America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 years ago by DrafterX. 118 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Supreme Court nomination
rfenst Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
HockeyDad wrote:
...and so it begins!

It began when Desantis surprisingly appointed her to the Florida Supreme Court. She was not qualified then and certainly does not have the experience to qualify now.
rfenst Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
delta1 wrote:
so why didn't they in 2016?


if the GOP pushes through a Trump SCOTUS nominee now, after ignoring a legitimate nominee in 2016...


prepare for a 13 member SCOTUS...

Increasing the number of SCOTUS Justices won't get rid of this problem.
ZRX1200 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
LMAO.....the new company line.

What other highly constitutionalist tried that? Another bastion of progressivism.
RayR Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
nitro6526 wrote:
Court packing has been floated for years. Increase to 15 SCOTUS justices to make the court more liberal.


The authoritarian socialists just keep regurgitating old schemes to put the final nails in the coffin of the republic so they can erect their Utopian democracy.
That phrase "court packing" sounds so nasty and radical that it turns off many Americans, so NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss has an idea, they should call it "court reform" instead. Sounds so warm and fuzzy in comparison doesn't it? So many dufus Americans view the word "reform" as being analogous to improving, progressing, justice even! That's pull the wool over their eyes!

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2020/09/20/nbc-historian-tells-leftists-how-sell-court-packing-scheme
Smooth light Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Didn't have the votes to confirm , so why bother back then.

Vote against is political suicide for the Republicans.

HockeyDad Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
rfenst wrote:
It began when Desantis surprisingly appointed her to the Florida Supreme Court. She was not qualified then and certainly does not have the experience to qualify now.


So now the Democrats don’t like an affirmative action hire?!
ZRX1200 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
Apparently
MACS Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
"Just so we're all clear here, the Constitution gives the President absolute power to "nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...appoint Judges of the Supreme Court" regardless of when the next election is.

"But Merrick Garland!" is not actually a valid argument. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to "advise and consent." It did not consent to Garland's nomination, so Garland did not get a vote.

The Senate back then followed the so-called "Biden Rule"--named for, ironically enough, Joe Biden, who in 1992 said that when a vacancy arises in an election year and the White House and Senate are CONTROLLED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES, then the vacancy should not be filled until after the election so the people essentially have the final say.

Here, Republicans control both the Presidency and the Senate, so the Biden Rule does not apply as it did when Antonin Scalia died in 2016.

There is no valid argument--Constitutional, legal, moral, or otherwise--for not filling this Supreme Court vacancy immediately. Whether it is politically wise is open to debate, but it is absolutely lawful and proper to do so."
-Dan O Donnell (WISN Milwaukee, WI)

Well... isn't THAT interesting?
Smooth light Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
How about Candi B. We all could go for some WAP. 💅
rfenst Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
MACS wrote:
"Just so we're all clear here, the Constitution gives the President absolute power to "nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...appoint Judges of the Supreme Court" regardless of when the next election is.

"But Merrick Garland!" is not actually a valid argument. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to "advise and consent." It did not consent to Garland's nomination, so Garland did not get a vote.

The Senate back then followed the so-called "Biden Rule"--named for, ironically enough, Joe Biden, who in 1992 said that when a vacancy arises in an election year and the White House and Senate are CONTROLLED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES, then the vacancy should not be filled until after the election so the people essentially have the final say.

Here, Republicans control both the Presidency and the Senate, so the Biden Rule does not apply as it did when Antonin Scalia died in 2016.

There is no valid argument--Constitutional, legal, moral, or otherwise--for not filling this Supreme Court vacancy immediately. Whether it is politically wise is open to debate, but it is absolutely lawful and proper to do so."
-Dan O Donnell (WISN Milwaukee, WI)

Well... isn't THAT interesting?

Yes.
Smooth light Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Yes indeed.
DrafterX Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
I heard Jerry Springer is at the top of Biden's list... Mellow
Smooth light Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
VP for Candi B sensational.
gummy jones Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
frankj1 wrote:
It would be the fair thing to do.
Proud to know ya.


Herfing
Smooth light Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Fair,who said politics are fair. Get off the 🎡 you don't have a 🎟️.
MACS Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egc936_Wk_M

Skip to the 6 minute mark and listen to Joe Biden in 1992. McConnell did, in 2016, exactly what Joe Biden recommended in 1992... Yeah, the same Joe who is the democrat nominee in 2020. Sooooo... what's the deal, Joe?

