Democratic members have continued their unrelenting attacks on the Supreme Court and its conservative majority. This week, Senate and House members have introduced a bill to impose term limits, regularized confirmation schedules, and other changes. In introducing the legislation, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.), and others have left no question that this is just the latest effort to change the balance of the Court in favor of a liberal majority. Such comments make the bill seem like little more than legislative graffiti.
The legislation, The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would impose an 18-year maximum period for service on the Court. After that point, they would be forced to take “senior status.” It would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election.
It is no accident that, under this system, the first to go would be Clarence Thomas (on his 30th year) followed by Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito when they reach the limit.
Even if the bill were able to secure a majority (which is highly doubtful), it would face immediate challenge since it adds new limits on the life tenure provision under Article III.
Any challenge would have a record full of self-defeating statements from the sponsors who leave no doubt that their true motivation is to get rid of the conservative majority in response to rulings that they oppose.
Many continue to assert that the adoption of a constitutional interpretation that they oppose is, as stated by Rep. Johnson, “a legitimacy crisis.” When the Court rules in a way that is approved by these members it is a constitutional triumph. When it fails to do so, it is a constitutional crisis.
Rep. Johnson went further to emphasize that the illegitimacy is also due to the fact that five justices were appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump: “Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it.”
So, they are demanding this radical measure “as a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court.”
House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) also supplied golden material for future challengers, saying that the changes are designed to combat “all the harmful and out-of-touch rulings from the Supreme Court this last year.” He added that without changing the Court “we will be left with backwards-looking majority for a generation or more.”
Other co-sponsors include Reps. David Cicilline (RI), Shelia Jackson Lee (TX), Steve Cohen (TN) Karen Bass (CA) and Ro Khanna (CA).
It also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court commonly voiced by Democratic members. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rending opinions against “widely held public opinion.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” She has now demanded the impeachment of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch based on the entirely false claim that they lied under oath in their confirmation hearings. After the Dobbs decision, Ocasio-Cortez demanded “there must be consequences” for the Court.
The concern over this legislation is not whether the legislation will pass (it will not) but how it reflects a fundamental attack on both the Court and our constitutional system. There was a time, not long ago, that such raw partisan attacks would have been denounced by other members of both parties. It is now not only acceptable but popular to call for packing the Court with your political allies.
This crisis of faith is evident in other key constituencies in our system, including in our law schools. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justices “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Most recently, the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman questioned the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
From Congress to the press to academia, the very foundation of the Court is being challenged. What is notable is that these are also the voices of some of the most powerful figures in our society. Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric. 
There are good-faith objections to this decision but those objections challenge the legitimacy of the holding, not the institution itself. As Benjamin Franklin noted “The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”
THE ANSWER TO LIFE (SUPREME JUDICIAL) IS SIX (6)
____________________________________________
Workload (i.e. docket) should be the sole criterion.
The office of Chief Justice exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside…”). George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six. Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789. Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices. “The justices had to spend almost the entire year traveling [and] the traveling conditions were horrendous,” states Maeva Marcus, GWU. To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern. The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions. Marcus said that no one at the time quibbled about the fact that six is an even number, which leaves open the possibility of 3-3 split decisions. “They never even thought about it, because all the judges were Federalists and they didn’t foresee great disagreement,” says Marcus. “Plus, you didn’t always have all six justices appearing at the Supreme Court for health and travel reasons.”
– https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution
Much Ado About Nothing: As any efforts to implement term limits will require a constitutional amendment, these attemps are not achievable.
A constitutional amendment or legislation by the superior Congress?
______________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Term limits aren’t what they’re after. This is a back door attempt to pack the court. If the bill passes, the SCOTUS would almost certainly strike down the term limits provision of the bill, however, the second provision, which adds justices, may be allowed to stand.
Dems know the public is against court packing, so they are hiding that in a term limits shell which the public would find acceptable. This is a bait and switch move by Dems to get court packing via the back door.
THE ANSWER TO LIFE (SUPREME JUDICIAL) IS SIX (6)
____________________________________________
Workload (i.e. docket) should be the sole criterion.
The office of Chief Justice exists because it’s mentioned in the Constitution under Senate rules for impeachment proceedings (“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside…”). George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law, he set the number of Supreme Court justices at six. Supreme Court justices in those days were also appointed to sit on federal circuit courts, of which there were 13 in 1789. Each circuit court would be presided over by three judges: one district court judge from the state and two Supreme Court justices. “The justices had to spend almost the entire year traveling [and] the traveling conditions were horrendous,” states Maeva Marcus, GWU. To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern. The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions. Marcus said that no one at the time quibbled about the fact that six is an even number, which leaves open the possibility of 3-3 split decisions. “They never even thought about it, because all the judges were Federalists and they didn’t foresee great disagreement,” says Marcus. “Plus, you didn’t always have all six justices appearing at the Supreme Court for health and travel reasons.”
– https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution
George Washington DID NOT set the number of justices at six. He merely signed the bill (Judiciary Act of 1789) enacted by Congress which included the provision to establish 1 Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices. Constitution left makeup of Federal courts to Congress. Number of Justices has been changed BY CONGRESS through the legislative process several times.
Take that, Maeva Marcus, Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School, Director of the Institute for Constitutional History, says Kevin W.
Perhaps she’ll call you, Kev.
No, better yet, Professor Turley may be available to pass on a message from Maeva directly.
Perhaps you and Maeva may be interested.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/federal-judiciary-act
Relevant section:
Transcript
Congress of the United States,
begun and held at the City of New York on
Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.
And Neil Armstrong didn’t land on the Moon, his Apollo Lunar Module did, right?
A constitutional amendment is not needed to alter the length of term on the Supreme Court. The life-time appointment is to the federal bench, not to a particular court in the federal court system. Congress can place term limits and comply with the Constitution by reassigning them to some other federal court or senior status in the system which allows them to keep their lifetime appointment and serve elsewhere in the federal court system on an as needed basis.
NO. you can’t re-assign them out off the SCOTUS Bench. You know why? Separation of powers Congress has no power to ‘re-assign’ another branch of govt. Do you suppose SCOTUS re-assign Congress men out of their job?
