|
Replies: 16
| visibility 497
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Question of the day: If Trump gets this USSC Justice
Sep 20, 2020, 10:27 PM
|
|
appointed radically changing the dynamic of the highest court in the land, does the Republican party dump him?
They will have a conservative court for the next generation. Many Trump supporters said they deal with his #### because of his court appointments.
Do they now dump him once the courts get stacked?
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [8984]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9785
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: Question of the day: If Trump gets this USSC Justice
Sep 20, 2020, 10:31 PM
|
|
nope
https://youtu.be/JdKI1wj-JpI
Message was edited by: ClemsonRangers®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I reject your premise that Trump appointees are...
Sep 20, 2020, 10:36 PM
|
|
stacking the courts. As explained previously, the best the right can do is appoint justices which support that the law stands as written. Therefor, SCOTUS justices appointed by Trump and the right will uphold the law not rewrite it as the lefist have over the past 40 years.
To do otherwise would violate our position that it is immoral to have political activist like RBG on the courts. I do not long for right wing activist judges but rather will be satisfied with those who uphold the law in letter and in spirit.
You are correct, judges who uphold the law in letter and spirit will radically change the highest court in the land just as those who have seen seated on federal benches have radically changed those courts.
I do not, 'deal with Trump,' I give him my full support on taxation, military strength, foreign affairs, immigration and his firm defense of the law as written. You will find out in Nov how many Americans join me in this position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80157
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Name some laws the SC has rewritten in the last 40 years.***
Sep 20, 2020, 11:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Please.
Sep 21, 2020, 1:53 AM
|
|
Obama EO DACA status but Trump EO couldn't undo it. That's political activism anyway you shake it.
Mostly the SCOTUS has, over the last 40+ years found things in the constitution which do not exist. A separation of church and state, for instance. It's not in the constitution but as sure as some Christian community puts up a nativity scene people will start crying about separation of church and state.
The constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion but that's what the courts say now. It wasn't law until the courts made it law. It's not one of my sticking points it's just as example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11639]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9796
Joined: 5/17/02
|
What ‘radically’ changes?
Sep 20, 2020, 10:37 PM
|
|
Has the ‘conservative’ court everyone feared not ruled how most people wanted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: What ‘radically’ changes?
Sep 20, 2020, 10:55 PM
|
|
Political activism dies out as conservative judges replace the activist seated by the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
to this point it has been conservative with condervative...
Sep 20, 2020, 11:24 PM
|
|
this is the first liberal with conservative. This why this one is going to be a fight.
Don't call that stacking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15749]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17372
Joined: 2/1/99
|
What do you mean by “dump” him?
Sep 20, 2020, 11:43 PM
|
|
I’m not sure who these many Trump supporters are that you have this intel on. I’ve never heard anyone say that personally. Perhaps some have said it is a critical reason to keep voting for him? That’s not why I support him so no, I won’t be dumping him if he gets his S.C. candidate appointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Question of the day: If Trump gets this USSC Justice
Sep 21, 2020, 12:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40933]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42953
Joined: 11/30/98
|
she was 100% sure that Hilary was going to be elected
Sep 21, 2020, 6:09 AM
|
|
just like all left wing wackos
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Question of the day: If Trump gets this USSC Justice
Sep 21, 2020, 6:06 AM
|
|
Obviously not. They will get a couple more in his next term too possibly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40933]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42953
Joined: 11/30/98
|
yep, we want in on the violence and looting
Sep 21, 2020, 6:08 AM
|
|
conservatives like free stuff too
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5395
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I think the more intelligent question is "why is there
Sep 21, 2020, 7:28 AM
|
|
always such a fight in Congress when appointing any Federal judge?"
The unfortunate answer is that Congress has learned that the Federal judiciary is the least constrained, most powerful branch of Government where a Federal Judge is ultimately more powerful than any elected Congressmen or President. We have gotten to the point where a single, unelected (therefore unaccountable) Federal Judge can strike down any law or Presidential executive order brought into their courtroom and even issue nationwide injunctions that go far beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the case before them. Furthermore, activist judges routinely use a case ruling in such a way as to change the original intent of a law and/or create new rules and requirements that were never written into the original law.
As I have stated elsewhere - the Federal Judiciary has become a serious problem in our Constitutional Republic. There is literally no "practical" check or balance to the Judiciary's power. The only practical checks are higher levels of the Judiciary. Once the Supreme Court hands out a decision there really is no Executive or Legislative recourse to that decision short of a Constitutional Amendment. At some point this has to be addressed as it was never intended for select, unelected robe wearing lawyers to be able to overturn the will of the people as expressed through their elected officials.
I think Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments" proposal of limiting Judges to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies would go a long way to restoring a proper balance to the Federal Judiciary. But again - that would require a Constitutional amendment...
To answer the OP's original question - No. Anyone who was going to abandon President Trump has already done so. If anything, appointing another Judge will further cement his support among conservatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11685
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I think the more intelligent question is "why is there
Sep 21, 2020, 8:39 AM
|
|
Totally agree.
This shouldn't be such a partisan deal, but the Court - thanks to liberal activism, unfortunately - drastically increased its mandate and scope over the years and is now out of control. On November 10 they meet about the ACA, for instance...and with a 6-3 majority will likely strike it down. And potentially leave tens of millions of Americans without insurance in the middle of a freaking pandemic.
That's insane, no matter which side you're on.
The left is getting its comeuppance and then some, because the Federalists have successfully been shoehorning far-right-wingers onto the bench for awhile now...who are as activist conservatively as the liberal activists ever were, and are not just strict-constructionists any more who take a "letter of the law must be honored and obeyed" approach to the bench.
We get a 6-3 majority with at least three Federalists under Trump to go with Alito and Thomas, and they'll pretty much find any law a Democrat Congress has passed or will for the foreseeable future unconstitutional.
Which means the left is going to pack the court, and the cycle escalates again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5395
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Just spotted an example this morning of a Federal Judge
Sep 22, 2020, 8:10 AM
|
|
making an arbitrary change to a law. In Wisconsin, Federal Judge William Conley has now extended absentee ballot acceptance to six days after the election. The Wisconsin law requires all absentee ballots to be submitted and arrived by 8:00 PM on election day. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with allowing ballots to arrive up to six days later - what gives Judge Conley the authority to change the statute as written and approved by the State Legislature? Where does he derive that authority?
The fact is that Judge Conley just made a de-facto change in the law bypassing the peoples Representatives of Wisconsin. His decision should have been that the Wisconsin absentee ballot requirement is either constitutional or unconstitutional and that is it. If he deemed the current law's deadline for absentee ballots is unconstitutional then write an opinion stating why and the issue gets passed back to the Wisconsin legislature for adjudication/correction. But no - Judge Conley just decided he had the authority to make a change to the law and pick some arbitrary amount of time beyond the established deadline in Wisconsin law and extend absentee ballot collection.
This happens all the time with Federal judges and has gotten so out of control that we all just accept that judges make laws for us now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 497
|
|
|
50
