Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What's the serious evidence?I have real evidence, you don’t like it, so you downplay it.
It’s worse than simply wanting a rubber stamp. They will actively and viciously attack anyone who objects to their agenda as a racist or white supremacist. Ironic.Democrats want a rubber stamp on their agenda. They couldn’t care less about a justice actually interpretting the law as written or upholding the Constitution. In short, they need a dedicated lemming. Democrat SCJ always vote in blocks on high profile cases.
They want Breyer out so because they can see the writing on the wall in the mid-terms. The only thing that can save them at this point is changing the voting rules.
Whatever you say, I am to jaded by Prog politics to not believe Breyer was pushed. This was talked about a couple of years before the 2020 election.What's the serious evidence?
That lefties were talking about Breyer needing to retire to ensure they can get another liberal judge on?
That's your serious evidence that Breyer was forced against his will? It's not, so what else you've got?
Whatever you say, I am to jaded by Prog politics to not believe Breyer was pushed. This was talked about a couple of years before the 2020 election.
Says who?I heard that Breyer intended to "stick around" on the bench until a new replacement was appointed, but they can't even legislatively consider a replacement if he is still serving on the court!
So it sounds like they told him to buzz off!
And since the committee is split and Kammy cannot weigh in on such matters, the GOP has the power to drag out his replacement if they so choose until after the midterms!
DO IT!
I am pretty sure they have been increasing that pressure to as I think they are worried that if he waits until it gets closer to the midterms the right will find a new trick to slow the senate down just enough to push it past the midterms.Already presented, Dems were pushing for him to resign April of last year .
Not sure why you are objecting to the Dems wanting him to retire, you don’t really want another Ginsberg situation. I think it is a good move.
The timing is perfect, and that is why he will let the Democrats pick his successor because after midterms all bets will be off.I am pretty sure they have been increasing that pressure to as I think they are worried that if he waits until it gets closer to the midterms the right will find a new trick to slow the senate down just enough to push it past the midterms.
He should have resigned already tbh, Ginsburg proved to be incredibly dumb to hold on so long.
No, there is nothing 'good' about it, they are attempting to install a radical progressive with no regard for that person's allegiance to America or the Constitution. George Soros funds the progressive group "Demand Justice" that has been displaying 'retire Breyer' billboards for months and pressuring him to retire. Demand Justice was also behind the move to 'pack' the court with progressives.
The most important thing is that we still will have only three liberals on the Court - the Jewish woman, the Latina woman, and the black woman - all picked for purposes of ”diversity.” We still have a majority of justices who believe, correctly, that their purpose is to make sure the Constitution is followed, not enact some progressive activist agenda.The timing is perfect, and that is why he will let the Democrats pick his successor because after midterms all bets will be off.
I don’t fault the Democrats for the pressure, it was a good move for them. Not sure why the members here are all worried that he was forced out. After Ginsberg and her screw up, the Dems need a liberal and don’t want to leave anything to chance. Smart move by Democrats.
They probably reminded him about Vince Foster, and then gave him the “option” to resign.Did you see Biden and Breyer on stage together...Joe put his hand out to shake Breyer's hand and Breyer wanted no part of it almost pushing Joe's hand away....something happened and the Judge is not happy with Joe at all....I think they threatened him or someone close to him....the court is very important to dems...I still believe Obama had Justice Scalia murdered....
Because it does not fit into the partisan narrative of 'everything we do is righteous and holy' and 'everything they do is dishonest and evil.'The timing is perfect, and that is why he will let the Democrats pick his successor because after midterms all bets will be off.
I don’t fault the Democrats for the pressure, it was a good move for them. Not sure why the members here are all worried that he was forced out. After Ginsberg and her screw up, the Dems need a liberal and don’t want to leave anything to chance. Smart move by Democrats.
I am not going to speculate, she isThe most important thing is that we still will have only three liberals on the Court - the Jewish woman, the Latina woman, and the black woman - all picked for purposes of ”diversity.” We still have a majority of justices who believe, correctly, that their purpose is to make sure the Constitution is followed, not enact some progressive activist agenda.
I do think the black woman will be the worst of the bunch, given the extreme of the Democrat Socialist Equity Party this days. Still, she’ll lose.
He doesn’t seem to like Biden however most high ranking Democrats I believe just tolerate Biden.Did you see Biden and Breyer on stage together...Joe put his hand out to shake Breyer's hand and Breyer wanted no part of it almost pushing Joe's hand away....something happened and the Judge is not happy with Joe at all....I think they threatened him or someone close to him....the court is very important to dems...I still believe Obama had Justice Scalia murdered....
If the right holds this up and tries to deny the nominee, which they are unlikely to do just because the optics, then she will cast the tie breaker and it will stand.
I will. Because it is what the constitution states. And you keep believing in your fantasy that she cannot cast the last vote because you want it to be so.You keep right on believing that.
I will. Because it is what the constitution states. And you keep believing in your fantasy that she cannot cast the last vote because you want it to be so.
legalinsurrection.com
abovethelaw.com
Link 1:I don't have too because the VP's ability to cast a tiebreaker DOES NOT extend to matters of selecting justices for the bench because that is not a legislative matter. And unlike you, that is the legal opinion of several top constitutional scholars, as well as the statement of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #69.
Remember When Liberal Law Profs Said VP Can’t Cast Tiebreaker On Supreme Court Nominations? I Bet Mitch Does
Lawrence Tribe 2020 on Barrett nomination: "While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme...
The Vice President Can't Break A 50-50 Tie For The Supreme Court... And No One Cares - Above the Law
This is all true... and none of it matters.
Founders Online: The Federalist No. 69, [14 March 1788]
The Federalist No. 69, [14 March 1788]founders.archives.gov
Link 1:
I’m not going to try to resolve this issue now, I don’t know the answer. But it’s an issue if *someone* wants to make it an issue.
Link 2
So when we say “can’t” break a tie, we really mean “shouldn’t be able to… but totally can.”
And yes, federalist 69 does somewhat support the idea that this may have been the intent and may be used to argue that but is certainly not a matter of law or on solid ground trying to apply it to current senate rules. It is the single statement that a single lawyer has put forth, Tribe. And he is wrong.
Linking a bunch more articles that point to the same scholar is not relevant considering his case is weak to begin with as your own links point out. The first claiming they do not know and the second outright admitting she would legally cast the tie breaker even if they disagree and think that power should not exist.
Your own links, other than the last one, undermine your position and the last one is a basis of an argument but does not an argument make.
No, I will stay consistent.TRANSLATION: The two constitutional scholars giving opinions on the matter were both left leaning and ruled AGAINST the VP having that power at a time when the VP was a REPUBLICAN. So now you and the Left will argue the EXACT OPPOSITE now that a DEMOCRAT is in office?!
YOUR opinion supported by nothing else.The VP has the tie breaking vote.
Fully relevant. They are legal experts, you are not.That YOU point to a partisan blowhard to make your point is not relevant.
