- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,485
- Reaction score
- 27,930
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
100% Disgree...We don't need more elections. We need SCOTUS to be above political races.
100% Disgree...We don't need more elections. We need SCOTUS to be above political races.
The Federalist society didn't have anything to do with the quota choice that Biden recently nominatedThe president should be picking SCOTUS judges, and not the federalist society.
You really should stop letting Tucker use you like a muppet. Think for yourself, don't just parrot him.The Federalist society didn't have anything to do with the quota choice that Biden recently nominated
We kinda elect the President and Congress to do that.This idea is ALSO STUPID.
THE PEOPLE should be voting who is a Judge or not based off of the Decisions they have made that are TRANSPARENT for all to read.
We vote for a myriad of things in a President... taxes, infrastructure, etc. Not if they are going to stack the court to specifically remove our freedoms on one specific issue or not.We kinda elect the President and Congress to do that.
President to propose, congress to confirm.
Or reject.
So, a step or two removed, we DO vote for the judges.
That is quite literally one of the reasons Trump got elected though.We vote for a myriad of things in a President... taxes, infrastructure, etc. Not if they are going to stack the court to specifically remove our freedoms on one specific issue or not.
You read the OP right? That is why I am saying that Presidents should not be appointing SCOTUS.That is quite literally one of the reasons Trump got elected though.
It's why the evangelical voter turnout was so high in 2016
The way I look at it, the issue isn't how they're appointed, but who we elect to appoint them.You read the OP right? That is why I am saying that Presidents should not be appointing SCOTUS.
Nothing. But in that case it would be directly our fault for voting poorly for that Judge... not voting poorly for a President that then does things for any number of reasons other than what we elected them for.The way I look at it, the issue isn't how they're appointed, but who we elect to appoint them.
The current election system can be abused more than I'd like, what would prevent it from being abused in a SCOTUS or other circuit election?
LOL if we went that route then Trump would have been a SCJ a long time ago.This idea is ALSO STUPID.
THE PEOPLE should be voting who is a Judge or not based off of the Decisions they have made that are TRANSPARENT for all to read.
Point of order:This idea is ALSO STUPID.
THE PEOPLE should be voting who is a Judge or not based off of the Decisions they have made that are TRANSPARENT for all to read.
True, and good point, but if all the Senate gets is Conservative after Conservative that wants to overthrow RvW they can only deny so many,Point of order:
Presidents don't appoint judges. They nominate them and the senate appoints them.
Did he study the law?LOL if we went that route then Trump would have been a SCJ a long time ago.
Is there actually a time limit or could they just keep denying?True, and good point, but if all the Senate gets is Conservative after Conservative that wants to overthrow RvW they can only deny so many,
LOL a president can pick any judge he wants, including those endorsed by the federalist societyThe president should be picking SCOTUS judges, and not the federalist society.
doesn't matter.Did he study the law?
Except it does...doesn't matter.
There have to be reasonable grounds... the Senate can't just say, naw, you suck. LOLIs there actually a time limit or could they just keep denying?
Organizations bent on the destruction of our society should be prohibited from advising government.LOL a president can pick any judge he wants, including those endorsed by the federalist society
Well, good for you! The federalists seek to strengthen society, so we're all on the same page!Organizations bent on the destruction of our society should be prohibited from advising government.
I don't think we can ban the Democratic Party.Organizations bent on the destruction of our society should be prohibited from advising government.
You've got that completely bass ackwards.Well, good for you! The federalists seek to strengthen society, so we're all on the same page!
Why would you want to? Without the Democrats we'd all be Putin's subjects right now.I don't think we can ban the Democratic Party.
We kinda elect the President and Congress to do that.
President to propose, congress to confirm.
Or reject.
So, a step or two removed, we DO vote for the judges.
prove it. How is the federalist society not doing a public good?You've got that completely bass ackwards.
Bart O'kavenaugh, Amy Cony/Barret, Neil Goresuch.prove it. How is the federalist society not doing a public good?