The Supreme Court

[P@triot]

There is tremendous hope and potential for the future of this country based on how many Supreme Court Justices Donald Trump gets to appoint and who he chooses. His list appears very encouraging and getting them approved shouldn't be much of an issue with a Republican-controlled Senate.

Who on This List Will Trump Name First to the Supreme Court?

 

[P@triot]

What a sad indictment about how progressives have handled Supreme Court appointments when they hold office.

"While that still would leave the Supreme Court in a 4-4-1 balance, with Justice [Anthony] Kennedy as a swing vote, Trump is likely to have the opportunity to appoint additional justices, who can ensure that the Constitution is interpreted according to its text and original meaning and isn’t used as a vehicle for political policy goals."

There is no excuse for intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution. I personally believe that the Justices should be held accountable. They take an oath and the progressive appointees knowingly violate that oath for their own political views. I'd love to see a Constitutional amendment that requires an annual polygraph in which the Justice is asked if they upheld the U.S. Constitution to the best of their understanding and if they fail, they are removed.

Who on This List Will Trump Name First to the Supreme Court?

 

[12icer]

GO TRUMP, Hopefully every liberal in the group will suddenly drop off a cliff into hell where they belong. Then Trump can completely do away with law writing justices for at least 50 years by putting on young ultra conservative justices who will protect the constitutional rights of all including Christians, and Conservatives and reign in implied rights given to sub groups that intimidate, and extort the citizens of this country with their inferred right to walk all over others rights. It is time to remove the extra social justice based given to them by liberal law writing justices.

 

[P@triot]

This goes to my previous point in my previous post - why are there "different types" of Justices?!? That is outrageous. There should be one "type" and only one "type" - an individual who understands the U.S. Constitution and is committed to upholding it.

“President Trump will fill vacancies on the Supreme Court by appointing people who are quite different than the kind of people that President Obama appointed,”

The Supreme Court was not intended to be a Patent Office which approves and rubber stamps the agenda of the party which appointed them. It was intended to serve as another check and balance of power - ensuring that the U.S. Constitution was upheld.

Who on This List Will Trump Name First to the Supreme Court?

 

[BluesLegend]

This was a must win election for the libs, the SCOTUS nominations being lifetime appointments are huge. I can't wait to hear the Dem's in congress wailing in agony as we turn the court conservative for 30 years.

 

[P@triot]

This was a must win election for the libs, the SCOTUS nominations being lifetime appointments are huge. I can't wait to hear the Dem's in congress wailing in agony as we turn the court conservative for 30 years.

Barack Obama turned out to be a blessing in disguise. He was so radical that he turned the American people against progressivism. And what's more is that he never learned. He was too arrogant. After the 2010 mid-term ass kicking, he didn't change course.

 

[BluesLegend]

This was a must win election for the libs, the SCOTUS nominations being lifetime appointments are huge. I can't wait to hear the Dem's in congress wailing in agony as we turn the court conservative for 30 years.

Barack Obama turned out to be a blessing in disguise. He was so radical that he turned the American people against progressivism. And what's more is that he never learned. He was too arrogant. After the 2010 mid-term ass kicking, he didn't change course.

He pouted and ignored the will of the people and look where it landed the Dem's, he destroyed their party. Plus Obama sold more guns and ammo than all previous presidents combined.

 

[Ame®icano]

Check this out...

At noon on January 3, 2017, the terms of the current members of the Senate’s Class III will come to an end. At that point, the Senate consists of 66 sitting senators, and we would ordinarily expect Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president (in which role he continues to serve until noon on January 20th), to begin swearing in the senators-elect of the new Class III.

But when Biden looks out over the Senate floor—in what will likely be one of his last official acts—he’ll see 66 currently sworn and serving senators, 34 of whom will be Democrats, two who are independents, and 30 who are Republicans. At that moment you might wonder, then, just who constitutes the “majority,” and therefore who the Majority Leader actually is. In fact, as the numbers tell us, Democrats will make up the majority of the Senate, and their leader might arguably be entitled to preferential recognition.

Suppose Biden instead chooses to recognize the sitting Democrats as the majority, that being the then-current truth of the matter? And suppose, therefore, he chose to recognize the Democratic floor leader first?

