this seems to be a bit more than that, extra as the kids say. I am probably being naïve here but I don't believe there was always this deep intractable split with Supreme Court justices. I mean I know justices always leaned to the right or the left, but this is ridiculous.