US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Buddahaid]

I think the closeness of the results is that Democrat wave. Usually the incumbant party does worse. What I find most intesesting is how the exit polls show the main Republican voter cause was the economy while the main Democrat voter cause was Roe vs. Wade. If the Republicans had left that alone they would have had their wave.

[Otto Harkaman]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I think the closeness of the results is that Democrat wave. Usually the incumbant party does worse. What I find most intesesting is how the exit polls show the main Republican voter cause was the economy while the main Democrat voter cause was Roe vs. Wade. If the Republicans had left that alone they would have had their wave.

I agree, a good analysis, the justices were apathetic to their sworn assurances that it would not be on their agenda if appointed. I think they were out of touch concerning their party and only thought of their own convictions.

[ET2SN]

I think Joe earned this victory lap.

[Rockstar]

Seats in Congress Gained/Lost by the President's Party in Mid-Term Elections

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/stat...term-elections

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman

I think they were out of touch concerning their party and only thought of their own convictions

What kind of court is that meant to be if it is a party's court....? It should and must be above and beyond party and personal affiliations. It obviously isnt, and herein lies the problem.

A fundamental problem that is. If a president can assign members, how not getting judges personally linked to him? May it be a president, a government, a chancellor. In Germany we should have a constitutional high court that protects the citizens rights from the stste, instead we now have a court that sees its duty to protect state claims from the people. In the US Trump selected judges that he hoped would protect his personal interest, and we see that happening already on occasions.
These damages can only be limited, not prevented: by limiting term duration and just one term.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What kind of court is that meant to be if it is a party's court....? It should and must be above and beyond party and personal affiliations. It obviously isnt, and herein lies the problem.

A fundamental problem that is. If a president can assign members, how not getting judges personally linked to him? May it be a president, a government, a chancellor. In Germany we should have a constitutional high court that protects the citizens rights from the stste, instead we now have a court that sees its duty to protect state claims from the people. In the US Trump selected judges that he hoped would protect his personal interest, and we see that happening already on occasions.
These damages can only be limited, not prevented: by limiting term duration and just one term.

A president can only nominate a judge they can’t ‘assign’ them to the bench. It’s the Senate which approves or disapproves a nominee. And not once in the entire history of our country has any party ever filibustered a nominee. In other words both parties of the Senate approved the current bench either by voting for, or doing nothing about it.

IMO it’s media, and political parties which make it seem SCOTUS judges and their decisions are affiliated with a political party. Perusing through 213 pages of opinions and dissenting opinions I can’t find anything which would lead me to believe any judge based their opinion or dissenting opinion on some political party agenda. Rather their decisions were IMO based on their interpretation of law and the case at hand.

If anyone would like to argue that, here’s all of the latest so-called Roe v Wade opinions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1392_6j37.pdf

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What kind of court is that meant to be if it is a party's court....? It should and must be above and beyond party and personal affiliations. It obviously isnt, and herein lies the problem.

A fundamental problem that is. If a president can assign members, how not getting judges personally linked to him? May it be a president, a government, a chancellor. In Germany we should have a constitutional high court that protects the citizens rights from the stste, instead we now have a court that sees its duty to protect state claims from the people. In the US Trump selected judges that he hoped would protect his personal interest, and we see that happening already on occasions.
These damages can only be limited, not prevented: by limiting term duration and just one term.

You do Understand that the Justices are appointed for life, regardless of who nominates them? And while the President nominates a candidate, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to seat them on the bench. That is why the term "advice and consent" is used in the Constitution when referencing the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life for the exact reason you wish to limit them to one "term". The Federal Court system is a mess now, if you implement "1 term limits" on the judges, the whole system will fall into chaos and become just another appendage to whichever party is in power.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by MaDef

You do Understand that the Justices are appointed for life, regardless of who nominates them? And while the President nominates a candidate, it takes a majority vote in the Senate to seat them on the bench. That is why the term "advice and consent" is used in the Constitution when referencing the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life for the exact reason you wish to limit them to one "term". The Federal Court system is a mess now, if you implement "1 term limits" on the judges, the whole system will fall into chaos and become just another appendage to whichever party is in power.

There is still the remote possibility of removing a judge through an impeachment process but that is highly unlikely. I think it's only been tried once and he was aquitted.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-...ment-chase.htm

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

There is still the remote possibility of removing a judge through an impeachment process but that is highly unlikely. I think it's only been tried once and he was aquitted.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-...ment-chase.htm

I would have thought it highly unlikely that Congress would ever try to impeach a president TWICE but it happened so I'd put nothing past the Democrats.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

I would have thought it highly unlikely that Congress would ever try to impeach a president TWICE but it happened so I'd put nothing past the Democrats.

Very unusual but I do think Trump was the only president that earned it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Very unusual but I do think Trump was the only president that earned it.

Oh c'mon now.

We've seen Biden do exactly the same thing as Trump did since then in Saudi Arabia when he secretly asked them to hold off on their production cuts until after the election so as to help his parties chances and improve his own political image.

You think he deserves impeachment for that too? If not, why not? Both attempted to cajole a foreign government into influencing an American election, except that Republican Trump gets impeached with secret government insiders offering hearsay testimony whereas Swamp Democrat Biden is not, at least yet.

The second failed "Impeachment" was a joke as well. What's next, the Dems gonna dig up Nixon and impeach him for Watergate? Maybe go after that dastardly Teddy Roosevelt for fomenting a foreign rebellion in order to make himself a hero by building the Panama Canal.

Hey maybe if the Dems keep control of congress they'll try to impeach Trump a third time over those classified documents.

Third time is a charm right? Tell you the truth i'm actually rooting that they'll be successful as I think DeSantis has a far better chance of beating them a couple years from now.

[THE_MASK]

Trump aka notice the rich getting much richer and everyone else getting left behind . Why any worker would vote for Trump is above my comprehension . Maybe you can enlighten me with facts .

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

Hey maybe if the Dems keep control of congress they'll try to impeach Trump a third time over those classified documents.

Third time is a charm right? Tell you the truth i'm actually rooting that they'll be successful as I think DeSantis has a far better chance of beating them a couple years from now.

Of course, except he's not in office so he can't get impeached like any of the other straw men you are erecting. He will likely be convicted by the DOJ over the documents he has stolen, but fear not, when DeSantis gets elected maybe he'll get pardoned.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Of course, except he's not in office so he can't get impeached like any of the other straw men you are erecting. He will likely be convicted by the DOJ over the documents he has stolen, but fear not, when DeSantis gets elected maybe he'll get pardoned.

Or DeSantis may be better off to cut this viper's head off once and for all.

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Of course, except he's not in office

Trump was out of office before the second impeachment attempt and that didn't stop you Dems before, why now?

As for a pardon I could hardly care if President DeSantis does that or not. Funny how you, the democrats and our foreign troll contingent keep thinking that there is some hitler-like adoration of Trump rather than just his policies which any Republican can take up without being an obnoxious New Yorker about it.

In any case now that the precedent has been set that the DOJ and FBI can be used against ones political opponents, I hope that once the shoe of political power is on the other foot that fine tradition will continue. Be nice to see some Dems get the midnight SWAT team raid treatment instead of just republicans.