GOP Celebrates Court Packing

[Themius]

That reality is called right wing media, Hillary is running in 2020, a crime is not a crime if the president does it. The 31-35% Trump base that would defend him even if he was strangling babies on live TV.

Look at who I am quoting who said he is innocent with respect to Ukraine like... what the fuck?! How?! There is video, his own memo, the new transcript with Sondland being the one who delivered the fucking quid pro quo message like how much more do you need? We have him on TV literally saying to investigate Biden, asking china to do it which is illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

You're trying to argue with someone who thinks PragerU is a reasonable source of information.

I mean that's just messed up, but I mean come on... Trump said it on video with words out his own damn mouth. His own chief of staff said it on tv, and sondland his 1 MILLION DOLLAR DONOR said it was a quid pro quo. At this point they're just ignoring reality.

[Paranoid Android]

So it's not OK if Republicans stonewall but it's OK of Democrats do it?

So it's not OK if Democrats stonewall but it's OK of Republicans do it?

Isn't your argument that you linked from Wikipedia about Obama appointees were naturally open do to retirements and legit leaving of posts?

So Obama had right to appoint these judges but was blocked by McConnell. Yes, Harry Reid did use the nuclear option, but it wasn't to pack the court.

Now these openings have turned into court packing and yes thanks to Harry Reid, McConnell can do it by a majority vote.

[zenkai]

So it's not OK if Democrats stonewall but it's OK of Republicans do it?

Never said it was, only wonder why people have a problem with something when it it's opposite party doing it / not doing it.

If you have a problem with it, it should be regardless of what party is doing it.

[Paranoid Android]

Never said it was, only wonder why people have a problem with something when it it's opposite party doing it / not doing it.

If you have a problem with it, it should be regardless of what party is doing it.

If you have a problem with it, it should be regardless of what party is doing it.

I think you understand what I'm doing here.

As I just explained the evidence you gave of Obama is not what the Republicans are doing. Yes they are using the rule Reid majority approval m, but not the appointments (some, not all) where Obama's.

[Teleros]

Trump asked for a quid pro quo

Did he though?

he then asked china to investigate biden ON LIVE TV WHICH WAS ILLEGAL AND CLARIFIED AS ILLEGAL BY THE FEC

Remind me to run for political office if I ever get accused of high crimes and misdemeanours then, because it sounds like a great way to get force the government to shut up about it :P .

Yeah, whatever. Trump isn't asking China to help in his election. Oh, I'm sure it'll help in practice, at least if Biden is the nominee, but that's up to the Dems, and it looks more like Pocahontas will win, not Biden.

Sondland has said there was a quid pro quo AND HE WAS THE ONE WHO DELIVERED IT

Not exactly.

1. At the time, he explicitly said to the US ambassador to the Ukraine there weren't any quid pro quos.
2. "By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement". Presuming, eh?
3. What's this anti-corruption statement? That doesn't sound like "investigation into the Bidens", but maybe that's a difference between British & American English .
4. Or is it now an impeachable offence (lol) to insist that foreign aid money be well spent?

The FEC has already said twice now THAT IT IS ILLEGAL

See above. Trump has a duty to enforce the law, even on such high-falutin' people as Joe & Hunter Biden. Running for president should never be a way for crooks to escape scrutiny of their crimes.

Whatever. The God-Emperor's still not going to be impeached, so let the media flail around until the storm comes .

[Edge-]

Trump isn't asking China to help in his election.

"They should investigate the Biden's."

And China responded to the request: They said no.

[Machismo]

Did he though?


Remind me to run for political office if I ever get accused of high crimes and misdemeanours then, because it sounds like a great way to get force the government to shut up about it :P .

Yeah, whatever. Trump isn't asking China to help in his election. Oh, I'm sure it'll help in practice, at least if Biden is the nominee, but that's up to the Dems, and it looks more like Pocahontas will win, not Biden.


Not exactly.

1. At the time, he explicitly said to the US ambassador to the Ukraine there weren't any quid pro quos.
2. "By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement". Presuming, eh?
3. What's this anti-corruption statement? That doesn't sound like "investigation into the Bidens", but maybe that's a difference between British & American English .
4. Or is it now an impeachable offence (lol) to insist that foreign aid money be well spent?


See above. Trump has a duty to enforce the law, even on such high-falutin' people as Joe & Hunter Biden. Running for president should never be a way for crooks to escape scrutiny of their crimes.

Whatever. The God-Emperor's still not going to be impeached, so let the media flail around until the storm comes .

All you are really saying, is that you don't give a shit that he's corrupt.

But hey, at least you guys get to sacrifice all your morals and principles to "own the libs."

