American Politics

[UFGN]

Presidents appointing judges for life is ridiculous

If you must have politically affiliated judges then democratic judges for example should have the common sense to resign while a democrat is in the White House

Where to start ....

President's don't appoint judges ... the constitution clearly lays out that all Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President, and confirmed by the United States Senate. It's how the 'three-branch' system works .....

Judges are not actively Democrat or Republican ... indeed under the constitution whilst they can vote, they are not allowed to promote any political party ... instead they are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. It has long been commonly assumed that a justice's votes reflect his or her judicial decision-making philosophy as well as their ideological leanings, personal attitudes, values, political philosophies, or policy preferences.

The justices base their decisions on their interpretation of both legal doctrine and the precedential application of laws in the past. In most cases, interpreting the law is relatively clear-cut and the justices decide unanimously, politics are not relevant to applying the letter of the law.

Politics only comes into play when the have to overrule an administration who believe in an unlimited scope of executive power and demanded their lawyers try to win cases in unrealistic ways.

Clinton's administration won 63% of cases at the Supreme Court, Bush's 60%, Obama's just 40% .....

Trump's administration has had few cases reach the Supreme Court (it takes a while) he may do better than Obama but I doubt he'll reach 60% ... this has very little to do with the SCJ's political leanings if it did Trump would win 100% of the time. SCJ's judgments reflect a combined 200+ years of their ability to apply the correct application of the law ....

Meanwhile, back in real life, in practice Justices are appointed by the President, especially if they have a majority in the Senate, and in real life of course they're going to be chosen for political reasons.

[EliteKiller]

Meanwhile, back in real life, in practice Justices are appointed by the President, especially if they have a majority in the Senate, and in real life of course they're going to be chosen for political reasons.

It's sad, and not a little pathetic, that you like so many others seem incapable of believing in impartiality, are willing to buy into the latest trendy thinking, can't see past the latest social media rant, and actually believe the utter shite they feed you with ...

Are you saying that US Supreme Court Justices, some of the finest legal brains of generations, are just 'lap-dogs' for Obama / Trump / and whoever comes next? do you seriously think they are that shallow? they put politics above the law?

Clarence Thomas - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Stephen G. Breyer to name the three with over 75 years on the SC bench between them .... three Judges who have voted against the party that put them on the bench, just as often as for that party .... yet suddenly you believe they are now just political stooges?

If like the 'rent-a-mob' we've had to put up with over the last few weeks, you believe that despite evidence that shows Obama was voted against by supposedly 'Democrat' judges on over 50% of his administration's cases (and remember he appointed two of them) ... and that Trump's administration has fared no better with the Supreme Court .... that despite that overwhelming evidence of impartiality, you now believe all Supreme Court Justices are just party acolytes?

DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE?

[UFGN]

Meanwhile, back in real life, in practice Justices are appointed by the President, especially if they have a majority in the Senate, and in real life of course they're going to be chosen for political reasons.

It's sad, and not a little pathetic, that you like so many others seem incapable of believing in impartiality, are willing to buy into the latest trendy thinking, can't see past the latest social media rant, and actually believe the utter shite they feed you with ...

Are you saying that US Supreme Court Justices, some of the finest legal brains of generations, are just 'lap-dogs' for Obama / Trump / and whoever comes next? do you seriously think they are that shallow? they put politics above the law?

Clarence Thomas - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Stephen G. Breyer to name the three with over 75 years on the SC bench between them .... three Judges who have voted against the party that put them on the bench, just as often as for that party .... yet suddenly you believe they are now just political stooges?

If like the 'rent-a-mob' we've had to put up with over the last few weeks, you believe that despite evidence that shows Obama was voted against by supposedly 'Democrat' judges on over 50% of his administration's cases (and remember he appointed two of them) ... and that Trump's administration has fared no better with the Supreme Court .... that despite that overwhelming evidence of impartiality, you now believe all Supreme Court Justices are just party acolytes?

DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE?