Conservatives, there is a parallel between Democrats and China.
Critics have warned for years about China’s long game. Over the years, China has cornered strategic markets in manufacturing, giving it the ability to blackmail the rest of the world in a manner that would far exceed Russia leveraging its oil and gas production. China has spent years hacking intellectual, proprietary information, and military secrets. They probably sent Hillary Clinton a nice fruit basket and Lychee ice cream for that bootleg server with top secret information, backed up to the Cloud. China allegedly bought access to Joe Biden via Hunter Biden in the most recent scandal. Then there are the spies that the US simply releases. Chinese nationals and corporations have bought up farmland, and strategic real estate close to military instillations. China is becoming a landlord to way too many US tenants.
As Communism always runs out of other people’s money, China leveraged claims of colonialism to get Hong Kong, which by rights should have joined the UK. It included land that was granted by the last Dynasty to Great Britain, along with the 100 year leased land. At the very least, the UK should have had a backbone and either kept the land it was granted in perpetuity, or given the people of Hong Kong UK passports. China took over the major financial, manufacturing, and innovating centers of Hong Kong.
Now it’s begun its slow creep to take over the manufacturing center of Taiwan. Since China has leverage over the rest of the globe through a combination of manufacturing strangleholds and threats, no one will do anything to stop them.
China has such control over the planet that it faced no consequences for accidentally releasing a virus it had done gain of function research on in order to make it more transmissible and more virulent, lied about it, covered it up, allowed it to become a global pandemic, and then called any criticism xenophobic or racist. To add insult to injury, Democrats like Newsom paid China to manufacture masks for us, instead of using an American company, and Joe Biden paid China to produce at home test kits for Covid for hundreds of millions of Americans.
All we do is complain about China. Before Trump, we didn’t do much to curb their influence, and simply ceded our advantages one inch at a time until we were paying China to test for the virus they released upon us.
All conservatives do is complain about Democrats. We observe them obstructing voter fraud prevention measures. We stand by while they make the notoriously vulnerable to fraud vote by mail widespread. We complained when Republican poll watchers were escorted out while vote counting went on overnight, coincidentally when massive vote dumps were discovered. We do nothing to stop vote harvesting, and we don’t keep activists out of elder care facilities where they “help” the infirm fill out their ballots.
We complain when Democrats go after free speech, freedom of religion, the 2nd Amendment, the Electoral College, and the separation of powers.
We complained at the steady takeover of the public education system, from pre-K through grad school, by the far Left. Now schools can help your child get an abortion or change genders without your knowledge or consent.
We complain when Democrats enact policies to castrate children who express confusion about their gender. This has produced so many mutilated young people who will learn over time just how much they needed someone to say no, slow down, instead of automatically affirming them every step of the way to sterilization.
We complain when just about every children’s TV show and movie, including Disney, enacted a far Left agenda that used entertainment to access your kids. Why do drag queens, who create sexualized entertainment for adults, want access to kids for story hour?
We complained when corporations, sports teams, the media, and Hollywood demanded loyalty oaths to BLM, while BLM enacted its violent, pro-crime, anti-cop, antisemitic policies that looted and burned major cities for a year.
We complained when Democrats pushed the message that abortion on demand, without any restrictions, was the only acceptable opinion to voice. Contrary opinions will get you canceled, deplatformed, fired, in trouble at school, or make you lose your coaching job. Better not advocate for people to consider keeping their babies.
That’s all we did was complain. It’s ineffective and spineless.
Stop caving. Stand tall. Take the schools back.
Karen S: stop using “we” and “conservative” when referring to the bat crap crazy stuff you got off of Fox. You are NOT a conservative, so stop using a term that describes someone you are not, which is a starry-eyed devotee to a bloviating narcissist. Real conservatives are just as repulsed by your hero as the rest of us. No one “ceded” any “advantages” before Trump. Trump started a trade war with China, so we have shortages of consumer goods and computer chips. That’s because China can produce quality goods at a lower price. Trump, deep in his delusional stupidity, said that tariffs would hurt China. No, they don’t. The increased cost is simply passed on to consumers–very basic economics. Democrats have introduced legislation to support domestic computer chip production. Let’s see how many Republicans agree to support it. There’s still no proof that China released any virus, and all of your blather about “gain of function research” to create a more virulent strain of COVID is slop you heard from Fox. COVID was first reported in China, but the origins remain unknown. If they were trying to kill us, they’ would have kept quiet about it. You keep repeating the Trump lie about COVID being the “kung flu”, intentionally created and released by a Chinese lab, for which there is no proof. This is a lie that is frequently repeated on Fox, but the WHO is still investigating the actual source. Only xenophobic racism can explain disciples like you harping about this and repeating the same lie over and over again.
What Fox has told you is “voter fraud prevention measures” is really efforts by Republicans to suppress Democratic votes as much as possible. First of all, there is not, and never was, any widespread voter fraud to “correct” by passing such laws. Cutting down on the number of polling locations, refusing to accept things like student IDs with a photo to register, limiting hours for polling locations, limiting early voting, stopping weekend voting, curbing and limiting mail in voting and taking away drop boxes are calculated to make it more difficult for people to vote, especially poor people and people of color. Some states have had only mail voting for years with no problems, so all of the rhetoric about mail voting being fraudulent has been disproven. There were NO “massive vote dumps”–another Trump lie that was repeatedly refuted. This has been explained to you several times, but it just doesn’t sink in. Many states do not allow mail or absentee votes to be counted until Election Day. Trump was told by people experienced in election matters that in-person vote tallies would benefit him and that as mail and absentee votes were counted and reported, that he should expect that any lead he had would vanish, and that’s what happened. He literally went off his rocker–demanded that mail and absentee vote counts be stopped, and made the absurd claim about night time “ballot dumps” “stealing his victory”. He went after 2 Georgia poll workers he called “hustlers” and claimed they had suitcases of fake Biden ballots that were brought in under cover of darkness. The containers that his “poll watchers” saw were official Georgia ballot carriers filled with unopened mail and absentee ballots that were not allowed to be tallied until Election Day. These women, a mother and daughter, now require round the clock security due to death threats. You would know about this if you watched the J6 hearings. In Colorado, Republicans are paying people to try to intimidate voters into not voting the next time: they’ve been going door to door demanding that they disclose how they voted in 2020.