Then skip to 8:05 and see what he says later... 1992, don't do it... 2016, do it... now... don't do it.

God, I love that everything is videotaped now. Democrats are flaming f---ing hypocrites.
frankj1 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
amazing how dems own hypocrisy

check Graham just two years ago...not 1992.
MACS Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
frankj1 wrote:
amazing how dems own hypocrisy

check Graham just two years ago...not 1992.


Little "what-about-ism" there, Frankie-T.

I never claimed the dems owned hypocrisy... Nothing more to say about it other than "But Lindsey Graham?"

S'awright, bruddah... we both know if the roles were reversed (like they were in 2016) dems would do the exact same thing. We wouldn't be speaking of it if Harry Reid hadn't changed things... the reps told him it would come back to bite him directly in the buttocks.


It did.
Smooth light Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Tit to tat,where's my battle ax, got to cut down the hypocrisy tree, again.

Ho ho ho Green Giant🌄.
DrafterX Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
Liberal media owns hypocrisy right now... Mellow
MACS Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
DrafterX wrote:
Liberal media owns hypocrisy right now... Mellow

True... true... Mellow
tonygraz Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,173
Did they buy it from trump or moscow mitch ?
delta1 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
the "same party" argument to distinguish this case from Obama's nomination is ridiculous...every divided party nomination to the SCOTUS before then was considered, regardless of which party controlled the Senate and which party controlled the WH...only a few were deliberated upon and voted down...the vast majority were approved...

McConnell made something up, and decided not to even consider the nominee...established a precedent...which used to mean something in the "world's greatest deliberative body"...

this just exposes the lack of integrity and honor while illustrating the deceit among the GOP leadership...



here's an article that shows the history of SCOTUS nominations

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10458.pdf
HockeyDad Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Ginsburg should have retired during Obama’s administration but she wanted to have her replacement appointed by President Hillary and that didn’t work out. Then she tried to outlast President Trump and that didn’t work.

The unhappy position the Democrats are in right now is all her fault.
delta1 Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
they shoulda kept her on a ventilator and tubes for another month...she prolly woulda said yes...
HockeyDad Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
delta1 wrote:
they shoulda kept her on a ventilator and tubes for another month...she prolly woulda said yes...


That’s what I would have done. Like ****** Cheney when he was VP had that Darth Vader mask to keep him going.
DrafterX Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
Hillary is still messing stuff up..... Not talking
frankj1 Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
MACS wrote:
Little "what-about-ism" there, Frankie-T.

I never claimed the dems owned hypocrisy... Nothing more to say about it other than "But Lindsey Graham?"

S'awright, bruddah... we both know if the roles were reversed (like they were in 2016) dems would do the exact same thing. We wouldn't be speaking of it if Harry Reid hadn't changed things... the reps told him it would come back to bite him directly in the buttocks.


It did.


I didn't say GOP owned it either, was spreading it out to both sides cuz I made assumptions from this:

MAcS wrote
God, I love that everything is videotaped now. Democrats are flaming f---ing hypocrites.


as usual, we good.

in addition, I am actually of the opinion that it is legal for Trump or other Presidents to to pick candidates in the last year of his/her term, but as when I agreed with Gummy, it no longer seems fair.
ZRX1200 Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
Nobody said they can’t.

The Senates role is to advise and consent, 29 times a nominee has been named with an apposing senate and twice THATS gone through. The Garland #OUTRAGE was brought to you by a sycophant media carrying water.

delta1 Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
ZRX1200 wrote:
Nobody said they can’t.

The Senates role is to advise and consent, 29 times a nominee has been named with an apposing senate and twice THATS gone through. The Garland #OUTRAGE was brought to you by a sycophant media carrying water.



no hard fast rules for the Senate to "advise and consent" to a SCOTUS nominee...

used to be precedent, past practice/not past talk, would be a factor...

now it's a free for all, and the American people can have a voice on election day

ZRX1200 Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
“The 2018 midterms will be a referendum on the handling of the SC nomination process”

Even that got scrubbed 🤣🤣🤣
Smooth light Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
When did"advise and consent"turn into prosecute, harassment, and then destroy.
We already did by past elections,it's called representative government.

Get over it and quit whining 😭.
frankj1 Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
Nobody said they can’t.

The Senates role is to advise and consent, 29 times a nominee has been named with an apposing senate and twice THATS gone through. The Garland #OUTRAGE was brought to you by a sycophant media carrying water.



I don't think it's been 29 times with opposing senate, if I read below correctly its been 29 times a candidate was chosen in an election year...and most were confirmed.