With Biden in the chair on Jan. 3, the Senate can confirm a renominated Merrick Garland

 

[P@triot]

Check this out...

At noon on January 3, 2017, the terms of the current members of the Senate’s Class III will come to an end. At that point, the Senate consists of 66 sitting senators, and we would ordinarily expect Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president (in which role he continues to serve until noon on January 20th), to begin swearing in the senators-elect of the new Class III.

But when Biden looks out over the Senate floor—in what will likely be one of his last official acts—he’ll see 66 currently sworn and serving senators, 34 of whom will be Democrats, two who are independents, and 30 who are Republicans. At that moment you might wonder, then, just who constitutes the “majority,” and therefore who the Majority Leader actually is. In fact, as the numbers tell us, Democrats will make up the majority of the Senate, and their leader might arguably be entitled to preferential recognition.

Suppose Biden instead chooses to recognize the sitting Democrats as the majority, that being the then-current truth of the matter? And suppose, therefore, he chose to recognize the Democratic floor leader first?

With Biden in the chair on Jan. 3, the Senate can confirm a renominated Merrick Garland

The article doesn't even make sense. It discuss 66 Senators and cites the Dumbocrats as the "majority". But there are 100 Senators (2 from each state) and the Dumbocrats are the minority. I have no idea what this author is talking about but it is 100% fantasy.

 

[P@triot]

Ok - I just read it more carefully and it works off the idea that the incoming Senators haven't been sworn in yet. But if that's the case, then the previous Senators are still holding office. So either way, that article is the ultimate fantasy. Not a chance in hell that happens or is permitted to happen.

 

[Ame®icano]

Check this out...

At noon on January 3, 2017, the terms of the current members of the Senate’s Class III will come to an end. At that point, the Senate consists of 66 sitting senators, and we would ordinarily expect Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president (in which role he continues to serve until noon on January 20th), to begin swearing in the senators-elect of the new Class III.

But when Biden looks out over the Senate floor—in what will likely be one of his last official acts—he’ll see 66 currently sworn and serving senators, 34 of whom will be Democrats, two who are independents, and 30 who are Republicans. At that moment you might wonder, then, just who constitutes the “majority,” and therefore who the Majority Leader actually is. In fact, as the numbers tell us, Democrats will make up the majority of the Senate, and their leader might arguably be entitled to preferential recognition.

Suppose Biden instead chooses to recognize the sitting Democrats as the majority, that being the then-current truth of the matter? And suppose, therefore, he chose to recognize the Democratic floor leader first?

With Biden in the chair on Jan. 3, the Senate can confirm a renominated Merrick Garland

The article doesn't even make sense. It discuss 66 Senators and cites the Dumbocrats as the "majority". But there are 100 Senators (2 from each state) and the Dumbocrats are the minority. I have no idea what this author is talking about but it is 100% fantasy.

What article is proposing is: from January 3rd to January 20th (when new Senators are sworn in) Senate has only 66 sworn Senators (34(D), 2(I), 30(R)) plus Biden vote if necessary, that could technically vote for Garland's SCOTUS appointment.

 

[P@triot]

What article is proposing is: from January 3rd to January 20th (when new Senators are sworn in) Senate has only 66 sworn Senators (34(D), 2(I), 30(R)) plus Biden vote if necessary, that could technically vote for Garland's SCOTUS appointment.

The incoming Senators are not sworn in January 20th (that is when the U.S. President will be sworn in). They are sworn in January 3rd. So what the article is proposing is that right before they are sworn in, Joe Biden take the opportunity screw the U.S. Constitution and declare that Dumbocrats have the majority of the current 66 Senators.

It's astoundingly absurd. It will never happen nor would anyone in the federal government allow it.

 

[candycorn]

The cool thing about the supreme court nominees is that they are always smarter than their Republican appointers. I suspect Trump's list has some folks on it who giggle and shake their head derisively when they think of this small fraction of a man being President.

 

[P@triot]

The cool thing about the supreme court nominees is that they are always smarter than their Republican appointers. I suspect Trump's list has some folks on it who giggle and shake their head derisively when they think of this small fraction of a man being President.