The political party going after “free speech” is the Republicans: for example, DeSantis commanding school teachers about the content of history and slavery, and what they are and are not allowed to teach. In Republican states, legislatures are requiring doctors to lie about primitive fetuses “feeling pain”, which is impossible without a fully-developed nervous system and a cerebral cortex, necessary for perception, which doesn’t exist in early pregnancy. Indiana is trying to coerce doctors to require a rape vicitim to sign an affidavit and to report the rape to law enforcement and has commanded that this affidavit be maintained as part of the patient’s permanent medical record. Where do Republicans get off commanding what the contents of a medical record should contain or whether a rape victim must be coerced into prosecuting her attacker and re-living the attack against her will? No Democrat has ever advocated for “castrating” children or any of the other culture war garbage you spew. Where do you get this stuff, anyway? Doctors do NOT perform gender-affirming surgery on children under the age of 18 and after that, only after exrtensive psychiatric evaluation. Doctors rarely give puberty-suppression medication unless a psychiatrist confirms that the child would suffer serious emotional harm by going through puberty–growing a beard, for example, if she identified as female. Anyway, what business is it of yours? In fact, what business is it of yours about what is taught in schools about slavery and American history? Where does someone like you, who never attended college, get off on dictating how teachers should teach American history? You don’t speak for “we” or “us”. If you don’t like what your public school teaches, complain to the school board, home school your child or send them to one of DeVos’s radical right-wing religious schools.
Karen,
Natc & her friends are a bunch SickO Pedo/Pedo Supporters.
*************
Liberal Children’s Doctor Brags About Chopping Boys Genitals And Girls Breasts
8,991 views
·
Jul 26, 2022
5
Share
Download
War Room With Owen Shroyer
War Room With Owen Shroyer
Owen comments on a shocking video that reveals the true feeling medical doctors have about the mutilation of children and the trans agenda.
https://banned.video/watch?id=62e097b12a02302e3f600943
You can’t “rebalance” an odd number of judges. If you create an even number of judges from each ideology, then you run the risk of a tie.
Democrats don’t want to “rebalance” anything or make it “more fair.” Right now, conservatives are in the majority on the Court. Democrats don’t like that, so they are investigating every Machiavellian opportunity to get a Democrat majority. This bill was expressly written to get rid of the conservative majority.
When the Democrat Party doesn’t get their way, they cheat. It’s the trend.
They obstruct every effort to prevent voter fraud and audit voter rolls, in order to make it easier to cheat. Black voting increases under Voting ID laws, because black people, like Latinos, Filipinos, and white Americans, can get ID just fine.
When the Supreme Court got a conservative majority, Democrats want to expand the Court in order to pack it, or just abolish it altogether.
When Hillary Clinton won the popular vote through winning a few major cities, but lost the electoral vote, Democrats wanted to ignore the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College, or render it obsolete by making it follow the popular vote of urban centers.
When the Hunter Biden scandal became impossible to ignore, Democrats made a farcical Jan 6 Committee to try to get the focus off the Bidens. They prevented Republicans from naming whom they wanted to the Committee, and edited or discarded evidence that undermined their narrative. They also ignored that Democrats rioted, looted, committed arson, and attacked federal buildings for a year.
Hillary Clinton created the Russia hoax to get public scrutiny off her illegal bootleg server. Obama was briefed that she was doing this, yet he lied to the American people. FBI agent activists abused their power to perpetrate this hoax, destabilizing our country and putting the power of 3 letter agencies against a sitting president. An agent even altered an email from the CIA which showed Carter Page worked with them, in order to get FISA warrants.
Everything is always a Constitutional crisis when Democrats don’t get their way, and there’s nothing to see here when Democrats go after one Constitutional right after another.
Let’s see, now. Republicans, who only represent 30% of the country managed to get a majority on the SCOTUS. Does the presence of a majority of radical right wingers pass the smell test for American-style democracy? For the first time in US history, the SCOTUS has taken away a right found to exist under the Constitution, based on a ruling that stood for 50 years and that had been reaffirmed several times. Because this is an issue of personal privacy in reproductive matters and the right to personal autonomy about which most Americans agree, four who ruled to take away this right were extensively questioned about their opinion on this issue when they were nominated. Each of them said that it was “settled precedent” and that they respected the doctrine of stare decisis. None of them even hinted that it was “egregiously wrong”. This is because they wanted onto the SCOTUS specifically to overturn settled precedent, and they could give a damn less about stare decisis. Each of these four was nominated by a President who lost the popular vote. Three of them were nominated by someone who cheated to get into office with help from Russian hackers who spread lies about his opponent in a poll-driven plot to win the Electoral College knowing there was no way he could win the popular vote. The previous POTUS had the right to a SCOTUS pick, but the Republican majority leader refused to call the nomination for a vote, on the alleged premise that the nomination was too close to the next election, so it wouldn’t be fair for there to be a lifetime appointment to the court of last resort with the election so close. Because of this, Merrick Garland was denied his seat on the SCOTUS, and the American people were denied their president’s choice of SCOTUS justice. That president, Obama, did not cheat to get elected or re-elected. When Justice Ginsberg died and the election was a mere weeks away, Barrett was shoved onto the Court by Republicans who seemingly forgot their previous position that it was unfair to appoint a judge for lifetime when the election was so close. Their hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning. Then, there’s Kavanaugh who was credibly accused of sexual assault when he was a teenager by a well-educated college professor who still can’t return home or to her teaching job. Not less than 25 people demanded to testify about Kavanaugh’s character, and were denied this right by Republicans who cut off the hearings on his nomination and shoved him onto the SCOTUS.
Americans are rightfully up in arms over this. Why should the majority of us be forced to live according to the religious views of 4 judges on the SCOTUS? The point at which legally-protected life trumps the right of personal autonomy is a matter of religion, not science, and not law. America is a secular country, and religious doctrine should not dictate our laws. Americans are demanding that something be done about this, but Turley wants to play the little game of “let’s just respect the SCOTUS” or “Democrats are trying to pack the court”. The SCOTUS is already packed–with radical right-wingers who are forcing Americans to live according to the rules of their Catholic faith. That is just wrong. You are just wrong, Turley.
