Given Trumps love for Fox News (and his son is dating fox News Kimberly Guilfoyle) we could see Janine Garofalo or Napolitano nominated to the bench.
Napolitano has surprised me by speaking common sense at times, though he is another forced birther.
Garofalo is a liberal actress, so NOT associated with Fox News. I think you meant Jeanine Pirro. She continues to be batshit insane. So my money is on her between the two of them.
Given Trumps love for Fox News (and his son is dating fox News Kimberly Guilfoyle) we could see Janine Garofalo or Napolitano nominated to the bench.
Napolitano has surprised me by speaking common sense at times, though he is another forced birther.
Garofalo is a liberal actress, so NOT associated with Fox News. I think you meant Jeanine Pirro. She continues to be batshit insane. So my money is on her between the two of them.
Given Trumps love for Fox News (and his son is dating fox News Kimberly Guilfoyle) we could see Janine Garofalo or Napolitano nominated to the bench.
Napolitano has surprised me by speaking common sense at times, though he is another forced birther.
Garofalo is a liberal actress, so NOT associated with Fox News. I think you meant Jeanine Pirro. She continues to be batshit insane. So my money is on her between the two of them.
She's also female... so I wouldn't put my money on Trump appointing her.
I would say watch for any aspiring judges to start appearing om Fox.
Speaking of solidarity with Puerto Rico.....the FIRST goddamn thing the Democrats should do if they are serious about dealing with this Republican Party in a manner fitting what is being thrown at them is that the moment they take back ANY sort of power, is to push (and push hard) for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC.
Speaking of solidarity with Puerto Rico.....the FIRST goddamn thing the Democrats should do if they are serious about dealing with this Republican Party in a manner fitting what is being thrown at them is that the moment they take back ANY sort of power, is to push (and push hard) for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC.
It's the right thing to do anyway. There's also Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Why should they have less Representation than Wyoming?
Speaking of solidarity with Puerto Rico.....the FIRST goddamn thing the Democrats should do if they are serious about dealing with this Republican Party in a manner fitting what is being thrown at them is that the moment they take back ANY sort of power, is to push (and push hard) for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC.
It's the right thing to do anyway. There's also Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Why should they have less Representation than Wyoming?
Per capita everyone living in this country has less representation than Wyoming.
Speaking of solidarity with Puerto Rico.....the FIRST goddamn thing the Democrats should do if they are serious about dealing with this Republican Party in a manner fitting what is being thrown at them is that the moment they take back ANY sort of power, is to push (and push hard) for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC.
It's the right thing to do anyway. There's also Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Why should they have less Representation than Wyoming?
Per capita everyone living in this country has less representation than Wyoming.
Yep. Well it's time fight back. Mitch McConnell and Trump have shown its street rules time.
IDF sends aid to Syrians fleeing Daraa in overnight `Good Neighbor` operation
The operation lasted “several hours,” the army said, and delivered some 300 tents, 13 tons of food, 15 tons of baby food, three pallets of medical supplies and 30 tons of clothes and shoes to the refugees.
Since the renewed attacks by pro-regime forces began earlier this month in the Daraa province, tens of thousands of Syrian civilians have been streaming to the nearby Israeli and Jordanian borders, seeking refuge.
"The administration of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz (D), who made headlines for her criticisms of President Donald Trump’s handling of the relief efforts, is now being investigated for alleged corruption.
According to a local news report from El Vocero de Puerto Rico, the FBI is investigating several suppliers for alleged corruption in San Juan.
It says the investigation was launched after former procurement director Yadira Molina filed a lawsuit claiming she faced punishment for reporting illegal activities to the local comptroller. The investigation has since grown to include several contractors.
“On February 21, Molina sued the city council after reporting alleged acts of corruption in the shopping division in the town hall under the administration of Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto,” the report says.
The complaint states that Molina was blocked from her right “to report wrongdoing in her capacity as a private citizen, not as a public employee.” It says she was retaliated against for reporting an allegedly rigged system and was fired for attempting to report corruption, and includes other additional claims.
There were many reports following the hurricane that U.S. supplies were trapped in the ports, with local corruption preventing proper distribution. The claims were largely dismissed by legacy news outlets as conspiracy, and were used to frame Trump’s relief efforts in a negative light. The Trump administration later bypassed local officials, and the U.S. military began delivering the goods directly.
Carlos Osorio, the FBI media representative at the San Juan field office, told The Epoch Times in October 2017 that the FBI received several complaints of alleged corruption in the distribution of relief goods, and that the FBI is required to look into criminal complaints."
"When then-Sen. Barack Obama filibustered Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he was breaking an informal “rule” that said barring some extraordinary circumstance, a U.S. senator should vote for a nominee who was competent and qualified. The same could be said for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who triggered the nuclear option, ending the filibuster for most presidential nominations.
And, of course, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it wasn’t exactly benevolent of Mitch McConnell to refuse to consider any Obama Supreme Court nominee before the 2016 presidential election (although, just as Obama’s decision to filibuster Alito probably helped his career, McConnell’s maneuver was most certainly a shrewd political move).
