The Rot In The Supreme Court Goes Beyond Clarence In Ginni Thomas

[Galactic Spin]

actually, I just noticed I said 'nut said - even more appropriate that "nut said". :

'Hahahahaha am terrified of the material hahahahahaha'

 

[JMR]

No. If the SCOTUS membership is reduced by death, incapacitation, resignation, or impeachment, then the sitting President has the power to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, the appointment.

LOL....just like when Scalia died right? Now is the time for you to dive into "But the GOP ran the Senate so all's fair if we stretched the rules"

There is nothing stopping a law to restrict the appointments to one per Presidential term. Let the people speak!!! LOL

 

[Captain Adverse]

LOL....just like when Scalia died right? Now is the time for you to dive into "But the GOP ran the Senate so all's fair if we stretched the rules"

There is nothing stopping a law to restrict the appointments to one per Presidential term. Let the people speak!!! LOL

What part of "the Senate has the power to confirm" did you not read?

They do NOT have to confirm. They can even do what that Senate majority did, simply refuse to consider an appointee.

IMO thank "God" in that otherwise we'd have Merrick Garland in office, and we can see how much of a "tool" he is as Attorney General.

Dodged a bullet on that one!

 

[JMR]

What part of "the Senate has the power to confirm" did you not read?

They do NOT have to confirm. They can even do what that Senate majority did, simply refuse to consider an appointee.

I read the part that suits your argument.
Why do you pretend that Donald having three judges, rather than the one he was entitled to is what the Founders envisioned?

The GOP stacked the court. Just smile and say, "yeah we did".

 

[Bullseye]

It's supposed to be once justice for each circuit. There are thirteen circuits, so we need thirteen justices.

The right hates this idea because it means there will be enough non-GQP justices to reverse the damage the right has done.

It's not stacking. It's equal division of labor.

The left wants more to destroy what's left of our freedoms and establish an Authoritarian Leftwing "paradise"

 

[Captain Adverse]

I read the part that suits your argument.
Why do you pretend that Donald having three judges, rather than the one he was entitled to is what the Founders envisioned?

He is "entitled to" however many he was able to successfully appoint while holding the office of President.

That is exactly as the Constitution states, and thus how the "Founders envisioned."

The GOP stacked the court. Just smile and say, "yeah we did".

No. President Trump successfully appointed three Justices to the SCOTUS.

The prior President unsuccessfully tried to appoint Merrick Garland.

It was done as completely allowed for by the Constitution.

The fact that you don't like or agree with this is completely irrelevant.

Nor is it the same as "stacking the Court."

That is deliberately increasing the size of the membership simply to LITERALLY allow one Party to appoint as many justices as they determine to maintain perpetual control of the SCOTUS.

Problem being, once this is done, two things follow.

1. The moment the next Party achieves power, they will simply do the same.

2. This will make the SCOTUS both completely unwieldy, and completely distrusted and undermined.

IMO only someone seeking total one-party rule and the destruction of our form of government would push this nonsense.

 

[eohrnberger]

The left wants more to destroy what's left of our freedoms and establish an Authoritarian Leftwing "paradise"

That'd be the ColdHardTruth, yes.

 

[JMR]

He is "entitled to" however many he was able to successfully appoint while holding the office of President.

That is exactly as the Constitution states, and thus how the "Founders envisioned."



No. President Trump successfully appointed three Justices to the SCOTUS.

The prior President unsuccessfully tried to appoint Merrick Garland.

It was done as completely allowed for by the Constitution.

The fact that you don't like or agree with this is completely irrelevant.

Nor is it the same as "stacking the Court."

That is deliberately increasing the size of the membership simply to LITERALLY allow one Party to appoint as many justices as they determine to maintain perpetual control of the SCOTUS.

Problem being, once this is done, two things follow.

1. The moment the next Party achieves power, they will simply do the same.

2. This will make the SCOTUS both completely unwieldy, and completely distrusted and undermined.

IMO only someone seeking total one-party rule and the destruction of our form of government would push this nonsense.

I understand you like your version of events.

Even McConnell would admit he stretched the rule of procedure to accommodate the stacking of the court.

I cannot see how you would oppose my suggestion that nominations be limited to one per presidential term and would adversely affect the court.

 

[Fearandloathing]

None of this validates your "argument" to "stack the SCOTUS."

Now if your side thinks this is an "impeachable offense," then the Constitution allows for that. However, tax law also allows for repair of filings and appropriate penalties without resort to "criminal charges." As long as the Thomases pay all penalties (if any) and back taxes, then like both you and I in similar circumstances, that's all she wrote.

All legal of course.

Technically anyway.

There's a moral issue here though. You can't claim to be impartial if you're sharing your life and bed with an activist. One must not only be free of any such incumbrances, but must also be SEEN to befree...