Sorry Natacha, it is not about religion. It is about not having the right to kill a human life and their decision was pro-democracy. Win/win.
Who says that a primitive blob of tissue that cannot visually be distinguished in appearance from an animal is a “human life”? What is your authority? it certainly isn’t the Bible. It certainly isn’t science. So, that leaves religion, but not all religions agree. In fact, Jews believe that if a pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s health, abortion is not only allowed, but required. You believe that an immortal soul is created the instant a sperm penetrates the outside wall of an ovum, but others don’t agree. In a free society that is not a theocracy, people should be free to make decisions about their own reproductive choices free of the religious beliefs of a minority. Roe held that up to the age of fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Most Americans agree with this.
Who says that a primitive blob of tissue that cannot visually be distinguished in appearance from an animal is a “human life”? What is your authority? it certainly isn’t the Bible. It certainly isn’t science.
Breaking News! Natacha confirms that if science can prove that primitive blob of tissue is a human life, then it should not be aborted.
Well done!
Amazing how silly she is. One would think even the atheist would be pro-life since it would seem that “life” is the most precious thing in an atheists world view.
RE:”Who says that a primitive blob of tissue….. It is not primitive blobs of tissue which are in dispute, it is full term fetuses in some jurisdictions.
As in where? Third trimester abortion is extremely rare, and only performed when a fetus has lethal congenital anomalies and cannot survive and/ or the mother is in serious trouble medically, and ending the pregnancy must be done to keep her alive. I said that most Americans support the holding of Roe: up to the age of fetal viability, the woman’s right to decide should be protected.
And yet you pro-abortionists bring up the very rare 10 year old’s being raped and pregnant to justify killing unique human life.
RE:”As in where?” “States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont” e.g”.https://www.findlaw.com/state/vermont-law/vermont-abortion-laws.html
RE: “As in where??” https://www.findlaw.com/state/dc-law/district-of-columbia-abortion-laws.html
Hip, hip, hooray, Nutchachacha!
You don’t get it–do you Olly?
“Who says that a primitive blob of tissue that cannot visually be distinguished in appearance from an animal is a “human life”?”
What does visually distinguished have to do with human life? Crime scenes use DNA to not only determine human life but the unique individual that, that life belongs too. My authority is science. Science can prove three things that you seem to not want to accept. One, that it is human, two, that it is alive since it can replicate and three, it is unique. Non of this requires religion. You can try to dehumanize as much as you want to make yourself feel better about killing a unique human, it will not change the fact that it is all three things.
“You believe that an immortal soul is created the instant a sperm penetrates the outside wall of an ovum” Please state where I wrote this.
You think a human fetus isn’t human? What do you think it is? If you run a genetic analysis what will it be classified as?
Why would you say that a fetus is not distinguishable in appearance from an animal? A fetus looks like a baby quite early in gestation. Under what authority? Science. Perhaps acquaint yourself with gestational stages.
The overwhelming majority of people think there should be restrictions on abortion. That means that most Americans believe that there comes a time in gestation where the clock runs out a woman’s right to choose. While there is disagreement over where that point is, the fact remains that most Americans reach that point. You even admitted that under Roe v Wade, after viability, there were restrictions. That, actually, is what most Americans agree with.
Under Roe v Wade, after viability, people were no longer “free to make decision about their own reproductive choices.” Does that mean Roe v Wade was fascist?
Natacha:
When does this fetus not look human to you? A baby starts sucking his thumb by 12 weeks gestation.
https://www.dreamstime.com/illustration/human-fetus.html
Um, Karen S.: these are just drawings created by an artist, which prove nothing.
Natacha:
It accurately shows what a fetus looks like every few weeks of gestation. You can look this up, instead of broadcasting ignorance. You publicly stated that a fetus looks like an animal. That would be so early in gestation the mother probably would not be aware she was pregnant. By 12 weeks, the baby is sucking his thumb.
Haven’t you ever looked at an ultrasound?
You are showing a troubling hostility and misinformation about pregnancy. Even when a mother has to terminate a pregnancy early, either by delivery or abortion, that’s always a human fetus, an unborn child.
People who talk about the unborn as blobs of tissue that look like animals are often found to excitedly post updates about a daughter’s pregnancy, talking about how the baby has grown during each trimester, sharing ultrasounds or getting them colorized, feeling the baby kick. All of a sudden, when it’s wanted, it’s a baby, with a name. Wanting a fetus or not does not affect its biology.
“You are showing a troubling hostility and misinformation about pregnancy.”
And you show a troubling misinformation about individual rights — which apply to an *actual* individual, not to a *potential* one.
And you show a troubling hostility to the life of an actual woman — to her choices, her health, her future, her finances, her happiness.
On this issue, it is conservatives who are *anti*-life.
You know nothing about the accuracy of an artist’s rendering because you have never studied college-level biology. I’ve seen the full spectrum of weekly development, beginning with an actual fertilized egg, progressing to an embryo, then to fetus stage and finally full-term fetuses. It is a traveling display that came from India, I believe, that shows preserved specimens of failed pregnancies. I didn’t say that a “fetus looks lik an animal”, but that visually in early pregnancy there is no perceptible difference. You always twist what I say. The point is that people like you think they have the right to override a woman’s decision to end an unwanted pregnancy by elevating the status of early-pregnancy tissue that cannot be visually distinguished from an animal to the status of a fully-developed person. A woman should have a Constitutional right to make the best decision for herself and her family before the age of fetal viability, free of the constraints of religious views she doesn’t share. Yes, having a master’s degree in nursing and beng a mother having had multiple ultrasounds, I have looked at many ultrasounds. If anyone here is spreading “misinformation” it’s you. The question re abortion is the point at which a woman has a Constitutional right, free of the constraints of someone else’s religious views she doesn’t share to end a pregnancy that is unwanted. The position of Roe is that a woman’s right to personal autonomy and liberty should allow termination up to the age of fetal viability. That position is supported by the majority of Americans. Republicans, who only have the support of 30% of Americans are furiously passing absurd laws to criminalize abortion, criminalize travel to other states to obtain abortions, criminalize providing information about where to get abortions and prosecuting doctors who perform these procedures, all to get the gullible “unborn baby saving” Evangelicals to the polls .