Democrats understandably feel cheated and aggrieved. It is one thing not to have Merrick Garland seated, but it’s another to win the popular vote and then watch two conservative Supreme Court justices be put on the Court. If the roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that McConnell and others would be saying, “Well, it’s all about power. and they are playing the game to the best that they are able.'”
When the ends always justify the means, then the means become more and more egregious in the service of the ends. The most common retort when this is pointed out is: well, what about Robert Bork? And that’s all well and good. Maybe Democrats should rethink the way they handled that nomination.
And maybe Harry Reid should rethink why he did away with the filibuster. But at some point, this game of one-upmanship, turned mutually assured destruction, becomes unsustainable. “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned when Reid went nuclear. Well, that works both ways.
What (aside from a desire to put country ahead of party) is stopping the next Democratic president with a Democratic Senate majority—say, Elizabeth Warren—from simply packing the Supreme Court? There’s nothing written in stone that says there has to be nine Supreme Court justices any more than there is anything saying you need 60 votes to confirm a judge, or that the Senate should have to vote on—or even consider—a president’s high court nominee.
Granted, after Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court in 1937, the blowback served to chasten future presidents. But so many of our World War II assumptions have recently been questioned with impunity. Why not this one? This is something that all Americans, but especially conservatives, should worry about.
In their terrific book Why Democracies Die, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt talk a lot about something called “forbearance” (which, depending on your translation, is one of the “fruits of the Spirit”) that is necessary for the survival of liberal democracy. “What it takes for those institutions to work properly,” Levitsky told NPR back in January, “is restraint on the part of politicians. Politicians have to underutilize their power. And most of our politicians, most of our leaders have done exactly that. That's not written down in the Constitution.”
But in today’s world, that’s all out the window. As Miguel Estrada and Benjamin Wittes observe in The Washington Post, “The only rule that governs the confirmation process is the law of the jungle: There are no rules. There is no point in pretending otherwise, as much as many of us wish it were not so.”
Now, I am not suggesting that Donald Trump should wait until after the midterms to nominate a replacement—or that he should nominate a moderate or a liberal. Quite the contrary, I’m remarking on the fact that we have arrived at a point where—because of the high stakes and past transgressions—the normal and appropriate exercise of power is still seen by half of the country as an outrage.
Think of it. There’s nothing wrong with Justice Kennedy deciding to retire, and there’s nothing wrong with President Trump nominating a conservative to replace him. Really, on the merits, this development shouldn’t be generating so much angst. As Philip Bump notes, whoever replaces Kennedy—almost certainly a staunch conservative—would have voted the same way Kennedy did this term on the vast majority of cases.
Nevertheless, replacing Justice Kennedy will come with a cost. Things are about to get even uglier. The understandable reaction of Democrats will be to seek vengeance. This is a vicious cycle, and there’s no telling where (or if) it will end.
The presidency of Donald Trump has tested our institutions, but when it comes to how we treat Supreme Court nominations, these norms were eroding long before Trump descended that escalator. Both sides want to win this race to the bottom."
"When then-Sen. Barack Obama filibustered Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he was breaking an informal “rule” that said barring some extraordinary circumstance, a U.S. senator should vote for a nominee who was competent and qualified. The same could be said for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who triggered the nuclear option, ending the filibuster for most presidential nominations.
And, of course, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it wasn’t exactly benevolent of Mitch McConnell to refuse to consider any Obama Supreme Court nominee before the 2016 presidential election (although, just as Obama’s decision to filibuster Alito probably helped his career, McConnell’s maneuver was most certainly a shrewd political move).
Democrats understandably feel cheated and aggrieved. It is one thing not to have Merrick Garland seated, but it’s another to win the popular vote and then watch two conservative Supreme Court justices be put on the Court. If the roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that McConnell and others would be saying, “Well, it’s all about power. and they are playing the game to the best that they are able.'”
When the ends always justify the means, then the means become more and more egregious in the service of the ends. The most common retort when this is pointed out is: well, what about Robert Bork? And that’s all well and good. Maybe Democrats should rethink the way they handled that nomination.
And maybe Harry Reid should rethink why he did away with the filibuster. But at some point, this game of one-upmanship, turned mutually assured destruction, becomes unsustainable. “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned when Reid went nuclear. Well, that works both ways.
What (aside from a desire to put country ahead of party) is stopping the next Democratic president with a Democratic Senate majority—say, Elizabeth Warren—from simply packing the Supreme Court? There’s nothing written in stone that says there has to be nine Supreme Court justices any more than there is anything saying you need 60 votes to confirm a judge, or that the Senate should have to vote on—or even consider—a president’s high court nominee.
Granted, after Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court in 1937, the blowback served to chasten future presidents. But so many of our World War II assumptions have recently been questioned with impunity. Why not this one? This is something that all Americans, but especially conservatives, should worry about.
In their terrific book Why Democracies Die, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt talk a lot about something called “forbearance” (which, depending on your translation, is one of the “fruits of the Spirit”) that is necessary for the survival of liberal democracy. “What it takes for those institutions to work properly,” Levitsky told NPR back in January, “is restraint on the part of politicians. Politicians have to underutilize their power. And most of our politicians, most of our leaders have done exactly that. That's not written down in the Constitution.”