[Paranoid Android]

To back up my argument on Zenkai Wikipedia post about Obama's appointments and how the Republicans obstructed and thus had many more openings when Trump was elected.

When they took control of the Senate in 2014, Republicans effectively nullified Obama’s judicial appointment authority. Obama’s last two years as president saw the fewest confirmed judges in more than half a century. And this was after Senate Republicans had spent years using procedural moves to block judges nominated by Obama even when they did not control the Senate. Democrats had to choose between leaving the judicial seats vacant or changing a Senate filibuster rule so they could fill them by a simple majority vote. In 2013 they made that change through a procedure known as the "nuclear option."

By the end of the Obama presidency, Senate Republicans had held open more than 110 judicial seats. They made clear that such efforts would continue under any future Democratic president: Sen. John McCain stated that, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”

Once Trump was elected, Republicans rushed to change the rules and swiftly usher in narrow-minded, elitist judges whom they knew would advance conservative policies through the courts. They used the nuclear option to allow approval of Supreme Court justices by majority vote. They ended a long-standing tradition of giving senators a say in the confirmation of judges in their home state. They refused to provide sufficient time for the American Bar Association to determine whether Trump’s nominees were qualified to be judges, resulting in Trump nominating six people deemed “not qualified.” Incredibly, they held hearings for judges when the Senate was not even in session.

Ideologues threaten independent judiciary
The result: the appointment of extremist right-wing judges with little oversight. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court despite concerns that he had previously misled Congress and the credible allegations of sexual assault made against him. But Kavanaugh is not the only questionable nominee to be rushed through the process. One judge was confirmed despite ties to the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom, another despite having engaged in efforts to take away protections for people with pre-existing health conditions.

With nearly half of his presidency remaining, Trump has already appointed more than 100 judges to the bench — more than one-tenth of the entire federal judiciary and 20% of the appellate courts. And Senate Republicans recently changed another rule that will allow them to speed up confirmation of lower-level judges.


Discussions about judicial reform must acknowledge this reality: Conservative ideologues have spent years packing the courts to try to grab power for a generation. These efforts, and the threat they pose to a well-functioning, independent judiciary, demand our attention.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3564022002/

Edit: Messed up order of quotes should be switched. On my phone and pain ass to edit, so leaving it. Sorry.

[Crispin]

See above. Trump has a duty to enforce the law, even on such high-falutin' people as Joe & Hunter Biden. Running for president should never be a way for crooks to escape scrutiny of their crimes.

Whatever. The God-Emperor's still not going to be impeached, so let the media flail around until the storm comes .

The irony is astounding. And it's not Trumps job to enforce the law.

[TigTone]

The irony is astounding. And it's not Trumps job to enforce the law.

Why the president the boss of the justice department and law enforcement agency’s like FBI?

[Wyrt]

Why the president the boss of the justice department and law enforcement agency’s like FBI?

He's not. Barr is the boss of the justice department and the top law enforcement officer in the US.

[Themius]

He's not. Barr is the boss of the justice department and the top law enforcement officer in the US.

He's actually a private attorney for POTUS. At least... that's what it has turned into.

[TigTone]

He's not. Barr is the boss of the justice department and the top law enforcement officer in the US.

Ahh ok, thank you.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Never said it was, only wonder why people have a problem with something when it it's opposite party doing it / not doing it.

If you have a problem with it, it should be regardless of what party is doing it.

If you have a problem with this, you should probably say so. When Republicans do something awful, you never actually admonish them for it, you just derail the thread into "BUT DEMOCRAAAAAAAAAAATS" even when Democrats have done something 1/10 as bad as Republicans.

[Z-Man]

The Republicans brought back the Holman Rule in 2017. Any judge rated "not qualified" or improperly appointed could have their salaries dropped to $1 for however long their savings last.

[Edge-]

The Republicans brought back the Holman Rule in 2017. Any judge rated "not qualified" or improperly appointed could have their salaries dropped to $1 for however long their savings last.

Citation on that applying to judges? It lasted for a single Congressional session (it already ended), and I don't see any evidence it was ever actually used in the judiciary.

[Stormspellz]

Kind of reminds me when Democrats did it with Federal judges, wasn't a problem then was it?

ya like those high profile judges the dems bent over backwards to nominate center judges, to only have the nominations never even get a vote.

[Flarelaine]

Got a non-paywalled link for that? Hard to respond to a piece I can't read.

The keyword is visible even it the paywalled version: Opinion.

[Edge-]

The keyword is visible even it the paywalled version: Opinion.

So it's even weaker evidence to support his point than I thought. I wish I could say I was surprised by this : /