Justice Thomas is only doing what every other Republican does, lining his pockets

 

[Gateman_Wen]

This just yet another concocted and contorted reasoning gymnastics to justify the left's wanting SCOTUS to do their ideological bidding irrespective of the constitution.

Lie, little trumper, lie like the wind!

 

[Noodlegawd]

More than a decade ago, Ginni Thomas’s political activities drew scrutiny to her more public husband. More to the point, the failure of that husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to declare decades of his wife’s income from that political activity drew attention, resulting in him revising 20 years’ worth of financial disclosure forms. That included $686,589 she earned between 2003 and 2007 from the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

The Thomas's are the most enduringly egregious examples of why there needs to be not just an expansion of the Supreme Court, but real reforms that include finally making the court comply with a code of ethics—just like every other branch of the judiciary is compelled to do. But the Thomas's are definitely not the only Supreme culprits in fishy spousal entanglements.

Meet Jesse M. Barrett and Jane Roberts, spouses to Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, and subject to a deep investigative dive by Politico

The rot in the Supreme Court goes beyond Clarence and Ginni Thomas

More than a decade ago, Ginni Thomas’s political activities drew scrutiny to her more public husband. More to the point, the failure of that husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to declare decades of his wife’s income from that political...

www.dailykos.com

Daily Kos. Lol.

 

[eohrnberger]

He is "entitled to" however many he was able to successfully appoint while holding the office of President.

That is exactly as the Constitution states, and thus how the "Founders envisioned."



No. President Trump successfully appointed three Justices to the SCOTUS.

The prior President unsuccessfully tried to appoint Merrick Garland.

It was done as completely allowed for by the Constitution.

The fact that you don't like or agree with this is completely irrelevant.

Nor is it the same as "stacking the Court."

Agreed. It wasn't "stacking the Court." but the left likes inflammatory language, especially when no one calls them on it, and they take great delight in accusing nearly any language from their political opponents as 'inflammatory'. When the left can't have reality on these terms, they get seriously pissed off, as is in evidence of their behavior since the 2016 election results were announced.

That is deliberately increasing the size of the membership simply to LITERALLY allow one Party to appoint as many justices as they determine to maintain perpetual control of the SCOTUS.

Another of the left's goals, a SCOTUS under their ideologically and politically driven thumb, not ruling based on the Constitution (their job), but according to political wants of the left, yet they have the temerity to accuse everyone else of 'putting our Democracy at threat', when they themselves are the greatest threat.

Problem being, once this is done, two things follow.

1. The moment the next Party achieves power, they will simply do the same.

2. This will make the SCOTUS both completely unwieldy, and completely distrusted and undermined.

IMO only someone seeking total one-party rule and the destruction of our form of government would push this nonsense.

And yet another of the left's goals, absolute one-party rule and the destruction of our present form of government.

This thread has turned out to be quite revealing of the left.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I understand you like your version of events.

Even McConnell would admit he stretched the rule of procedure to accommodate the stacking of the court.

I cannot see how you would oppose my suggestion that nominations be limited to one per presidential term and would adversely affect the court.

For the last time, it is not my "version of events." It is fact. It is how the Constitution works, and wholly within the power of the Senate as done.

YOU don't have to like it, there are many things that happen which I don't like. But while I may disagree, if the action is Constitutionally sound, then my personal concerns are nothing more than that.

Now you are boring me.

Tagline time.

 

[soap box]

What part of "the Senate has the power to confirm" did you not read?

They do NOT have to confirm. They can even do what that Senate majority did, simply refuse to consider an appointee.

IMO thank "God" in that otherwise we'd have Merrick Garland in office, and we can see how much of a "tool" he is as Attorney General.

Dodged a bullet on that one!

Would that mean that any future Senate can simply refuse to consider, and only presidents with the same party Senate actually send anyone to the court? Does that make the country better?

 

[HikerGuy83]

More than a decade ago, Ginni Thomas’s political activities drew scrutiny to her more public husband. More to the point, the failure of that husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to declare decades of his wife’s income from that political activity drew attention, resulting in him revising 20 years’ worth of financial disclosure forms. That included $686,589 she earned between 2003 and 2007 from the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

The Thomas's are the most enduringly egregious examples of why there needs to be not just an expansion of the Supreme Court, but real reforms that include finally making the court comply with a code of ethics—just like every other branch of the judiciary is compelled to do. But the Thomas's are definitely not the only Supreme culprits in fishy spousal entanglements.

Meet Jesse M. Barrett and Jane Roberts, spouses to Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, and subject to a deep investigative dive by Politico

The rot in the Supreme Court goes beyond Clarence and Ginni Thomas

More than a decade ago, Ginni Thomas’s political activities drew scrutiny to her more public husband. More to the point, the failure of that husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to declare decades of his wife’s income from that political...

www.dailykos.com

Your stupid author does not even attempt to show why his whinning complaints result in his conclusion.