But in today’s world, that’s all out the window. As Miguel Estrada and Benjamin Wittes observe in The Washington Post, “The only rule that governs the confirmation process is the law of the jungle: There are no rules. There is no point in pretending otherwise, as much as many of us wish it were not so.”
Now, I am not suggesting that Donald Trump should wait until after the midterms to nominate a replacement—or that he should nominate a moderate or a liberal. Quite the contrary, I’m remarking on the fact that we have arrived at a point where—because of the high stakes and past transgressions—the normal and appropriate exercise of power is still seen by half of the country as an outrage.
Think of it. There’s nothing wrong with Justice Kennedy deciding to retire, and there’s nothing wrong with President Trump nominating a conservative to replace him. Really, on the merits, this development shouldn’t be generating so much angst. As Philip Bump notes, whoever replaces Kennedy—almost certainly a staunch conservative—would have voted the same way Kennedy did this term on the vast majority of cases.
Nevertheless, replacing Justice Kennedy will come with a cost. Things are about to get even uglier. The understandable reaction of Democrats will be to seek vengeance. This is a vicious cycle, and there’s no telling where (or if) it will end.
The presidency of Donald Trump has tested our institutions, but when it comes to how we treat Supreme Court nominations, these norms were eroding long before Trump descended that escalator. Both sides want to win this race to the bottom."
Hopefully this isn't the death of democracy in the US, but I sure as Hell hope it's the death of the two-party system!
"When then-Sen. Barack Obama filibustered Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he was breaking an informal “rule” that said barring some extraordinary circumstance, a U.S. senator should vote for a nominee who was competent and qualified. The same could be said for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who triggered the nuclear option, ending the filibuster for most presidential nominations.
And, of course, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it wasn’t exactly benevolent of Mitch McConnell to refuse to consider any Obama Supreme Court nominee before the 2016 presidential election (although, just as Obama’s decision to filibuster Alito probably helped his career, McConnell’s maneuver was most certainly a shrewd political move).
Democrats understandably feel cheated and aggrieved. It is one thing not to have Merrick Garland seated, but it’s another to win the popular vote and then watch two conservative Supreme Court justices be put on the Court. If the roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that McConnell and others would be saying, “Well, it’s all about power. and they are playing the game to the best that they are able.'”
When the ends always justify the means, then the means become more and more egregious in the service of the ends. The most common retort when this is pointed out is: well, what about Robert Bork? And that’s all well and good. Maybe Democrats should rethink the way they handled that nomination.
And maybe Harry Reid should rethink why he did away with the filibuster. But at some point, this game of one-upmanship, turned mutually assured destruction, becomes unsustainable. “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned when Reid went nuclear. Well, that works both ways.
What (aside from a desire to put country ahead of party) is stopping the next Democratic president with a Democratic Senate majority—say, Elizabeth Warren—from simply packing the Supreme Court? There’s nothing written in stone that says there has to be nine Supreme Court justices any more than there is anything saying you need 60 votes to confirm a judge, or that the Senate should have to vote on—or even consider—a president’s high court nominee.
Granted, after Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court in 1937, the blowback served to chasten future presidents. But so many of our World War II assumptions have recently been questioned with impunity. Why not this one? This is something that all Americans, but especially conservatives, should worry about.
In their terrific book Why Democracies Die, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt talk a lot about something called “forbearance” (which, depending on your translation, is one of the “fruits of the Spirit”) that is necessary for the survival of liberal democracy. “What it takes for those institutions to work properly,” Levitsky told NPR back in January, “is restraint on the part of politicians. Politicians have to underutilize their power. And most of our politicians, most of our leaders have done exactly that. That's not written down in the Constitution.”
But in today’s world, that’s all out the window. As Miguel Estrada and Benjamin Wittes observe in The Washington Post, “The only rule that governs the confirmation process is the law of the jungle: There are no rules. There is no point in pretending otherwise, as much as many of us wish it were not so.”
Now, I am not suggesting that Donald Trump should wait until after the midterms to nominate a replacement—or that he should nominate a moderate or a liberal. Quite the contrary, I’m remarking on the fact that we have arrived at a point where—because of the high stakes and past transgressions—the normal and appropriate exercise of power is still seen by half of the country as an outrage.
Think of it. There’s nothing wrong with Justice Kennedy deciding to retire, and there’s nothing wrong with President Trump nominating a conservative to replace him. Really, on the merits, this development shouldn’t be generating so much angst. As Philip Bump notes, whoever replaces Kennedy—almost certainly a staunch conservative—would have voted the same way Kennedy did this term on the vast majority of cases.
Nevertheless, replacing Justice Kennedy will come with a cost. Things are about to get even uglier. The understandable reaction of Democrats will be to seek vengeance. This is a vicious cycle, and there’s no telling where (or if) it will end.
The presidency of Donald Trump has tested our institutions, but when it comes to how we treat Supreme Court nominations, these norms were eroding long before Trump descended that escalator. Both sides want to win this race to the bottom."