RE:”personal autonomy and liberty should allow termination up to the age of fetal viability..” “The age of fetal viability” So there’s the rub, isn’t it, Just so you know from whence I speak, my biomedical, clinical and academic CV is considerable. Beyond that is not necessary to detail
“You know nothing about the accuracy of an artist’s rendering because you have never studied college-level biology.”
Natacha, you fall far short of Karen’s knowledge and ability. There has been talk that you may have been some type of nurse. Fortunately that is a rumor as is that you have some type of legal training.
Whatever training you have had does not flatter those who taught you.
In the absence of abortion, the zygote, formed after 24 hours of fertilization, is a human being who will develop for an average of 78 years.
Abortion is homicide.
In the absence of abortion, the most common result for a human zygote is death long before birth, often prior to implantation, sometimes by miscarriage.
A human zygote is not a person, and elective abortion is not homicide.
You, disgusting person that you are, want to force women to bring all pregnancies to term while rejecting WIC payments to help ensure that the pregnant woman is healthy and that if a baby is born, it’s healthy too. You are a forced birther who doesn’t actually care about any person’s well-being.
A zygote is a very, very young human being.
Not dissimilar to an arrestee, the zygote, a human being, must be sheltered and boarded, each severally per the duty of the police and the duty of a mother, until the date of release.
Don’t be an idiot.
If it is not aborted, it will persist as a developing human being for an average of 78 years.
There are about 7.8 billion fully developed zygotes, human beings, on the planet.
Abortion is homicide.
RE:”You, disgusting person that you are,..” What IS disgusting is the conviction that this sort of diatribe is what should pass for intelligent, thoughtful and constructive debate, opinion or partisanship notwithstanding.
A brain dead body with a beating heart looks like a person, but the person is legally dead.
We don’t actually determine personhood based on looks.
We also don’t determine personhood by whether it’s human. Both an unfertilzied human egg and a fertilized human egg are human, but neither is a person. A corporation isn’t human but does have legal personhood.
I don’t know what the “smell test of democracy” is that you’re referring to, but SCOTUS follows the Constitution.
Up to Trump, that argument could be made, but no longer. Anyway, now you’re trying to play attorney, just like you’ve tried to play doctor in the past by pushing Hydroxychloroquine. You get your information from Fox, a propaganda outlet, proven by the fact that its personalities appear on stage with Trump and give him political advice.
The Constitution is the same before and after Trump. The Supreme Court and separation of powers has the same Constitutional legitimacy before as after Trump.
We don’t abolish the presidency when someone gets elected you don’t like. We done’t abolish the First Amendment when someone says something you don’t like. We don’t abolish or pack the Supreme Court when Justices get appointed you don’t like.
As for hydroxychloroquine, are you referring to the Indian study? Or are you talking about the scandal where a porn star somehow published fraudulent data aggregate studies on Covid therapies? My position has always been to study all therapeutic candidates and to keep politics out of medicine. No, wait, I remember. You pretended that Trump told people to inject bleach, which never happened. But you kept gaslighting.
“[K]eep politics out of medicine.”
Except, of course, for abortion.
Sam, when you want to kill human life, you cause a problem. People are going to object. Therefore it is political in nature because some people take the killing of human life very seriously. That is why in some states if you kill a pregnant woman, you can be charged with killing two people.
You want all that to go away so you can get the tacit approval of killing a life from all. It’s not going to happen, but today it is in the state’s jurisdiction where it belongs. The Supreme Court took away no rights.
You never quit, do you? You don’t know anything about the Constitution, the Supreme Court or separation of powers other than the drivel you get from Fox. I notice you didn’t respond to my comment about Fox personalities appearing at Trump rallies and providing advice to him–which conclusively proves that they are not journalists. And yet, they constantly attack NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN and another non-Trump media as “biased”, telling disciples like you that they can’t be trusted and not to watch. That you can’t perceive the implications of personalities from your favorite network openly appearing at rallies and providing advice proves you aren’t well-informed and have chosen to be a disciple. I’ve refuted your support of Hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment numerous times, and I’m not going to bother doing it again. The ONLY reason there would be an issue about this drug that is useful for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, but not COVID, is because your hero promoted it. You don’t care how many studies prove it is not only ineffective, but dangerous. It is not used nor promoted for COVID treatment. Don’t forget that the “demon sperm” doctor was one of the proponents. In case you forgot, the “demon sperm” doctor opined that endometriosis was caused by women engaging in intercourse with Satan.
I still want you to come up with the spin for Trump sitting in the White House private dining room, watching the insurrection on Fox, seeing Capitol Police Officers being beaten, doors and windows smashed, the Capitol invaded, a gallows erected with calls to “Hang Pence” and instead of calling off the faithful, he texted that Pence let him and his followers down. Cassidy Hutchinson and other members of Trump’s inner circle testified it was like pouring gas on a fire. What’s your benign explanation for this?
I never misrepresented what your hero said: he said that bleach killed COVID, and wondered whether there was some way to treat it in this manner. He did say that, and you know it. He also asked whether lights could be You always twist what I say, because you’ve been taught to do so by the Hate Network.
“Republicans, who only represent 30% of the country…”
– Nutchachacha
_____________
Nutchachahcha and her Axis Powers are confident now that they have invaded America sufficient for their final conquest and “resolution” of those pesky unhyphenated “Americans.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama, Nutchachacha
Currently Republicans have a +2.5% advantage in the generic ballot.
Overall Democrats tend to have a nationwide voter registration advantage – though that is diminishing rapidly.
Regardless, no single political group reflect the majority of americans.
The largest SINGLE ideological group is conservatives.
They are not a majority – but they are a plurality.
“For the first time in US history, the SCOTUS has taken away a right found to exist under the Constitution,”
False.
“based on a ruling that stood for 50 years and that had been reaffirmed several times.”
False and irrelevant. Casy did not affirm Roe, it radically changed Roe.
There is no right to an abortion found in the constitution.