But not after July, mostly due to the Senate's vacations, traditionally.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-why-no-justice-has-beenconfirmed-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/

a couple of interesting tidbits to read.
DrafterX Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland's qualifications, her answer was immediate.

"That's their job," she said. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."

RBG.....
delta1 Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
OK then, why didn't they? the Senate, led by McConnell, refused to even consider the nomination in 2016...

if that was the right thing to do then, why isn't it the right thing to do now?
HockeyDad Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
delta1 wrote:
OK then, why didn't they? the Senate, led by McConnell, refused to even consider the nomination in 2016...

if that was the right thing to do then, why isn't it the right thing to do now?


Obama prolly filled the forms out incorrectly.
delta1 Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
d'oh!

Herfing Beer
frankj1 Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
delta1 wrote:
OK then, why didn't they? the Senate, led by McConnell, refused to even consider the nomination in 2016...

if that was the right thing to do then, why isn't it the right thing to do now?

oh that?
that was political, not the Constitution.

Why did McConnell, Graham and several others do the opposite now is more interesting...but still not about law.
Smooth light Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Who's interpretation of the law.

Like I said,DEMS didn't have the votes.

Now they do so stop whining 😅.
rfenst Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
OPINION

Biden and the Supreme Court
He refuses to say if he’d go along with his party’s court-packing scheme.

By The Editorial Board
WSJ

‘The voters of this country should be heard,” Joe Biden said this weekend as he exhorted Senate Republicans to block a vote on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. That might be clever messaging—who doesn’t want voters to be heard? But there’s one problem: Unlike Mr. Trump and Senate Republicans, Mr. Biden has given so few details about his Supreme Court vision that voters are left guessing at what a vote for him means for the judiciary.

Start with appointments. Mr. Biden has resisted naming individuals he’d consider for the Supreme Court, saying it would subject them to undue criticism. Fair enough—Mr. Trump’s practice of making his short-list public is not required of other candidates. But the absence of specifics raises a fair suspicion that he doesn’t want voters to know that his nominees would be well left of center.

Mr. Biden’s chief stated requirement for a Supreme Court appointee is based on race and gender, not judicial philosophy or qualifications. His website says he would appoint the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court. That’s his prerogative, but it doesn’t help voters concerned about the impact of the Court on their lives; race and gender are not a proxy for views of the law.

Given those requirements, legal observers have speculated that two women top his list: 44-year-old Justice Leondra Kruger of the California Supreme Court and 50-year-old federal district court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom President Obama reportedly vetted for Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Both have significant records, but by avoiding names Mr. Biden can please his base with race and gender symbolism and avoid a debate on the law.

Perhaps more important to voters is whether Mr. Biden would undermine the Court’s independence. The Supreme Court remains one of the more trusted American institutions, but Democrats in Congress are threatening to pack it with liberal Justices if the Senate confirms Mr. Trump’s nominee. “Nothing is off the table,” Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said this weekend.

Legislation expanding the Supreme Court would need Mr. Biden’s signature, and he was asked Monday by a Wisconsin news station whether he was open to it. His answer: “It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question. Because it will shift the whole focus, that’s what [Trump] wants.” This is a calculated political dodge, and moderator Chris Wallace shouldn’t let Mr. Biden get away with it in next week’s first presidential debate. Would he veto court-packing legislation?

Mr. Biden wants to run on Donald Trump’s character and the coronavirus, full stop. He also wants to duck his party’s court-packing threats because they aren’t popular. Data for Progress, a progressive polling group, found only 40% of voters favor packing the Court if Republicans confirm Mr. Trump’s nominee.

But Mr. Biden has given little reason to think he’d resist his left flank in office. From his economic plan issued with the Bernie Sanders team to his increasingly extreme climate-change rhetoric, and new openness to eliminating the Senate’s legislative filibuster, Mr. Biden has shown little willingness—or ability—to shape the Democratic Party in his image. If the Justices rule the way Democrats don’t like, the pressure would be overwhelming for Mr. Biden to go along with court packing.

***
So let’s review the way both sides are honoring the voters who Democrats say should decide the next Court seat. In 2016 President Trump ran on the courts, becoming the first candidate to release a list of potential Justices. In 2018 voters increased the GOP’s Senate majority in part because they disliked the Democratic smearing of Brett Kavanaugh. Now Mr. Trump is putting forward a new nominee, for which he can be accountable on Nov. 3.