What a jackass.

You should be a little more discriminating.

 

[JMR]

For the last time, it is not my "version of events." It is fact. It is how the Constitution works, and wholly within the power of the Senate as done.

YOU don't have to like it, there are many things that happen which I don't like. But while I may disagree, if the action is Constitutionally sound, then my personal concerns are nothing more than that.

Now you are boring me.

Tagline time.

ROFL.....
And it is wholly within how the Constitution works for Biden to appoint ten more judges. You don't have to like that either. And it won't happen, because he actually has respect for our traditions, unlike the GOP actions of Gorsuch through Barrett.

I cannot say you bore me however....I find you quite amusing.

 

[trouble13]

The SCOTUS has already been stacked, by Donald appointing three judges when he was actually due just one. Righting this wrong is in no way "stacking the court"

LMAO I can not wait to hearing your circular reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that he was only entitled to fill 1 of 3 vacancies on the bench during his term. This is going to be a doozy.

 

[JMR]

LMAO I can not wait to hearing your circular reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that he was only entitled to fill 1 of 3 vacancies on the bench during his term. This is going to be a doozy.

First of all, Scalia would have been replaced by Obama. Second, Trump would have replaced Kennedy. Third, Biden would have replaced Ginsburg.

Hope that helps.

 

[Captain Adverse]

ROFL.....
And it is wholly within how the Constitution works for Biden to appoint ten more judges. You don't have to like that either. And it won't happen, because he actually has respect for our traditions, unlike the GOP actions of Gorsuch through Barrett.

Not really. The President does not have this plenary power.

However, it can be done if by an Act of Congress, the number of Justices is increased. Thereby allowing the President to appoint such new Justices.

The rest of your response remains droll and not worthy of further comment.

 

[JMR]

Not really. The President does not have this plenary power.

However, it can be done if by an Act of Congress, the number of Justices is increased. Thereby allowing the President to appoint such new Justices.

The rest of your response remains droll and not worthy of further comment.

Way back at the beginning I suggested Congress make a law. My suggestion was to limit the number of nominations. Regardless, a change would need a law passed, not a Constitutional amendment.

I realize that maintaining an aura of superior intelligence must be tiring for you...so do go take a nap.

 

[trouble13]

First of all, Scalia would have been replaced by Obama. Second, Trump would have replaced Kennedy. Third, Biden would have replaced Ginsburg.

Hope that helps.

So according to you Obama was entitled to name 3 judges and Biden was entitled to name at least 2 judges but Trump only should of been allowed to appoint 1

You should make it a rule that judges are not allowed to die or retire unless their is a democrat in the WH and has a majority in the Senate.

 

[Galactic Spin]

So according to you Obama was entitled to name 3 judges and Biden was entitled to name at least 2 judges but Trump only should of been allowed to appoint 1

Exactly right, by McConells' own words. By the entire, monolithic voice of the GOP, depending on which date you check their position.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Of course adding to the number would only extend the problem.....in the court that wants to be seen as nonpolitical....lol

At this point I recommend the approach that the Constitution does not state the required number of justices, so a law limiting a President to one appointment per term of office would be more than reasonable. If we have only 8, or only 7 justices at a given time we would survive better than the current situation, and as Mitch McConnell wanted at one time when it suited him, the nominations would be more aligned to the voters preference.

One appointment per term would be good, but bear in mind that not all appointments will pass the Senate.

With a slightly larger court (11) it would be possible to temporarily stand-down whoever was most recently appointed, so the court would retain an odd number of Justices at all times. This would usually be 9, and only rarely 7.

 

[JMR]

So according to you Obama was entitled to name 3 judges and Biden was entitled to name at least 2 judges but Trump only should of been allowed to appoint 1

You should make it a rule that judges are not allowed to die or retire unless their is a democrat in the WH and has a majority in the Senate.

According to traditional timelines, that's how it would have worked out.

See, wouldn't you like my proposal to limit nominations to one per term?

 

[Ug make hammer]

So according to you Obama was entitled to name 3 judges and Biden was entitled to name at least 2 judges but Trump only should of been allowed to appoint 1

Sounds OK to me. Trump only served one term, remember.

You should make it a rule that judges are not allowed to die or retire unless their is a democrat in the WH and has a majority in the Senate.

Actually, since you mention it, Biden's only appointment so far was due to a retirement. If only RBG had known how long it would be before there would be another Dem in the White House, I'm sure she would have retired during Obama's term.

We can't do anything about retirements, nor their political implications. JMR makes a very sensible suggestion to simply limit the MAXIMUM number of appointments by any one President in one term.