Plessey v. Fergesson stood for Decades.
It took a civil war to overturn Dred Scott.
” Because this is an issue of personal privacy in reproductive matters and the right to personal autonomy about which most Americans agree”
You do not seem to agree with Crisis pregancy centers – aparantly it is OK to twist a womans arm to get an abortion. But if you try to persuade them NOT to – that requires fire bombs.
You wanted to force us all to wear mask, to get vaccinated, to lock us in our homes – so much for trust in your value of personal autonomy.
“four who ruled to take away this right were extensively questioned about their opinion on this issue when they were nominated. Each of them said that it was “settled precedent” and that they respected the doctrine of stare decisis.”
Yup, So ?
Stare Decisis is not immutable – of Plessy and Dredd Scott would still be the law of the land.
“None of them even hinted that it was “egregiously wrong”.”
There not supposed to.
The senate is not supposed to ask about potential future desisions and the nominees are not supposed to answer.
You are angry at the rules/
“This is because they wanted onto the SCOTUS specifically to overturn settled precedent,”
Nope, each of these justices will decide hundreds of cases, some more consequential than Roe.
“and they could give a damn less about stare decisis.”
When a prior decision is unconstitutional – Stare Decisis is an abridgement of the rule of law.
Myriads of decisions that the left celebrates overruld prior precident – including Roe itself.
“Each of these four was nominated by a President who lost the popular vote.”
Each was nominated by a president who won the election.
If you do not like how the constitution elects the president – amend it.
“Three of them were nominated by someone who cheated to get into office with help from Russian hackers who spread lies about his opponent in a poll-driven plot to win the Electoral College knowing there was no way he could win the popular vote.”
Again – the Colluson Delusion was a HOAX.
“The previous POTUS had the right to a SCOTUS pick,”
There are no government rights, only powers.
The president has the power nominagte when a Justice dies or retires.
The senate has the power to act on that nomination – or not, and to confirm or deny.
“but the Republican majority leader refused to call the nomination for a vote”
No they refused to hold hearings. As has been done ALWAYS in the past when the senate is of a different party from the president and a presidential election is pending.
“on the alleged premise that the nomination was too close to the next election”
Not alleged, The election was coming.
No one questions this was a political maneuver. Just as attempting to pack the court is.
The difference is one was constitutional and the other not.
“so it wouldn’t be fair”
Whenever you are talking about fair – you are in trouble,
There is no objective standard of fair.
“for there to be a lifetime appointment to the court of last resort with the election so close.”
You keep pretending there was some debate here. There was not.
Republicans chose not to proceed on Garland because they could.
They chose to proceed on Barret – because they could.
“Because of this, Merrick Garland was denied his seat on the SCOTUS”
Garland was denied nothing – there are no rights involved.
“and the American people were denied their president’s choice of SCOTUS justice.”
Yup, but they were rewarded with another presidents choice.
“That president, Obama, did not cheat to get elected or re-elected.”
He lied repeatedly about Ben Gazi.
“When Justice Ginsberg died and the election was a mere weeks away, Barrett was shoved onto the Court by Republicans who seemingly forgot their previous position that it was unfair to appoint a judge for lifetime when the election was so close.”
Nope – YOU are claiming there was a position.
The Republican position – just like that of th Democrats time and again, was to do whatever they could within the constraints of the constitution.
“Their hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.”
It is not hypocracy, it is not stunning, it is just ordinary politics – tame compared to that of democrats.
Had you not tanked the judicial fillibuster you could have blocked all these appointments that you do not like.
“Then, there’s Kavanaugh who was credibly accused of sexual assault when he was a teenager”
Nope.
“by a well-educated college professor who still can’t return home or to her teaching job.”
False and regardless she has received millions in donations from people like you.
“Not less than 25 people demanded to testify about Kavanaugh’s character,”
Then there would be news stories reflecting that potential testimony. All the news stories I read were far less credible than Ford, and Ford was not credible. She did not know Where this event took place or when – not even what year. Kavanaugh was able to prove he was not even in the area all fo the likely times that Ford’s event might have taken place.
“and were denied this right by Republicans who cut off the hearings on his nomination and shoved him onto the SCOTUS.”
The hearings are not supposed to last forever. Kavanaugh had already been vetted by the FBI.
Ford had many previous oportunities to come forward – this was not Kavaugh’s first confirmation.
You keep claiming the allegations were credible but they were not. Many have been subsequently completely disproven.
I think Republicans could have done better than Kavaugh. but that does not make the allegations against him true.
“Americans are rightfully up in arms over this.”
Then you will win in november.
Do not tell me, show me.
BTW “Up in arms” – comes from “taking up arms” – Firearms.
“Why should the majority of us be forced to live according to the religious views of 4 judges on the SCOTUS?”
They shouldn’t. But that is not what we are dealing with.
Roe was wrongly decided.
Dobb’s was not much better.
Regardless, you are free to set the law in your state as you wish.
You are free to pass federal law and hope it passes constitutional muster – not likely,
And you are free to change the constitution.
If you are “up in arms” – do something that you are constitutionally permitted to do.
Not stack the court.
“The point at which legally-protected life trumps the right of personal autonomy is a matter of religion, not science, and not law.”
Obviously wrong. Can you shoot your kids ? The point at which life is protected is an unavoidable question of law.
It is also a question of religion. Law and religion need not reach the same decsion.
It is also a moral question – a question of negative morality that falls squarely on government.
“America is a secular country, and religious doctrine should not dictate our laws.”
No, America is a religious country of multiple denominations.
“Americans are demanding that something be done about this,”
November is coming,., that is your chance.
Careful Marxists if you unleash HELL death will surely follow.
700 million guns you don’t control. The remedy for Government Tyranny is the 2nd Amendment.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS A VERY LONG WAY YET TO GO
_________________________________________________
The Supreme Court reestablished the dominion of the Constitution by supporting the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, and correctly and irrefutably returning the question of the legality of abortion to the States.
The Supreme Court must reestablish the dominion of the Constitution by supporting the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and fully abrogating the entire unconstitutional American communist welfare state.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
As a start we need to prohibit elected officials from taking with them, political donations they receive from running for office once they retire or elected out of office. These funds were donated to a political office holder and not to an individual. Deposit these funds into the general revenue fund to reduce our debt. No way these clowns should pocket millions of dollars for losing an election or retiring from office.