Justice Scalia was incredibly smart. So is Ted Cruz. It's just such a shame that the left appoints political activists rather than Supreme Court Justices. Not surprising though given the left's deep desire for power and control. You'll never see them concerned with checks & balances while they are in office.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Ok - I just read it more carefully and it works off the idea that the incoming Senators haven't been sworn in yet. But if that's the case, then the previous Senators are still holding office. So either way, that article is the ultimate fantasy. Not a chance in hell that happens or is permitted to happen.

DAMN! You're still dumber than a ******* stump Rottweiler! The newly elected Senators would not have been sworn in yet at the BEGINNING OF A NEW SESSION OF CONGRESS and therefore are not office holders. You still have less Constitutional knowledge than a 5th grader! You might want to consider guided reading comprehension in your next elementary class!

Have a nice day Rot!

 

[Pete7469]

I've been having a private candlelight vigil waiting for Ruth Badger Ginsburg's soul to finally return to hell since Nov 9th.

 

[P@triot]

I've been having a private candlelight vigil waiting for Ruth Badger Ginsburg's soul to finally return to hell since Nov 9th.

It will be a glorious day. Can't come soon enough. We really need Trump to appoint at least three of the next Antonin Scalia's. This insanity has to end. The Constitution must be restored and upheld.

 

[sealybobo]

There is tremendous hope and potential for the future of this country based on how many Supreme Court Justices Donald Trump gets to appoint and who he chooses. His list appears very encouraging and getting them approved shouldn't be much of an issue with a Republican-controlled Senate.

Who on This List Will Trump Name First to the Supreme Court?

In 1937, with the Supreme Court habitually striking down President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to save the country from the Great Depression, FDR floated the idea of expanding the court to as many as 15 justices. The history of “court-packing,” as it became known, is unbecoming. But lawmakers keep coming back to variants of the idea because it works. Even after FDR retreated from his proposal amid a profound outcry from Southern Democrats, the justices sitting on the court got his message and began issuing more sympathetic rulings on the New Deal. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts will not be so malleable. Democrats will have to follow through. But members of Congress are not elected to be polite. They are elected to exercise power, a fact well understood by McConnell ― who blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland. The Senate majority leader didn’t hesitate to demand the speedy confirmation of whomever Trump picks to succeed Kennedy. The choice between court-packing (in 2021) and international fascism should not be difficult. Democrats can’t get their ends ― a decent society of mutual respect and shared prosperity ― by ignoring the means of power. Playing nice with fascist enablers in Washington will not stop fascism.
In 1937, with the Supreme Court habitually striking down President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to save the country from the Great Depression, FDR floated the idea of expanding the court to as many as 15 justices. The history of “court-packing,” as it became known, is unbecoming. But lawmakers keep coming back to variants of the idea because it works. Even after FDR retreated from his proposal amid a profound outcry from Southern Democrats, the justices sitting on the court got his message and began issuing more sympathetic rulings on the New Deal.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts will not be so malleable. Democrats will have to follow through. But members of Congress are not elected to be polite. They are elected to exercise power, a fact well understood by McConnell ― who blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland. The Senate majority leader didn’t hesitate to demand the speedy confirmation of whomever Trump picks to succeed Kennedy.

The choice between court-packing (in 2021) and international fascism should not be difficult. Democrats can’t get their ends ― a decent society of mutual respect and shared prosperity ― by ignoring the means of power. Playing nice with fascist enablers in Washington will not stop fascism.

 

[P@triot]

In 1937, with the Supreme Court habitually striking down President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to save the country from the Great Depression, FDR floated the idea of expanding the court to as many as 15 justices.

Of course he did. That’s what fascists like FDR do. They simply cannot accept their limitations of power or the separations of power. The Dumbocrats have been doing that shit since their party was founded.

 

[P@triot]

But members of Congress are not elected to be polite. They are elected to exercise power...

Vintage left-wing view. Disgusting. Members of Congress are not elected to “exercise power”, you ignorant fascist. They are elected to represent their constituents.

The left is so ******* disturbing. They don’t understand American history, the U.S. Constitution, or a republic. All they know is fascism.