This is mostly disingenuous nonsense from Matt Lewis. For one thing, to even GET to what was nothing more than a symbolic filibuster vote (that didn't work, was never intended to work, and everyone knew wouldn't work, it was a protest vote) by some Democrats in regards to Alito in 2006 requires being a given a hearing IN THE FIRST PLACE, which NEVER happened with Obama's last pick. No one ever said anyone had to vote for Obama's nominee. He wasn't even allowed to have a nominee (ANY nominee) be put before the Senate. Has never happened before in the history of this country.
As for the filibuster rule, almost no one is even making that argument. The anger on the left has nothing to do with the filibuster. The anger is that a Supreme Court vacancy was STOLEN from a duly-elected President, purposefully held hostage for a year, and then handed off to the next President. Everyone who voted for Barack Obama was cheated out of that pick.
Rethink Robert Bork?? Let me go over that one one more time. Robert Bork is the man Nixon FINALLY found to fire Archibald Cox in an attempt to stop the Watergate Investigation after I believe two people in front of him in the chain of command resigned rather than do so. Robert Bork was an accessory to an attempt to totally destroy the rule of law in this country. There is NO valid comparison to be made here with Robert Bork. Bork was afforded a hearing, and he was defeated. Hell, 6 Republicans voted against Bork. Reagan then got to name another nominee (which happened to be Anthony Kennedy) who was promptly confirmed.
The only thing here that I agree with (and in Matt Lewis' case he is saying it as a warning) is that I DO think Democrats should try pack the court when they get power again. They won't, but they sure as hell should. This entire article is an attempt to "both sides" an issue that has no other side. What happened in regards to Mitch McConnell and Barack Obama's pick to fill a Supreme Court vacancy is utterly unique not just in modern political history, but ALL political history of the United States.
If Merrick Garland (who was by the Republican's own definition a moderate, middle of the road choice) had been afforded a hearing and/or confirmed, this entire discussion wouldn't even be taking place. We would be hearing those of us on the left offering the same objections we had to Roberts and Alito during the Bush Administration, and then the pick would be confirmed because just like back then, there was no serious or viable way to keep them off the court. It would be business as usual. That is not what happened, and I'm not going to sit here and ever PRETEND it is what happened. Presidents make Supreme Court picks and the Senate votes on them. The Senate Majority Leader simply choose to completely refuse to participate in the process, thus robbing a duly-elected President of his constitutionally guaranteed and mandated power of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. If there was even a single other instance of this ever happening, we could take articles like this seriously, but we can't because there isn't.
The only thing here that I agree with (and in Matt Lewis' case he is saying it as a warning) is that I DO think Democrats should try pack the court when they get power again. They won't, but they sure as hell should.
Then why shouldn't Republicans try to pack the Court *right now*? Increasing the number of justices would only give Trump that many more nominations (which would all probably be fast-tracked for confirmation by the end of the year, so election results won't matter). Besides, how would packing the Court even be possible? There would probably have to be a Constitutional amendment but that process would take at least a decade to complete. Congress couldn't just pass a law because the current SCOTUS could strike it down.
It's not Kennedy's retirement or Trump's ability to replace him that really bothers me. What bothers me is two things: (1) his replacement is all but guaranteed to use his or her vote to preserve the power of corporations to purchase political power, and (2) the fact that Trump can legally appoint a Supreme Court justice is a grim reminder of the fact that his own party illegally stole a seat from Merrick Garland.
It doesn't seem a bad article to me - it's just outlining the problems that occur through escalation. I agree that packing the court is possible and there's a realistic chance that could happen - but that would represent a further escalation.
For it to work as envisaged in the constitution, Justices should not be affiliated to parties. There always have been sides on the Supreme Court to some degree, but that division has become increasingly apparent in recent years - packing the Court would make it so obvious that I don't think the SCOTUS could any longer perform its current constitutional role. The make-up of the Supreme Court is specifically left to Congress under the constitution, so SCOTUS trying to prevent that would just itself provoke a crisis.
Of course a crisis would not necessarily be a bad thing. As far as the Democrats are concerned, preventing SCOTUS from entrenching conservative opinions into the law for a generation would be a major gain. As far as Trump is concerned (if he's still around) he might be quite happy to see chaos in one of the least changed institutions from the original constitution. And as far as the American people are concerned such a major change could allow a rethink of how the wider system of governing works.
There would no doubt be plenty of members of Congress who would be upset by the idea of a constitutional crisis. That could be because they believe the constitution should never undergo change, or just because they don't want to risk losing their current privileged positions. A crisis of some sort in the next few years seems increasingly probable though given the range of current pressures. Off the top of my head, apart from the Supreme Court issue, there's the possible extension in use of Presidential pardons, the involvement (or not) of Congress in making and breaking international agreements, the increasing use of the simple majority in Congress, the failure to fill government posts, the fighting between executive and departments and I'm sure lots of other things - all in a climate of increasing partisanship.
The only thing here that I agree with (and in Matt Lewis' case he is saying it as a warning) is that I DO think Democrats should try pack the court when they get power again. They won't, but they sure as hell should.