I'm going to start ignoring every post of yours with caps

Re post it without caps or feck off

[LMAO]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45774174

So the Republicans now control all branches of government and the judiciary for the first time ever. What do our resident Yanks think of this?

Republicans won't control all three branches for long. The House is flipping, and there's an outside chance the Senate flips too (but 2020 looks more likely).

As for Kavanaugh, f**k him. Not for the sexual assault/rape allegations (I don't condone either, but it's he said, she said right now because the FBI wasn't allowed to conduct a full investigation), but for his conduct last week. That was not befitting of a Supreme Court Justice. Scratch that, it's not befitting of a judge, period.

f**k the Republicans (and Manchin) for confirming him. Is it that difficult to reject him and ram someone else—who doesn't engage in conspiracy theories, doesn't throw a temper tantrum, doesn't actively lie, and doesn't rape allegations against them—through?

Presidents appointing judges for life is ridiculous

If you must have politically affiliated judges then democratic judges for example should have the common sense to resign while a democrat is in the White House

tbf that's usually what happens. Justices retire/step down when their party (i.e., the party that nominated them) controls the White House. And while there can be, and often are, issues with it, I understand why federal judges have lifetime appointments: it's supposed to remove them from being beholden to a political party so that they can rule impartially.

[UFGN]

In the UK, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judges are all appointed by a selection commission.

They can be impeached through a parliamentary process but this is very very rare.

[EliteKiller]

Meanwhile, back in real life, in practice Justices are appointed by the President, especially if they have a majority in the Senate, and in real life of course they're going to be chosen for political reasons.

It's sad, and not a little pathetic, that you like so many others seem incapable of believing in impartiality, are willing to buy into the latest trendy thinking, can't see past the latest social media rant, and actually believe the utter shite they feed you with ...

Are you saying that US Supreme Court Justices, some of the finest legal brains of generations, are just 'lap-dogs' for Obama / Trump / and whoever comes next? do you seriously think they are that shallow? they put politics above the law?

Clarence Thomas - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Stephen G. Breyer to name the three with over 75 years on the SC bench between them .... three Judges who have voted against the party that put them on the bench, just as often as for that party .... yet suddenly you believe they are now just political stooges?

If like the 'rent-a-mob' we've had to put up with over the last few weeks, you believe that despite evidence that shows Obama was voted against by supposedly 'Democrat' judges on over 50% of his administration's cases (and remember he appointed two of them) ... and that Trump's administration has fared no better with the Supreme Court .... that despite that overwhelming evidence of impartiality, you now believe all Supreme Court Justices are just party acolytes?

DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE?

I'm going to start ignoring every post of yours with caps

Re post it without caps or feck off

Is your new default position not to answer any questions you don't like? Wow that's impressive ......

[LMAO]

In the UK, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judges are all appointed by a selection commission.

They can be impeached through a parliamentary process but this is very very rare.

Same here re: impeachment. Impeachment rules are the same for presidents and justices: majority in the House to impeach, 2/3 in the Senate to remove.

I think only one justice has been impeached and removed from the bench, happened in the early 1800s I believe.

[EliteKiller]

Republicans won't control all three branches for long. The House is flipping, and there's an outside chance the Senate flips too (but 2020 looks more likely).

It's happened before and will happen again, that's why the third branch of the federal structure sits outside the election process .... having lifetime judges is a check and balance against the flip/flop of the other two branches ...

As for Kavanaugh, f**k him. Not for the sexual assault/rape allegations (I don't condone either, but it's he said, she said right now because the FBI wasn't allowed to conduct a full investigation), but for his conduct last week. That was not befitting of a Supreme Court Justice. Scratch that, it's not befitting of a judge, period.

I understand exactly what you're saying, judges should be above emotion, but if you follow that same logic there would never be another successful appointment made .... people are human if you look hard enough anyone can find faults ... have you never lost your temper? I already have sympathy for the poor 'victim' who is put forward next, his life, family, friends are going to be publicly ripped apart, and that's just wrong ...

