More like "he said/THEY say" moment. Eyewitness testimony gains credibility each time it is corroborated
No, but Congress will not remain republican forever
Oh stop it, you know damn well congress was playing games with the seat. Yes, legally congress can do that, but it doesn't make it any less slimy. I'm sure you will support the dems (if in control of both houses) doing that Trump if he gets another chance to pick a SCOTUS member correct?
So you are not going to read the constitution got it.
It depends on the situation.
They can't really do that anymore as well the nuclear option has been used.
In any event if it is the last few months of his presidency then i expect they would default and wait as is custom to do.
However dem's will have little way to block the nomination now.
once the cap is off the cap is off and it is impossible to put it back on.
No, what you meant to say is that Thomas does what you want him to do, not his actual job. At least admit that.
Last few months? Obama was 9 months to leaving when your Republicans played their games. When the dems gain control they can push it back a few months and do it to Trump. Unless you are a hypocrite, you would support it.
Yep i don't see an issue with that either. YOu still fail to understand that the seat did not belong to obama.
The seat belongs to the american people. So again you can't steal something that was not yours.
as for your last statement i have already answered it your failure to read is not my issue. i am not going to repeat myself.
Well, I want him to follow the Constitution, so yes, he does what I want him to do. I think it is ridiculous that that can't be said about even one other member of the court, let alone 3 or 4, depending on which way the wind is blowing. That is their job, very simple task. Anyone that can't do it, especially in the big cases, should be off the court.
Scalia was famous for saying his rulings were not what he wanted, but what the Constitution dictated. Sad that they all don't have that type of courage.
First of all, learn to read instead of just typing first. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it was slimy. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it isn't slimy.
Last few months? Obama was 9 months to leaving when your Republicans played their games. When the dems gain control they can push it back a few months and do it to Trump. Unless you are a hypocrite, you would support it.
Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.
Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.
Particularly since he is innocent
Yeah, and when Bush had 19 months left, Chuckie Schumer said they would refuse to put through any SC nominees from that point on. Remember that? Nope, you didn't.
Health reasons/age would be the best chance to get rid of her. Unfortunately for women, it is the women on the court that need to go. They don't seem to realize that the Constitution is not optional when deciding cases. Maybe one of them will slip on a banana peel.
Well of course, we cant really manage standards anymore....
Pardon me, but maybe you are a Republican after all. I was sure you were not. My bad.
I read and re-read that article. I can't see where it says she accused him at the time. I see she refers to herself as an "uncalled witness". What does that even mean?
Is there a record of her accusing him of these actions at the time he purportedly committed them or not? Did she call the police, tell co-workers, etc.? I can't find that anywhere. If she didn't, she can't come out 30 years later and say this now.
Some people have no interest in hiding, they want to joust with the best of the best, because it is all about being the best of the best.
It depends really. If 100 people really do lie about you, does that make them correct? I'm not saying one way or the other because I haven't studied the situation in this case very much.
True, but I think congress (if they want to protect their seats) are going to need solid compelling evidence to impeach and I don't think a he said/They said will do that alone.
More leftist fairy tales. Justice Thomas stands about as much chance of being impeached as Trump does getting positive coverage by the communist media.
I just hope that that old bird, leftist, anti Constitution, ACLU lawyer Ginsberg will step down soon. We need to get people like her, that don't do their job, off the court. Thomas is one of the few that do a decent job, most of the time.
I'm curious what if a supreme court member becomes severely disabled say a stoke or obviously dementia, do they stay on the court even
in that condition because it's a lifelong appointment or is there a way to replace. As I remember reading somewhere Wilson had a stroke
was disabled & his wife had a lot to do with hiding that from the public & she became as powerful as anyone for a period of time.
This Ginsberg doesn't seem all that fit to me!
She claims isn't what I'm asking. I asked if there was a record of her coming out then with these charges. I admittedly could have missed it. That's why I asked.
While I didn't ultimately believe Anita Hill, her claims were within a few years of it happening (when she said it happened), and when he was a SCOTUS nominee. This claim strikes me as odd with its timing.
probably
Multiple eyewitness testimony is often found to be compelling
Wishing physical harm on SCOTUS judges. Classy. You remind me of the idiots who said they hoped Dick Cheney suffered a heart attack.
Yet they did, so your point is moot.
Ruth Vader Ginsburg shouldn't be allowed to drive a car yet she's capable of deciding important judicial decisions?!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?