BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Another whining flailing whining wail from Leftwhiner.Still shooting blanks Skippy
I knew you couldn’t back up your statement
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another whining flailing whining wail from Leftwhiner.Still shooting blanks Skippy
I knew you couldn’t back up your statement
The Constitution disagrees. For well thought out reasons. Do they elude you, Leftwhiner? I’ll give you a hint: to eliminate some of the pressures of politics.I’ve already posted what is missing in Ted Cruz’s amendment
Term Limits for Judges
Oh. Cool. A “requirement.” To do something in a way that defies meaningful definition.A requirement for Congress to act judiciously on appointments
How stupid.An end to partisan advice and consent
So what? Those who wrote and signed the Constitution did not claim Divine Inspiration. I will not make that claim on their behalf. I do not know of any other democracy in the world where courts have the power they have in the United States.
We are a representative democracy, and I would like our government to become more democratic. I trust the majority of the voters more than I trust the majority of nine un elected Supreme Court justices chosen for life, who may change their politics after they join the Court.Good thing we aren’t a “democracy.”
What did I say that is not true?Again, you are wrong. Congratulations!.
The Constitution disagrees. For well thought out reasons. Do they elude you, Leftwhiner? I’ll give you a hint: to eliminate some of the pressures of politics.
I'm all for it.
However, in the same breath, Cruz will support keeping the number of justices at 8 or 7 or some integer of less value if a Democrat is in the White House. So therefore I propose the amendment should pass as long as the President gets to appoint a temporary justice until the Senate can convene hearings to have a permanent replacement seated.
Deal?
I'm guessing no.
I think 9 is enough. Codify it...but also codify that there has to be 9. Makes sense. And when there is a question of a President coming up on the end of their term...have a seat filler.That is the biggest threat to the Court.
Senate seizing control of the process and blocking appointments from a President of the other party
Cruz had no problem with 8 justices for a year but is outraged Congress could appoint more than 9
Oh. Cool. A “requirement.” To do something in a way that defies meaningful definition.
The ones that get confirmed by-pass the problem. Maybe the ones who don’t get past it don’t deserve the confirmation.
But leave it to a brain-dead lib to recommend the elimination of the advise and consent requirement.
Those who wrote and signed the Constitution did not claim Divine Inspiration. I will not make that claim on their behalf. I do not know of any other democracy in the world where courts have the power they have in" the United States."What did I say that is not true?
We are a representative democracy,
You wouldn't be asking for 12 if a Republican President was choosing them.It should be 11, with 9 random active chosen for each particular case.
Meaning the 9 active can change from case to case, with 2 sitting out.
There are too many old people, and they get sick and then the court only has 8 active.
I really like to hear the objections to having 11,
9 with 2 alternates.
That’s not an imposition or anything along the lines of what you had suggested. It’s just a time limit. Quite shallow thinking of you.Not difficult, give the Senate 90 days to act or it becomes permanent
Still does. Garland didn’t get the nod.Advise and Consent worked for over 200 years.
That’s something very different than giving advice or consent. That’s just a rubber stamp.A President was given the courtesy of making court appointments without Senate interference. Most confirmations were near unanimous.
So?Only in rare instances were a court appointment blocked. And for a stated reason
Nonsense. It changed in reaction to the selection of judges by Dumbocraps on purely partisan political bases.That changed with Mitch McConnell where court appointments became purely partisan and the Senate assumed the authority to block a sitting President from making Court appointments.
No. It’s not.The right of Advise and Consent is being abused.
Time to stop meddling efforts by silly dilettantes, like you.Time to end the practice
No, it doesn’tThat’s not an imposition or anything along the lines of what you had suggested. It’s just a time limit. Quite shallow thinking of you.
Still does. Garland didn’t get the nod.
That’s something very different than giving advice or consent. That’s just a rubber stamp.
So?
Nonsense. It changed in reaction to the selection of judges by Dumbocraps on purely partisan political bases.
No. It’s not.
Time to stop meddling efforts by silly dilettantes, like you.
ZzzzzNo, it doesn’t
How?The right of Advise and Consent is being abused.
Time to end the practice
How?
Simply passing it over to the executive? That would make it more partisan, not less and also be an authoritarians wet dream. What are you going to replace it with?
You answered the wrong question. The 'how' was not in response to you calling it abuse, it was in responce to you wanting it to end.Advise and Consent used to be invoked in rare cases with specific objections being raised. The President was generally given the courtesy to make court appointments.
McConnell used it as a means for the party of the opposite party to the President to block appointments
That is abuse