On the FBI investigation, when there's no conclusive evidence available you can search for ever, it won't make any difference, no recollections from 36 years ago without written corroborating proof are ever going to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold ... doesn't mean he did or didn't do it, but hiding behind the 'no full investigation' that's just smoke and mirrors ... if Dr Ford filers a police complaint then an investigation can continue for years, she has yet to do so


tbf that's usually what happens. Justices retire/step down when their party (i.e., the party that nominated them) controls the White House. And while there can be, and often are, issues with it, I understand why federal judges have lifetime appointments: it's supposed to remove them from being beholden to a political party so that they can rule impartially.

Agree 100%, my entire point to UFGN ... career judges who have served the bench with distinction for decades, you need that on your CV to be considered as a SCJ, deserve our respect ... there is ZERO evidence to show that any SCJ has voted politics before the law ... that's social media bullshit and it's disingenuous to buy into it ....

[UFGN]

Meanwhile, back in real life, in practice Justices are appointed by the President, especially if they have a majority in the Senate, and in real life of course they're going to be chosen for political reasons.

It's sad, and not a little pathetic, that you like so many others seem incapable of believing in impartiality, are willing to buy into the latest trendy thinking, can't see past the latest social media rant, and actually believe the utter shite they feed you with ...

Are you saying that US Supreme Court Justices, some of the finest legal brains of generations, are just 'lap-dogs' for Obama / Trump / and whoever comes next? do you seriously think they are that shallow? they put politics above the law?

Clarence Thomas - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Stephen G. Breyer to name the three with over 75 years on the SC bench between them .... three Judges who have voted against the party that put them on the bench, just as often as for that party .... yet suddenly you believe they are now just political stooges?

If like the 'rent-a-mob' we've had to put up with over the last few weeks, you believe that despite evidence that shows Obama was voted against by supposedly 'Democrat' judges on over 50% of his administration's cases (and remember he appointed two of them) ... and that Trump's administration has fared no better with the Supreme Court .... that despite that overwhelming evidence of impartiality, you now believe all Supreme Court Justices are just party acolytes?

DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE?

I'm going to start ignoring every post of yours with caps

Re post it without caps or feck off

Is your new default position not to answer any questions you don't like? Wow that's impressive ......

Post it without caps and I'll answer

I've warned you before about your shitty attitude

It doesn't wash with me

Btw I don't use social media at all so bad luck with that presumption

[Royal Gooner]

So looks like the Democrat's biggest chance of challenging Trump in 2020 has just inadvertently admitted she lied about her heritage. She's officially only 1/1034th Native American yet took the token spot at Harvard reserved for Indians.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/41 ... ic-failure

[Yago]

So looks like the Democrat's biggest chance of challenging Trump in 2020 has just inadvertently admitted she lied about her heritage. She's officially only 1/1034th Native American yet took the token spot at Harvard reserved for Indians.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/41 ... ic-failure

First of you're kind of twisting the truth there.

Second, she was never the "biggest chance of challenging Trump", and I sincerely hope she's not running.

[Royal Gooner]

So looks like the Democrat's biggest chance of challenging Trump in 2020 has just inadvertently admitted she lied about her heritage. She's officially only 1/1034th Native American yet took the token spot at Harvard reserved for Indians.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/41 ... ic-failure

First of you're kind of twisting the truth there.

Second, she was never the "biggest chance of challenging Trump", and I sincerely hope she's not running.

She isn't, she already said she isn't and with The Rock ruling himself out, I can't see anyone challenging Trump.

Furthermore if one claims oneself to be Native American, one would expect at least 1 grandparent to be Indian to reasonably make that claim. I'm 1/64 Canadian but I never go around claiming I'm Canadian.

[Phil71]

They don’t have anyone that can beat Trump.

He’s a great campaigner. He’ll win again.

[DiamondGooner]

She isn't, she already said she isn't and with The Rock ruling himself out, I can't see anyone challenging Trump.

Jesus Christ, really??

Every time I think I've seen it all over there, I realise there's lower level to be reached.

The Rock?? I mean

[Va-Va-Voom]

Jesus wept