Then why shouldn't Republicans try to pack the Court *right now*? Increasing the number of justices would only give Trump that many more nominations (which would all probably be fast-tracked for confirmation by the end of the year, so election results won't matter). Besides, how would packing the Court even be possible? There would probably have to be a Constitutional amendment but that process would take at least a decade to complete. Congress couldn't just pass a law because the current SCOTUS could strike it down.
No, packing the Court is just wishful thinking.
They have a 5-4 majority through cheating Obama out of his pick. They don't need to pack the court they are already legislating from the bench with their repeated 5-4 decisions.
There won't need to be a Constitutional ammendment just a legislature that writes some laws. AFAIK there is nowhere in the Cibstuon that says there has to be x, y, z number of judges at this level.
Street rules, Mitch McConnell, the entire republican party and Donald Trump have been cheating us. Gerrymandering states so that we can't win the House unless we win +7 points overall. Unprecedented obstruction during Obama. The constant lying and misinformation from Republican politicians - mischaracterizations and making up things from thin air.
"Compromise bills" are compromised solely by Republicans - not even attempt to include Democrats. Republicans are representing a small minority of voters (really corporations) and they are suppressing and ignoring the vast majority of Americans at their peril.
It's not Kennedy's retirement or Trump's ability to replace him that really bothers me. What bothers me is two things: (1) his replacement is all but guaranteed to use his or her vote to preserve the power of corporations to purchase political power, and (2) the fact that Trump can legally appoint a Supreme Court justice is a grim reminder of the fact that his own party illegally stole a seat from Merrick Garland.
Or stole it from ANYONE Obama may have picked. If Garland was voted down, then Obama should have been allowed to appoint another pick, and so on. There was no good faith here. It was all pure, naked cynicism. I couldn't get over it then, but it's really hard to square with right now.
What happened was that Scalia was a right-wing icon on the court. And conservatives viewed it as "their" seat. Thurgood Marshall was a liberal hero as well, but it wasn't HIS seat. His seat went to Clarence Thomas, who was the exact opposite of Marshall ideologically. Democrats controlled the Senate then. They could have done the same thing if they had wanted to. Thomas had a rough confirmation because of Anita Hill's plausible (far more plausible in retrospect) allegations, but it did not stop him from being put on the court. Again, I have only followed the history of confirmations since the Reagan Administration, but the history is pretty damn clear:
Reagan: Got 4 appointments, allowing him to shape the court basically up til this moment. Bork was the only one defeated after a full hearing. Kennedy replaced him and sailed through.
George H. W. Bush: Two appointments both confirmed (keep in mind that in the case of Reagan and Bush the 1st, Democrats are in control of the Senate for the entire time, further emphasizing their fair-play credentials in this argument).
Clinton: Both Justices confirmed, both taking place very early in his first-term.
George W. Bush: Two appointments. The only hiccup is that he tries to make a nepotistic pick of his Texas friend Harriet Miers, which was killed by Republicans who didn't trust her on abortion. Roberts and Alito were easily confirmed.
Obama: Gets his first two picks, but then Scalia dies. There is a full-year left on the 4-year term the American people (both electorally and popularly) elected him to. Obama picks the EXACT Justice Orrin Hatch said Obama should pick if he wants to reach across the aisle, Merrick Garland. Garland is refused even the courtesy of a hearing for the entire year. It is made clear that the seat is being stolen, and moreover, it is made clear by even so-called "moderate" John McCain that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, she will also not have her Justices considered, thus ushering in an entirely new policy adhered to by the Republican Party, which is so radical as to almost be laughable, which is that only Republican Presidents are legitimate and can make Supreme Court picks.
There won't need to be a Constitutional ammendment just a legislature that writes some laws. AFAIK there is nowhere in the Cibstuon that says there has to be x, y, z number of judges at this level.
This is what the Supreme Court website says: "The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred."
When hearing matters there's a quorum of 6. If lots of new Justices were appointed there would probably need to be a new set of rules about how to determine who hears a case.
Good god. So now we are finding out that Anthony Kennedy's son, Justin, is one of the people who made sure Trump got a 1 BILLION dollar loan from Deutsche Bank when American banks wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole. He was in charge of real estate capital. Trump still owes Deutsche Bank almost 200 million dollars. Deutsche Bank has absolutely been tied up in some way in the Mueller probe. If any part of Trump's reaction to the probe made it to the Supreme Court, Kennedy would have likely had to recuse himself (or at least think about doing so). Aside from EVERYTHING else, we now have to start seriously asking if whoever Trump now picks for the court is going to be personally asked by Trump to rule in favor of him in regards to any case that comes before the Supreme Court in regards to the Mueller probe. I find it inconceivable given his attempted "loyalty oath" on James Comey that Trump wouldn't make sure this was the case:
“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”
Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.
During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.
There won't need to be a Constitutional ammendment just a legislature that writes some laws. AFAIK there is nowhere in the Cibstuon that says there has to be x, y, z number of judges at this level.
This is what the Supreme Court website says: "The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred."
When hearing matters there's a quorum of 6. If lots of new Justices were appointed there would probably need to be a new set of rules about how to determine who hears a case.
Yes so not Constitution. An act of legislation passed in 1789 and later revised. So Congress can pass new laws and revise it again. No subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred - yet.
