No, not when they've been legislating from the bench for a while now.I thought that SCOTUS was the one part of government that was still... you know... functional?
No, not when they've been legislating from the bench for a while now.I thought that SCOTUS was the one part of government that was still... you know... functional?
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring
Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.www.foxnews.com
Oh, this isn't just a little bit ominous.
My guess is a couple fringe idiots
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
opened thier mouths
The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday
Oh, lets take a look at...
Sees Fox News
*starts laughing*
My guess is a couple fringe idiots opened thier mouths and thus sensationalist bullshit happened.
This is almost on the level of those "A republican looked at a woman's ass 20 years ago" articles on The Mary Sue.
Then there will be war, after which there will be no more Democrat Fascists.
Then there will be war, after which there will be no more Democrat Fascists.
From the PoV of the Left, the legal order is breaking down due to the continued support of Trump, especially McConnell's statements that impeachment would go nowhere, regardless of evidence. And McConnell's (perceived) unconstitutional blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination already involved the Court, so I would say that incendiaries are being tossed around around by both parties.This is just an extension of the War of Laws which is the one thing I fear in the United States right now, because if we break down the legal order, then all bets are off, and the leftists are playing with fire on this -- they are literally engaging in the same kind of structural destructive processes which brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Which is largely a joke.From the PoV of the Left, the legal order is breaking down due to the continued support of Trump, especially McConnell's statements that impeachment would go nowhere, regardless of evidence. And McConnell's (perceived) unconstitutional blocking of Merrick Garland's nomination already involved the Court, so I would say that incendiaries are being tossed around around by both parties.
Devil's advocate here, but shooting down a nomination without so much as holding a hearing is hardly advising and consenting. The blocking of the vote was perfectly within the rules, but just as nakedly partisan as revealing last-minute accusations of sexual assault.Which is largely a joke.
The Senate had zero obligation to vote on Garland. The Senate must consent, and the Senate can spend as long deciding whether or not to Consent as they want.
Devil's advocate here, but shooting down a nomination without so much as holding a hearing is hardly advising and consenting. The blocking of the vote was perfectly within the rules, but just as nakedly partisan as revealing last-minute accusations of sexual assault.
I mean, by that same argument, it's perfectly legal for Gillibrand and Durbin to file an amicus brief or whatever they did to threaten the supreme court. It's still nakedly partisan and unhealthy for our democracy.
The amusing thing, is that the Democrats have done the exact same thing before. The process of refusing to vote on a nomination to the Supreme Court in the last year of the president’s administration is called the Biden Rule.Devil's advocate here, but shooting down a nomination without so much as holding a hearing is hardly advising and consenting. The blocking of the vote was perfectly within the rules, but just as nakedly partisan as revealing last-minute accusations of sexual assault.
I mean, by that same argument, it's perfectly legal for Gillibrand and Durbin to file an amicus brief or whatever they did to threaten the supreme court. It's still nakedly partisan and unhealthy for our democracy.
Could you please clarify statements like this in the future (if not done in good jest). Labeling entire groups of people as members of an extreme political ideology without substantiation is contrary to our forums concept of civil discourse. Thank you.
How a large portion of the country perceives the actions of its government is not something I would classify as a joke.Which is largely a joke.
The Senate had zero obligation to vote on Garland. The Senate must consent, and the Senate can spend as long deciding whether or not to Consent as they want.
As for Impeachment, again the Senate has zero obligation to remove the President from office. Especially not when the House hasn't even passed Articles of Impeachment.
Joe Biden is a putz. Just saying. That said, aside from the one speech where he proposed it, did that "Biden Rule" ever actually get put into the Senate Rules, or used against a nominee?The amusing thing, is that the Democrats have done the exact same thing before. The process of refusing to vote on a nomination to the Supreme Court in the last year of the president’s administration is called the Biden Rule.
After Crazy Uncle Joe, who was 100% behind it when it was used against a Republican nominee. Turnabout is fair play.
A question here - can the Senate consider a candidate, and officially turn him or her down?
So why didn't they just do that?They can refuse to confirm the President's appointment.
So why didn't they just do that?