“As a start we need to prohibit elected officials from taking with them, political donations they receive from running for office once they retire or elected out of office.”
This is already the law and has been for decades.
Talk about deceit, hypocrisy, denial or just plain stupidity of the sponsors and cosponsors. These nincompoops are sitting in the Cat’s Bird Seat and are telling you those lowly Justices shouldn’t serve more than certain length on the Supreme Bench. Ha, if you add the total years of the 8 sponsors of this legislation, they have been in Congress a total of +/- 122 years. Taking the 8 longest serving justices equals +/- 96 years. So maybe just maybe, to be impartial, they would include themselves within the legislation, say 2 terms as Senator and 4 terms as Representative. I’m sure not going to hold my breath in anticipation.
The problem is exactly 180 degrees off from the Dems notion
The Court has moved away from ruling by public opinion and towards ruling in accordance of the Constitution.
It started with FDR, and got incrementally worse. Justices doing what they thought was best for the nation, or something congress could not come together on legislatively. Justices decided they were “obligated” to legislate from the bench, for the good of the Nation. Except it wasn’t good for the nation
For the 1st 150 years of the Constitution, SCOTUS was a non-entity. They did little, because little power rested in the Federal Domain. Being a Justice was not a sought after appointment, because it was boring, and they had little to no power. All that changed with FDR.
Returning abortion back the States where it belongs is VERY constitutional.
Ever notice how dims like federal laws over state laws.
This bill is not about term limits. It is a Trojan Horse for court packing. Which is what the Dems have been after since the court became conservative majority. The term limits proposal is merely a politically motivated maneuver to add more justices. In order to make this palatable they need to sell it as term limits (which a majority might support), but they know a majority of Americans are opposed to court packing. If this bill is passed it will be challenged and SCOTUS will almost certainly strike down term limits as unconstitutional. However, the other provision of the bill, adding justices may be allowed to stand.
This is similar to pork barrel spending buried inside larger budget bills.
I really like Turley’s analogy that this bill is nothing but LEGISLATIVE GRAFFITI!
Oh these poor snowflakes from the right, they stolen the courts fair and square according to their rules, and now they want the rules to stay as they see them. Their way or no way.
You are almost offensive in your labeling of people ascribing to the two most powerful political parties, and mistaken… “Snowflakes” are inherently Liberal because snowflakes are weak and fragile, only to matter when they MOB UP TOGETHER to cause storms. Conservatives, who are often synonymous with Patriots (and in this case Constitutionalists) are pretty simple and solid. Conservatives are rooted to the ground, not wanting to budge, not wanting to give way to a bunch of self-centered, elitist representatives who are DRUNK ON THEIR OWN POWER!!!
“only to matter when they mob up together to cause storms” sounds like the crowd on January 6th
Nah, more like the real stuff like Portland, Seatlle & Co.
Or fid you just forgot those..
Please outline in detail how the court was “stolen”.
No, just the way of the constitution.
They follow the constraints of the constitution to accomplish what they have.
That process is difficult. It has taken decades for the right to overturn the badly decided Roe.
It also required Democrats to change the rules – more than once.
Republicans have done nothing that violated the constitution or the rules that democrats set.
It is unlikely republicans could have appointed some recent justices or judges – but for democrat changes to the rules of the senate.
You are your own worst enemies.
If you do not like it change the constitution.
FishWings uses cue cards. I don’t think he has an answer for the proper implementation of the Constitution.
RE:”Oh these poor snowflakes from the right, they stolen the courts fair and square according to their rules, and now they want the rules to stay as they see them…” You should take care how your craft your arguments. It pales in the light of the hue and cry raised by pro-life ‘snowflakes’ on the repeal of Roe, a ruling which remained on shaky ground for decades until Dobbs foolishly gave SCOTUS cause to re-examine in a new light.
“Holy ‘Be careful what you wish for’, Batman!!
While Sheldon is at it include himself and ALL the rest for 2 terms and out?
Margot,
That right there.
Term limits on all members of Congress. Two terms, then not allowed to run for public office at any level, for say 10 years.
For those who have currently served in Congress for more than two terms, this is their last term and out they go.
on the bright side of news, Kamala has announced she knows her pronouns and the color of her attire
She was talking to the blind and hearing impaired.
Weird, when I talk on the phone, I don’t have to state any of that. She’s a woke idiot.
😉 Gosh, that’s odd. Even the Lefties on this blog don’t lead their comments with their pronouns, or a description of their attire.
Now, If I could address people like this, Hello, I’m Jim, an unapologetic white male raised by two also white parents who had normal sex pronouns. I have no freak piercing’s or tattoos. In short, I am what used to be labeled as normal. I might buy into this “woke” b.s.
😎 That’s a Me Too movement worth supporting.
RE; ‘It’ was selected and elected on the basis of pronoun and color..
DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE AND THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
_____________________________________________________
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?”
“If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
– Thomas Jefferson
_______________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”
“In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
_____________________________________________________________________________________
How is it that imported hyphenates and anti-American communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have the unilateral power to rewrite the English language, its usage, and semantic customs and traditions?
How is it that imported hyphenates and anti-American communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have the unilateral power to make the abnormal normal in America?
How is it that the lambs remain silent?
RE:”How is it that the lambs remain silent?..” ‘How is it that the ‘good shepherds’ ignore the bleating of the lambs when the wolf is let into the fold?
The dem party is a full-fledged left wing organization populated by crybaby sore losers. It is beyond extraordinary that the legacy media has little if anything to say about this, which tells us plenty about them, as well.
The prescience of the founders over two hundred years ago is truly amazing. They were able to predict a time when the danger of elected representatives of a one party ruling class would become the mechanism of Democracy’s demise. This is a union of states not populaces and it was never intended that the population of the few became the dictator of the rest.
I appreciate the Democrats opting to push all their political capital in the center of the table for their dream of a Socialist takeover of the country. Fortunately the country is not even close to accepting that. The backlash will be glorious and likely be a multi-generational shift to the right. At this point, the Republicans are on the clock to not fu*k it up.