Mitch McConnell and the cheating Republicans have shown that accepted norms and civility are worthless. They rammed through their disastrous welfare for the rich tax bill without Democratic input, hearings, or anything.
As a right leaning, former politician who has appeared on Fox News recently, maybe it's to talk some sense into the American Administration. As well as being a former world leader, Harper is also well respected economist.
Although it may only have to do with Israel as he and Bolton are both part of the International Democrat Union.
Oh and for the record, the remains of those 200 Korean War dead that Trump claimed 110+ year old parents were asking him to get returned on the campaign trail?? That Trump has been repeatedly stating have ALREADY been sent back?? Hasn't happened. He lied about long dead parents talking to him about it, and he is lying now that they have already been returned. They haven't been. It HAS NOT happened. I love Pompeo's quote when asked about this. He says “We have not yet physically received them”. There is only one way that I know of to be in possession of the remains of war dead, and metaphorically is not it:
I find this entire narrative around these remains so emblematic about Trump in general. Everything about this lie is absurd on it's face. In the first place, it was literally IMPOSSIBLE for the people he said asked him about this issue during the campaign to have done so, because any hypothetical person who fit that description has probably been dead for over a decade. But beyond that, his own Secretary of State is forced to admit that we don't in fact have the remains, even though Trump is running around the country at rallies claiming that we do. Demonstrably false statements, easily debunked and dismissed by anyone who even has a foot in the door of what reality is anymore. Yet if you took a poll at a Trump rally, how many people would claim this is true?? 95%?? 99%?? And again, the shitstorm that would rain down on any Democrat who so cynically exploited Goldstar Families would be epic in scope, and even the most hardcore conservative would have to admit that.
Comments
Garofalo is a liberal actress, so NOT associated with Fox News. I think you meant Jeanine Pirro. She continues to be batshit insane. So my money is on her between the two of them.
I would say watch for any aspiring judges to start appearing om Fox.
A man identified as Jarrod Ramos, 38, who apparently had a grudge against the newspaper, has been arrested
Hannity, first minister of Republican propaganda, is trying to present this platform as a negative.
Republicans stand against seniors, Healthcare, clean environment, tolerance, and especially clean campaign finance. Gotcha.
IDF sends aid to Syrians fleeing Daraa in overnight `Good Neighbor` operation
The operation lasted “several hours,” the army said, and delivered some 300 tents, 13 tons of food, 15 tons of baby food, three pallets of medical supplies and 30 tons of clothes and shoes to the refugees.
Since the renewed attacks by pro-regime forces began earlier this month in the Daraa province, tens of thousands of Syrian civilians have been streaming to the nearby Israeli and Jordanian borders, seeking refuge.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-sends-aid-to-syrians-fleeing-daraa-in-overnight-good-neighbor-operation/
Speaking of Puerto Rico,
https://www.theepochtimes.com/puerto-rico-officials-investigated-for-corruption-during-hurricane-relief_2560097.html
"The administration of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz (D), who made headlines for her criticisms of President Donald Trump’s handling of the relief efforts, is now being investigated for alleged corruption.
According to a local news report from El Vocero de Puerto Rico, the FBI is investigating several suppliers for alleged corruption in San Juan.
It says the investigation was launched after former procurement director Yadira Molina filed a lawsuit claiming she faced punishment for reporting illegal activities to the local comptroller. The investigation has since grown to include several contractors.
“On February 21, Molina sued the city council after reporting alleged acts of corruption in the shopping division in the town hall under the administration of Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto,” the report says.
The complaint states that Molina was blocked from her right “to report wrongdoing in her capacity as a private citizen, not as a public employee.” It says she was retaliated against for reporting an allegedly rigged system and was fired for attempting to report corruption, and includes other additional claims.
There were many reports following the hurricane that U.S. supplies were trapped in the ports, with local corruption preventing proper distribution. The claims were largely dismissed by legacy news outlets as conspiracy, and were used to frame Trump’s relief efforts in a negative light. The Trump administration later bypassed local officials, and the U.S. military began delivering the goods directly.
Carlos Osorio, the FBI media representative at the San Juan field office, told The Epoch Times in October 2017 that the FBI received several complaints of alleged corruption in the distribution of relief goods, and that the FBI is required to look into criminal complaints."
Thought this was an interesting article:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-will-get-his-supreme-court-pick-and-democrats-will-get-revenge?source=articles&via=rss&yptr=yahoo
"When then-Sen. Barack Obama filibustered Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he was breaking an informal “rule” that said barring some extraordinary circumstance, a U.S. senator should vote for a nominee who was competent and qualified. The same could be said for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who triggered the nuclear option, ending the filibuster for most presidential nominations.
And, of course, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it wasn’t exactly benevolent of Mitch McConnell to refuse to consider any Obama Supreme Court nominee before the 2016 presidential election (although, just as Obama’s decision to filibuster Alito probably helped his career, McConnell’s maneuver was most certainly a shrewd political move).
Democrats understandably feel cheated and aggrieved. It is one thing not to have Merrick Garland seated, but it’s another to win the popular vote and then watch two conservative Supreme Court justices be put on the Court. If the roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt that McConnell and others would be saying, “Well, it’s all about power. and they are playing the game to the best that they are able.'”