Mr. Biden, in the name of letting voters be “heard,” is demanding that Republicans surrender and not confirm a new Justice. But he has given voters no idea of who he would appoint to the Court, beyond an identity politics pledge. And he won’t tell voters if he’d resist his party’s court-packing scheme that could blow up its legitimacy.

The integrity of the Supreme Court and judicial independence are on the ballot, and Mr. Biden has a duty to clarify his position if he really wants to give voters a chance to be heard.
Smooth light Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
integrity of the representatives running for office is on the ballot,not the Supreme Court and judicial Independence.

Nancy said" pass it then read it" , vote for us and then we'll tell you what were going do
(blind faith)🥤 cool-aid.
rfenst Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
Lagoa’s rise showcases Federalist Society’s sway

It’s a box aspiring judges need to check more than ever if they want to get ahead in Florida’s present political climate — membership in the libertarian-minded Federalist Society.

Miami-born Judge Barbara Lagoa’s affiliation with the conservative legal group helped her land on President Donald Trump’s short list for the open Supreme Court seat.

Her fast rise from a mid-level state judge to a potential Supreme Court pick is another example of how influential the Federalist Society has become. It’s a group that many Floridians have heard of only in passing, if at all, but it has played a starring role in a judicial transformation that could have big ramifications for the environment, abortion rights and health care for years to come.

The Federalist Society holds immense influence on the nation’s highest court. Five U.S. Supreme Court justices have Federalist Society ties. Leonard Leo, the former executive vice president of the Federalist Society, played a key role in securing the appointments of justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the high court.

“Trump has basically subcontracted the selection of federal judges to the Federalist Society,” said Michael Avery, who co-authored the book “The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back From Liberals.”

“No other interest group in our country’s history has ever had that level of influence over the Supreme Court and therefore American law,” he added.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, another leading contender on Trump’s Supreme Court list, has been a member of the Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society’s influence is found at the state level, too. Last year, Lagoa and four other state Supreme Court justices landed on the invite list for a cocktail and dessert reception during the Federalist Society’s Florida state conference at Walt Disney World. A majority of the seven-member state Supreme Court was scheduled to attend the reception and fireworks display at an exclusive members-only club at Epcot.

Born during the Reagan revolution

A group of conservative students at Yale Law School and the University of Chicago Law School started the Federalist Society in 1982.

The group’s mission: Offset what they considered to be a liberal bias in the nation’s courtrooms and law schools. Landmark decisions on abortion rights, civil rights and other social issues had led to criticism from conservatives that activist judges were writing laws instead of strictly interpreting the original intent of the law.

The Federalist Society has flourished since its founding. The group has chapters at law schools across the country, bountiful financial support from conservative donors, and a powerful network of members at all levels of the judicial system.

Five Supreme Court justices have been identified as having ties to the Federalist Society: Trump appointees Kavanuagh and Gorsuch, along with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts has said he has no recollection of being a member, but his name appeared in the group’s 1997-98 leadership directory, the Washington Post reported.

Charlton Copeland, a constitutional law professor, sees the Federalist Society at work at the University of Miami School of Law. The group is the most active and best-funded legal group on campus, hosting debates and other events for law students.

Copeland said he’s participated in Federalist Society debates, challenging some of their views on the law.
“They are almost like Jehovah’s Witnesses," he said. "There is a proselytized kindness. They invite you to their events. They want you to come.”

The American Constitution Society provides an alternative for liberal law students, but it doesn’t have the funding or the influence that the Federalist Society wields, Copeland said.

Federalist Society members are predominantly white men, Copeland said, but South Florida’s chapters do include members from some of the area’s diverse communities.

Lagoa is Cuban-American. DeSantis this year tried to install Renatha Francis, a Caribbean-American member of the Federalist Society, on the Florida Supreme Court. Ultimately, she was blocked from being seated because she didn’t meet the constitutional requirements of the job. Francis, a Palm Beach County circuit judge, was a few months shy of the required 10 years of legal experience when she was appointed.

Lagoa, 52, who grew up in Hialeah the daughter of Cuban exiles, joined the Federalist Society in 1998. The group’s debates and events sparked her interest, Lagoa wrote in her written answer to questions from U.S. senators.
Lagoa is married to Paul Huck Jr., an attorney who former state Rep. José Félix Díaz described as the “godfather of the Federalist Society in Miami” in an interview with The Washington Post.

During her formative years, Lagoa worked in private legal practice, as a federal prosecutor and then spent 13 years as a judge on the state appeals court.

