Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The scariest thing...

124

Comments

  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,585 Founders Club
    Houhusky said:

    Good point the constitution does say if legislation is popular enough it’s automatically constitutional.
    The John Roberts rule
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 65,591 Founders Club
    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,585 Founders Club

    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.

    Fuck off















    Don't gulag me!
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 65,591 Founders Club

    Fuck off















    Don't gulag me!

  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,648 Founders Club

    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.

    I am known in some circles for starting solid threads. I am known for that.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:


    Some have termed regarding the concerns of others with whom one does not share circumstances, enlightened.
  • GoduckiesGoduckies Member Posts: 7,249
    HHusky said:


    Yet he said he would get rid of the tax costs he didn't say replace getting rid is a tax raise on everyone
  • RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,527

    If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?

    Of course not

    We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,585 Founders Club
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,585 Founders Club
    RedRocket said:

    We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
    Has been forever friend
  • RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,527
    Houhusky said:

    Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.

    No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...

    JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...

    Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
    So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.

    The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.

    Thanks for the list of books.
  • RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,527

    Has been forever friend
    Well you were there when the Judiciary Act was established but I'm told that it used to not be unheard of for a Republican/Democratic president to nominate a liberal/conservative leaning justice.
  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 16,287 Standard Supporter
    So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? Forever, as both sides had done previously with judicial appointments. The Constitutional requirement is that the Senate has to affirmatively consent to the Presidential appointment. That's it. They can affirmatively consent or not affirmatively consent. There is no requirement for a vote or a hearing.

  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,585 Founders Club
    RedRocket said:

    Well you were there when the Judiciary Act was established but I'm told that it used to not be unheard of for a Republican/Democratic president to nominate a liberal/conservative leaning justice.
    Ike nominated the most liberal justice of our lifetime. Didn't want to but got Robertsed

    Not sure there is an equivalent
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 22,353

    Some have termed regarding the concerns of others with whom one does not share circumstances, enlightened.
    Thank you for your concern.

    But I'll be fine.
  • LebamDawgLebamDawg Member Posts: 8,763 Standard Supporter
    On the statehood issue - for DC to become a state, I am pretty sure that a constitutional amendment is required. The District of Columbia is in the constitution.

    of course, I could be wrong
  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 16,287 Standard Supporter
    LebamDawg said:

    On the statehood issue - for DC to become a state, I am pretty sure that a constitutional amendment is required. The District of Columbia is in the constitution.

    of course, I could be wrong

    Dems would just carve out the Capitol area and White House, Supreme Court building. That would be the new DC. The rest would be the new state.
Sign In or Register to comment.