When the ends always justify the means, then the means become more and more egregious in the service of the ends. The most common retort when this is pointed out is: well, what about Robert Bork? And that’s all well and good. Maybe Democrats should rethink the way they handled that nomination.
And maybe Harry Reid should rethink why he did away with the filibuster. But at some point, this game of one-upmanship, turned mutually assured destruction, becomes unsustainable. “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned when Reid went nuclear. Well, that works both ways.
What (aside from a desire to put country ahead of party) is stopping the next Democratic president with a Democratic Senate majority—say, Elizabeth Warren—from simply packing the Supreme Court? There’s nothing written in stone that says there has to be nine Supreme Court justices any more than there is anything saying you need 60 votes to confirm a judge, or that the Senate should have to vote on—or even consider—a president’s high court nominee.
Granted, after Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court in 1937, the blowback served to chasten future presidents. But so many of our World War II assumptions have recently been questioned with impunity. Why not this one? This is something that all Americans, but especially conservatives, should worry about.
In their terrific book Why Democracies Die, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt talk a lot about something called “forbearance” (which, depending on your translation, is one of the “fruits of the Spirit”) that is necessary for the survival of liberal democracy. “What it takes for those institutions to work properly,” Levitsky told NPR back in January, “is restraint on the part of politicians. Politicians have to underutilize their power. And most of our politicians, most of our leaders have done exactly that. That's not written down in the Constitution.”
But in today’s world, that’s all out the window. As Miguel Estrada and Benjamin Wittes observe in The Washington Post, “The only rule that governs the confirmation process is the law of the jungle: There are no rules. There is no point in pretending otherwise, as much as many of us wish it were not so.”
Now, I am not suggesting that Donald Trump should wait until after the midterms to nominate a replacement—or that he should nominate a moderate or a liberal. Quite the contrary, I’m remarking on the fact that we have arrived at a point where—because of the high stakes and past transgressions—the normal and appropriate exercise of power is still seen by half of the country as an outrage.
Think of it. There’s nothing wrong with Justice Kennedy deciding to retire, and there’s nothing wrong with President Trump nominating a conservative to replace him. Really, on the merits, this development shouldn’t be generating so much angst. As Philip Bump notes, whoever replaces Kennedy—almost certainly a staunch conservative—would have voted the same way Kennedy did this term on the vast majority of cases.
Nevertheless, replacing Justice Kennedy will come with a cost. Things are about to get even uglier. The understandable reaction of Democrats will be to seek vengeance. This is a vicious cycle, and there’s no telling where (or if) it will end.
The presidency of Donald Trump has tested our institutions, but when it comes to how we treat Supreme Court nominations, these norms were eroding long before Trump descended that escalator. Both sides want to win this race to the bottom."
As for the filibuster rule, almost no one is even making that argument. The anger on the left has nothing to do with the filibuster. The anger is that a Supreme Court vacancy was STOLEN from a duly-elected President, purposefully held hostage for a year, and then handed off to the next President. Everyone who voted for Barack Obama was cheated out of that pick.
Rethink Robert Bork?? Let me go over that one one more time. Robert Bork is the man Nixon FINALLY found to fire Archibald Cox in an attempt to stop the Watergate Investigation after I believe two people in front of him in the chain of command resigned rather than do so. Robert Bork was an accessory to an attempt to totally destroy the rule of law in this country. There is NO valid comparison to be made here with Robert Bork. Bork was afforded a hearing, and he was defeated. Hell, 6 Republicans voted against Bork. Reagan then got to name another nominee (which happened to be Anthony Kennedy) who was promptly confirmed.
The only thing here that I agree with (and in Matt Lewis' case he is saying it as a warning) is that I DO think Democrats should try pack the court when they get power again. They won't, but they sure as hell should. This entire article is an attempt to "both sides" an issue that has no other side. What happened in regards to Mitch McConnell and Barack Obama's pick to fill a Supreme Court vacancy is utterly unique not just in modern political history, but ALL political history of the United States.
If Merrick Garland (who was by the Republican's own definition a moderate, middle of the road choice) had been afforded a hearing and/or confirmed, this entire discussion wouldn't even be taking place. We would be hearing those of us on the left offering the same objections we had to Roberts and Alito during the Bush Administration, and then the pick would be confirmed because just like back then, there was no serious or viable way to keep them off the court. It would be business as usual. That is not what happened, and I'm not going to sit here and ever PRETEND it is what happened. Presidents make Supreme Court picks and the Senate votes on them. The Senate Majority Leader simply choose to completely refuse to participate in the process, thus robbing a duly-elected President of his constitutionally guaranteed and mandated power of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. If there was even a single other instance of this ever happening, we could take articles like this seriously, but we can't because there isn't.
No, packing the Court is just wishful thinking.
For it to work as envisaged in the constitution, Justices should not be affiliated to parties. There always have been sides on the Supreme Court to some degree, but that division has become increasingly apparent in recent years - packing the Court would make it so obvious that I don't think the SCOTUS could any longer perform its current constitutional role. The make-up of the Supreme Court is specifically left to Congress under the constitution, so SCOTUS trying to prevent that would just itself provoke a crisis.