The election of Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2018 catapulted her from a mid-level state judge to a contender to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon.

Lagoa’s judicial philosophy aligns closely with DeSantis' views.

DeSantis was a member of the Federalist Society when he was a student at Harvard Law. All six of the state Supreme Court selections he has made as governor have ties to the group.
Remaking Florida’s court

DeSantis appointed Lagoa and two other judges to the state Supreme Court in January 2019 when he became governor, fulfilling a campaign promise to shift the court to the right.

During the vetting process, Leo, the Federalist Society’s executive vice president, flew to Orlando to interview Lagoa and other finalists. Lagoa spent less than a year on the state Supreme Court before Trump appointed her to serve on the federal appeals court. Trump also appointed another DeSantis Supreme Court pick and Federalist Society member — 41-year-old Robert Luck Jr. — to the federal bench.

Democratic senators pressed Lagoa on her ties to the Federalist Society during the confirmation process. U.S. Sen. ****** Durbin of Illinois inquired whether Federalist Society donors or others with business before the state Supreme Court had attended the VIP reception at Epcot.

Lagoa wrote in her written response that business wasn’t on the reception’s agenda.

“To the best of my recollection, I spent most of my time at the dessert reception speaking with lawyers and other judges, as well as their children, about non-legal matters (e.g., our children, our day on the rides at other theme parks at Walt Disney World),” she wrote. “I do not know if any of the people I spoke with were donors to the Federalist Society, nor do I know who the donors to the Federalist Society are.”

The concerns didn’t derail her confirmation. She sailed through with an 80-15 bipartisan vote.

The Federalist Society’s influence has reached a new pinnacle with DeSantis in the governor’s mansion and Trump in the White House, said Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University.

“One thing the federalist society has been successful with, especially during the Trump presidency, is putting lots of Federalist Society judges on the bench, where they will be for decades," Jarvis said.

The liberal-leaning Florida Supreme Court has been transformed into one of the most conservative state supreme courts in the nation under DeSantis' leadership.

DeSantis outlined his philosophy on the law during a speech he delivered at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention in 2019.

In his view, judges should interpret the law as it’s written on the page based on what its authors intended at the time. It’s an approach called originalism, which is one of the bedrock tenets of the Federalist Society.

“You have to have some objective measure to go by," DeSantis said. "It can’t just be flying off the seat of your pants, philosophizing and imposing whatever idiosyncratic views you have on society under the guise of constitutional interpretation.”

Avery, who has been critical of the Federalist Society, said that view doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
“No other interest group in our country’s history has ever had that level of influence over the Supreme Court and therefore American law.”

Conservative judges have been willing to exercise judicial power if it benefits powerful corporate interests, he said.
The battle of ideas will continue, but the Federalist Society is winning the fight, Avery said.

"They are very, very effective in what they are doing,” he said.

Orlando Sun Sentinel
rfenst Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
I have no problem with the Federalist Society or its members' beliefs. I just don't think Lagoa has experience to be on SCOTUS.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
You do realize, the Supreme Court is EXACTLY like regular court, right? it's just got sour cream and tomatoes added to it...
ZRX1200 Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
Robert, to serve on SCOTUS does it even require that you’re a lawyer?
Smooth light Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
NO , that something you should have been taught in school. Were you playing hooky that day?

😁
frankj1 Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
saw editorials from liberal and (soft) conservative sources calling for either mandatory age retirement or term limits.
There is a move to have 18 year max terms, eventually ensuring every POTUS a pick or two (don't recall how the math worked)
ZRX1200 Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
I would support that.

I would also adopt that in congress and the senate.
RayR Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
ZRX1200 wrote:
Robert, to serve on SCOTUS does it even require that you’re a lawyer?


There are no requirements to serve as a Supreme Court Judge, although all Supreme Court judges have been lawyers, not all have had a formal law degree. The first Supreme Court Judge to even attend a law school was Levi Woodbury who was a justice on the SCOTUS from 1846-1851. The last Supreme Court Judge to not have a law degree was Stanley Forman Reed who was confirmed by the Senate in 1938.

It's apparent though to this day that to be a Supreme Court Judge does not require a clear understanding of what them words mean in the U.S. Constitution.
frankj1 Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
I would support that.

I would also adopt that in congress and the senate.

I could see vast bipartisan support among voters.
The current state of stuff is energy draining and mentally toxic. Plus we are probably more vulnerable now than maybe at any point in our history.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>