“Delicious!” This is going to push “them” right over the edge. Trump will change the face of the Supreme Court over his two terms. Ginsberg next!
[[THANK GOD WE’VE GOT TRUMP AND NOT CLINTON)
Printable View
“Delicious!” This is going to push “them” right over the edge. Trump will change the face of the Supreme Court over his two terms. Ginsberg next!
[[THANK GOD WE’VE GOT TRUMP AND NOT CLINTON)
I suppose it's fitting to thank an invisible entity. I'm sure President Trump is his/her special missionary on Earth. Don't worry...the worms will eat him too.
As being one of 'them', I'm not worried about this at all. There's a long history in the Supreme Court of justices turning away from their past political track records. In fact, Kennedy was one of them. Once you're appointed and approved, there's really nothing to hold you to past political ideologies. Some have even changed their political stripes for the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the Court itself. That's something they all have in common once appointed.
As for abortion, there's just as many States that have already voted to protect the right as there are those already prepared to abolish it if any action is taken. 46 year old rights aren't as easy to legally over-turn as some people think, especially when the case has already been heard.
I'm not going to cower away on this point though. I'd like to ask those females who voted for President Trump what "they" think the proper punishment would be for a woman who has an abortion, which he has publicly called for...a fine ? A tax penalty ? Public scorning ? Maybe take away your other children because you're deemed an unfit parent ? Deny health care ? 100 Hail Marys ? An electronic chastity belt ? A murder/manslaughter charge ? You voted for him....feel free to let me know how that should work.
I agree with the track record aspect,so why is Shumer and others pushing so hard about waiting until after the mid terms?
They also know this but still choose disent where it does not exist.
^ ^
One reason is the Mcconnell rule. Another is a possible change in the make-up of America's House in the upcoming election. Another is to re-establish where they stand on the issue. In other words, basic politics.
^^^the asshole that he is....
https://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066...e-not-a-person
What a wise decision McConnell made when he stopped a lame duck President sticking us with another of his political picks for Supreme Judge.
It means that with Judge Ginsberg at 85 and Judge Brewers at circa 80; it could result in President Trump selecting at least 4 Supreme Judges during his two terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maof
Whats the issue? He called Obama a lame duck which at the time he was,big difference between a presidential election and mid term elections.
The elect is currant standing presidents choice and not outgoing.Civics 101.The current president,no matter how many times one closes their eyes and clicks their heels three times and wishes for him to go away,is still there for another 2 to 6 years.
The goal is not to allow an outgoing president to stack the deck for the next administration in a lot of different appointed positions,that works for both parties and history shows us the judges are more prone to following the law verses who appointed them.
They are there for 30+ years and are not going to get into politics because they will go through lots of different administrations.
I think they call it making a mountain out of a molehill.
I notice that you have figured out what the little ^^^ thingy means,see,. we all learn something new everyday.
This thread reinforces the obvious, which is that USSC appointments are very politicized.
Appts to Canada's Supreme Court [[SCC) are not, or at least nowhere near the same level.
Below is an article from Today's National Post outlining the basic difference and positing some reasons.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...t-appointments
By all means critique the suggested reasons if you wish.
But what I'm more curious about is why Americans collectively seem to accept partisanship as part of the judicial process.
I can't think of another developed country where the process for high court appts is anywhere near as polarizing.
Most societies seem to wish their courts to be seen as apart from politics.
Needless to say, I'm in that camp.
Are you? If not, Why not?
Because it is. Even if you claim it isn't, if it's a function of the government, it's politicized. The article seems to be splitting hairs claiming that Canadians don't debate over their justices' ideology, but do debate over their ethnicity, gender or birthplace, as if those criteria fall outside the realm of politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
I've not heard of the Notwithstanding Clause - it sounds like somewhat of a nightmare. The best explanation I've heard as to why one should closely follow a constitution as the ultimate authority in a political, or especially, legal system is this: Imagine playing a game of poker with a "living" rule set. If you are the one making the rules, it's going to work out pretty well for you, not so much any of the other players.
In general terms Canadians don't see the court as partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Appointments of male/female or Catholic/Jewish are not seen as specific to a party or a judicial outcome.
Yes, Canadians do have a desire to see everyone represented on the court, but that is mostly 'convention' not 'legislation'. In other words, with one exception, the court appt. process doesn't have quotas. The exception is that Quebec must have 3 judges. This has to do with a grand bargain in part [[English/French) but also the fact Quebec has a different legal tradition that the rest of Canada [[Civil Code) as opposed to [[Common Law) so you need experts in that legal tradition on the bench.
Elsewise, PMs are expected to broadly adhere to convention, but they will not do so an appoint and under-qualified candidate.
****
In respect of the notwithstanding clause.
Its in the grand Canadian tradition of compromise. LOL
The decision is binding, unless its not.
This applies to some rights, but not others.
So judicial rights and democratic rights are inviolable. But certain freedoms can be curtailed.
It should be said the clause has been invoked only 4 times since 1987; and in each case for one reason or another, has been withdrawn.
The respect for the SCC is such that provincial legislatures are loath to enact the clause; if they do its because they feel backed into a corner politically. However, in general, they ultimately find a way to comply with the ruling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...s_and_Freedoms
I think we should declare war against Canada. Quebec, of course, would immediately surrender. The rest might take time. [[Hey, just funnin').
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
"just funnin' "? I already bought a tuque so I can infiltrate the enemy undetected.
We could bribe a remote border crossing with some American milk and cheese and hook up with some partisans for local transportation.
We would also have to bring padded blankets,I hear it is not a smooth ride on the back of a moose.