Unfortunately republicans have a long history of fu*cling things up and when they do they blame it on democrats. Note that many republicans don’t want Trump to run again, yet it seems he’s intent on doing just that so he can get revenge on the Jan 6 committee.
Unfortunately republicans have a long history of fu*cling things up and when they do they blame it on democrats.
Unfortunately? Freudian slip? Anyway, they will be given a majority they did not earn and I wouldn’t be surprised if they treated it as though they are a blessing to the American people. As far as 2024 goes, the candidate that will win the GOP nomination will be the one with the best plan to restore some version of an America First agenda. President Trump proved it works and Biden is doing everything he can to prove it as well. This is why the Jan. 6 commission will ultimately prove a failure for the Democratic party. They’ve committed to ending Trump, when all the American people want is that agenda. There’s a 2000 year history to prove that.
Well, looky here….Nasty Nancy and Ray Epps. Did she plan this whole thing?? “Retro Tech Noir
@RetroTechNoir
·
Follow
BREAKING: Freedom of Information Act requests show a dozen phone calls between the cell phone of Ray Epps and the office of Speaker Pelosi in the week before #January6th
5:44 PM · Jul 21, 2022”
https://www.revolver.news/2022/07/strange-disinfo-campaign-to-discredit-key-questions-concerning-ray-epps/
Those of us who want DeSantis will definitely support Trump over the Dems…don’t kid yourself. The Republicans who f things up are part of the corrupt establishment and they are little different from the corrupt establishment Dems.
Those of us who want DeSantis will definitely support Trump over the Dems…don’t kid yourself.
Absolutely!
Agree!
The main concert hall at the Kennedy Center seats over 2000 people, which should be plenty big enough for a continually expanding Supreme Court to convene, at least through the end of this century. We may, however, need to engage in some new construction for the necessary office space. We can do this.
Anyone being honest would admit that this likely wouldn’t have happened if millions of Obama voters hadn’t been robbed of about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick.
Millions of Obama voters won the election and therefore were entitled to shape Obama’s Judicial Branch. Every action has a reaction!
Ask Justice Alberto Gonzalez how he feels about it. Gonzalez is the highly qualified Hispanic jurist that Bush wanted to nominate to the Court but Chuckie Schumer and Harry Reid threated to FILIBUSTER his appointment. Little partisan hacks like you only cry when you don’t get your way.
That is not how it works. You need the Senate as well, not just the presidency, and as I recall it was the Democrats who got rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees, which has now come home to roost. Both sides try this kind of stuff and never realize that at some point the other side is going to gain power, and then they act like it is unfair. It is a classic rules for thee but not for me situation. In any event, if Obama’s agenda had been so popular then he would have had the senate. It used to be that they would mostly vote for who the president, but then we need to go back to Bork to see why that changed. I think that was the point where this got ugly, and again, this was the Democrats not liking the Regan pick, and then we come to Obama and Garland and turn about happens, then suddenly this is a bridge too far. Long story short, you need the Presidency and the Senate to confirm judges, Republicans have internalized this, Dems don’t see to have.
All that being said, I am not entirely against Term limits for SCOTUS. Of all the “solutions” to this I have heard, this is not really a terrible idea. This is far better than trying to just appoint (insert how many judges our side needs for a majority so we win) kind of thing.
Of course, good luck with that constitutional amendment.
WE NEED TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS!!! Before any of this!!!
RE:”WE NEED TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS!!! Before any of this!!!” The expectations that the House and the Senate would enact such a law is unrealistic. A ‘grassroot’ movement within a constituency rises to block re-election of an incumbent after two terms would be more realistic. I don’t foresee the controlling local or national party election committees facilitating such a move even if demanded by the electorate.
Term limits for thee, but not for me.
RE: “Anyone being honest would admit that this likely wouldn’t have happened if millions of Obama voters hadn’t been robbed..” Apparently the free ‘Obama Phones’ were a consolation prize not satisfactory to the mob. Of course, when Schumer objected in 2007, there was no outcry from his minions. What politicians operate on is their conviction that their constituents are hapless and have short memories: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-antonin-scalia-219392
Nope,
None of us are ENTITLED to shape the bench.
What we are entitled to is what the constitution allows.
The constitution entitled the senate to confirm judicial appointments – they do not belong to the winning president.
Your entire premise is nonsense.
The entire purpose of the constitution is to do exactly what you gripe about – to make governing hard.
To quell the temporary passions of the people.
Authoritarians, statists and socialists loathe the founding principle of Separation of Powers. They are left naked in their deceit for having lied when taking their oaths of office.
That’s pretty much what the current Republican Party has become. With the extreme partisan gerrymandering and the “independent state legislature theory” the GOP is pursuing an authoritarian rule. Trump is an authoritarian himself and with the republicans firmly supporting him it should be no surprise.
Extraordinary ignorance.
With the extreme partisan gerrymandering and the “independent state legislature theory”
Arguing from a conclusion.(to be fair, it is about the only way left, for the leftist to participate in any discussion) Gerry mandering has been far worse in democrat controlled jurisdictions. The” theory” you mention is federalism as laid out in the constitution.
Trump is a narcissist not at all unlike the authoritarians who have long navigated the swamp. He may well have become an authoritarian too but for the embedded authoritarians already in power. They feared he wasn’t one of them.
He may well have become an authoritarian too but…
…not an authoritarian.
Got it. Thanks.
All authoritarians are narcissists. Trump admires authoritarians and he’s strives to emulate them at every opportunity. So far he’s been successful in his pursuit.
RE:”Senate and House members have introduced a bill ..” These legislative exercises are the equivalent of smorgasbord on a festivities table covered in cling wrap.. Everything looks wonderful but inedible until the wrap is removed. Nothing more than crepe designed to impress the gullible electorate, whose intelligence is held in contempt, that the dishonorable MC’s and Senators are busily attending to the desires of their constituency. There’s proposed legislation sitting in committee since the Titanic sank waiting for Pelosi and her Senatorial ‘compatriot’, to move on them. To date they’ve done little more than gone through rolls of Charmin. There’s nothing to dim the expectation that another order of the product should be sent for.