Of course a crisis would not necessarily be a bad thing. As far as the Democrats are concerned, preventing SCOTUS from entrenching conservative opinions into the law for a generation would be a major gain. As far as Trump is concerned (if he's still around) he might be quite happy to see chaos in one of the least changed institutions from the original constitution. And as far as the American people are concerned such a major change could allow a rethink of how the wider system of governing works.
There would no doubt be plenty of members of Congress who would be upset by the idea of a constitutional crisis. That could be because they believe the constitution should never undergo change, or just because they don't want to risk losing their current privileged positions. A crisis of some sort in the next few years seems increasingly probable though given the range of current pressures. Off the top of my head, apart from the Supreme Court issue, there's the possible extension in use of Presidential pardons, the involvement (or not) of Congress in making and breaking international agreements, the increasing use of the simple majority in Congress, the failure to fill government posts, the fighting between executive and departments and I'm sure lots of other things - all in a climate of increasing partisanship.
There won't need to be a Constitutional ammendment just a legislature that writes some laws. AFAIK there is nowhere in the Cibstuon that says there has to be x, y, z number of judges at this level.
Street rules, Mitch McConnell, the entire republican party and Donald Trump have been cheating us. Gerrymandering states so that we can't win the House unless we win +7 points overall. Unprecedented obstruction during Obama. The constant lying and misinformation from Republican politicians - mischaracterizations and making up things from thin air.
"Compromise bills" are compromised solely by Republicans - not even attempt to include Democrats. Republicans are representing a small minority of voters (really corporations) and they are suppressing and ignoring the vast majority of Americans at their peril.
What happened was that Scalia was a right-wing icon on the court. And conservatives viewed it as "their" seat. Thurgood Marshall was a liberal hero as well, but it wasn't HIS seat. His seat went to Clarence Thomas, who was the exact opposite of Marshall ideologically. Democrats controlled the Senate then. They could have done the same thing if they had wanted to. Thomas had a rough confirmation because of Anita Hill's plausible (far more plausible in retrospect) allegations, but it did not stop him from being put on the court. Again, I have only followed the history of confirmations since the Reagan Administration, but the history is pretty damn clear:
Reagan: Got 4 appointments, allowing him to shape the court basically up til this moment. Bork was the only one defeated after a full hearing. Kennedy replaced him and sailed through.
George H. W. Bush: Two appointments both confirmed (keep in mind that in the case of Reagan and Bush the 1st, Democrats are in control of the Senate for the entire time, further emphasizing their fair-play credentials in this argument).
Clinton: Both Justices confirmed, both taking place very early in his first-term.
George W. Bush: Two appointments. The only hiccup is that he tries to make a nepotistic pick of his Texas friend Harriet Miers, which was killed by Republicans who didn't trust her on abortion. Roberts and Alito were easily confirmed.
Obama: Gets his first two picks, but then Scalia dies. There is a full-year left on the 4-year term the American people (both electorally and popularly) elected him to. Obama picks the EXACT Justice Orrin Hatch said Obama should pick if he wants to reach across the aisle, Merrick Garland. Garland is refused even the courtesy of a hearing for the entire year. It is made clear that the seat is being stolen, and moreover, it is made clear by even so-called "moderate" John McCain that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, she will also not have her Justices considered, thus ushering in an entirely new policy adhered to by the Republican Party, which is so radical as to almost be laughable, which is that only Republican Presidents are legitimate and can make Supreme Court picks.
"The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred."
When hearing matters there's a quorum of 6. If lots of new Justices were appointed there would probably need to be a new set of rules about how to determine who hears a case.
“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”
Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.
During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.
This game is rigged.
Mitch McConnell and the cheating Republicans have shown that accepted norms and civility are worthless. They rammed through their disastrous welfare for the rich tax bill without Democratic input, hearings, or anything.
What he's doing there has been kept secret even from the Canadian government.
As a right leaning, former politician who has appeared on Fox News recently, maybe it's to talk some sense into the American Administration. As well as being a former world leader, Harper is also well respected economist.
Although it may only have to do with Israel as he and Bolton are both part of the International Democrat Union.
Gee wiz. Huh. That took, what, 20 days??
He loves his people, though!
http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-still-has-not-returned-us-soldiers-remains-says-pompeo-1000928
I find this entire narrative around these remains so emblematic about Trump in general. Everything about this lie is absurd on it's face. In the first place, it was literally IMPOSSIBLE for the people he said asked him about this issue during the campaign to have done so, because any hypothetical person who fit that description has probably been dead for over a decade. But beyond that, his own Secretary of State is forced to admit that we don't in fact have the remains, even though Trump is running around the country at rallies claiming that we do. Demonstrably false statements, easily debunked and dismissed by anyone who even has a foot in the door of what reality is anymore. Yet if you took a poll at a Trump rally, how many people would claim this is true?? 95%?? 99%?? And again, the shitstorm that would rain down on any Democrat who so cynically exploited Goldstar Families would be epic in scope, and even the most hardcore conservative would have to admit that.