Damual Travesty

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

After losing the chance to repeal and replace Obamacare, this opportunity to replace Ginsburg is do or die attempt to placate their base and maintain their brand. Left to be seen whether it will energize the Rep base or the liberals base. This leave Biden with no choice but to expand the judges to preserve the Dem's brand if he win. Judges should be independent, non partisan and impartial to protect the rights of everyone to the fundamental promise of the justice system. To see this turning up to be another political circus is just so disappointing. We seen this kind of political expediency much in Thailand. USA should be better alas worse.  

This has nothing to do with legislation of any kind. The Constitution of the USA is quite clear on the matter and that is all the President and Senate is using as a model. This is how it has always been done when their is a Senate in Power of the same party as the President of the United States. As for energizing anyone's base that simply does not matter. The expectation of all Republican voters would be that the seat be filled. That is obvious to all. If Biden (should he win) were to attempt to expand Judges it would not end well for him. Likely could start an Amendment process. It did not work for FDR either. This has nothing to do with Thailand nor is it similiar to Thailand. The USA Constitution has withstood the test of time for over 200 years. Justices who are impartial, and interpret law, rather then create law, that is all the GOP want, and for that matter what the framers of the Constitution wanted. Justices who interpret the law as created by the legislature in accordance with the Constitution. As opposed to Justices who believe they are legislators.

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

You consider it appropriate to speak ill of the dead before they are buried? You omit the fact Obama was blocked by republicans to appoint a Supreme Court judge to have a balanced Court. Moving along, IMO, it would make sense to legislate a judge for future should automatically retire, e.g. at 70, in order to minimise the exploitation of the Supreme Court appointment process for political advantage close to national elections. In addition, I understand some judges in US States are elected by the voters, given the impact of Supreme Court decisions on US society would it not make sense, though expensive, to have Supreme Court judges elected by a majority vote by the people?

May I ask you what exactly is the reason that you have so much interest in the course of US society? The USA is not run of your opinions it is run off of your Constitution. If we wish to change it we amend it. A long process. Never the less, I am not from Australia. I would be concerned perhaps if Australia was going to begin a trade policy hostile to the USA, or purchase weapon systems on loan from China or some other crazy thing, but other then that I have no skin in the game of Australian life. So what exactly is your worry about the USA and how it functions. I mean you regularly argue with Americans and insult them and their Country. I do not do this with the English or the Australians or French, so what is your reason? Do you have one?  You just wrote an entire paragraph about how YOU think the American system should work. Why would anyone do that?  You do not understand our history when it comes to the appointment of Justices. Obama was not blocked, the Senate was of the opposition party, and he did not have the votes, so no confirmation hearing was put forward to waste our time. It has worked that way 17 of 19 times. But who cares, why is that so important to YOU? What is this about, your caring so much about which party is in control in the USA? Do you think it affects you in Australia? Or affects some other Country you have affinity with ? Is there some Democrat party policy you admire coming out of the USA or anticipate would come? I don't get it please explain.  I am all ears.

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Is the current roster, with RBG's death, a balanced one? The article you linked makes the case it is not so. Further, it details a clear legal procedure in case of a tie. So still unclear as to why you assume a tie would be likely or that it presents a legal/procedural problem.

 

Can you explain what your overall reasoning for posting here is? Are you opposed to the President of the United States simply doing his duty and picking a new Justice for the Supreme Court? Are you opposed to the Senate doing their duty and confirming? That is how our system works. What exactly is the issue here sir?  You come from a land that has a better process? Good for you. You wish to argue against the US system? Good for you. Exactly what reasons would you have - a non-American - for the US President not to act? Is there some US policy that you think this would affect? Some policy that would affect you personally in your own life? That would effect your own Country? Is there skin you have in the game? A reason that would benefit you personally if the Republican controlled Senate decided to simply ignore those who put them in office to elect Constitutionalist Justices when given the opportunity? Please explain to me what this is all about for you. I ask because if something was going on in the UK or China for example, that would effect me personally I perhaps would argue against that particular policy or person. So please what exactly is your argument here with the US system that troubles you so much?

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Stop telling people to stop. Please. Just stop. I find almost everything you write distasteful and utterly wrong but will not tell you to stop posting and you should extend the same courtesy to other posters.

I will continue to find it distasteful when non-Americans pretend to know something about MY form of Government and create posts which are absolutely untrue. And are so wrong as to strain the eye that reads them. I will continue to ask people who post untruths to cease. Further your response to me is an example of what is TROLLING. Which is to jump in on conversations to make no valid argument at all. So you too. Please just stop.

1 minute ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Well, obviously you will find out if you're still around after the election.

Sounds like some sort of threat to me.

47 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No the constitution does not require it. The constitution on allows for the president to nominate. If what you say is correct then the senate acted against the constitution in 2016.

 

The constitution says nothing about timing, so it can wait until after the election, according to what repubs have said.

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Stop pretending that you do. Please. Just stop. I find it distasteful that you pretend to know the US form of Government. Clearly, you do not. Why would a political party fail to do the duty they were elected to do? They have the votes and the President will make a pick. They have a responsibility to confirm. Now let's address you comment about the Republicans in 2016. At that time - the Senate was not controlled by the President's party. They did not have the votes to get a candidate confirmed. Therefore they did not hold the vote. The history of the USA supports this. NO better case can be made then here:

A United States Senator lays out both the historical precedent and the law on the matter. This clips is from his website speaking before the US Senate. I suggest that you listen all the way through.

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

Lets hope this is among one of the final acts Trump gets to perpetrate before he and his cronies are stripped of their power. 

It is not the perpetration of an act. It is simply following what the Constitution of the United States demands. It is very clear what the President is required to do. Likewise the Senate has a duty to do. The nominee will have the votes and there will be a new Supreme Court Justice, even if the Democrat party attempts to accuse her of committing gang rape.

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Apparently the constitution didnt matter in 2016.

The Constitution was followed in 2016. Please do not make such statements like this that are untrue. You do not understand the US system obviously. There is a history of what happens when the President's party is in power in the Senate and one in which the President's party is NOT that precedent was followed. If you do not understand my history, or form of Government, please stop making claims that you do that are filled with disparaging remarks about one political party. Your statement is false.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Perhaps a Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of justice, non partisan, unbiased, untainted by political considerations, rather than a reflection of any particular political point of view.

 

I rather thought that was  the point?

 

Selecting a judiciary to reflect political views effectively removes the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branched of government; separation of those powers is absolutely central to any democracy.

The Constitution of the United States of America is quite clear the manner in which a Supreme Court Justice is to be chosen. It has worked fine for 250 years or so. If you would like to point to your own Country as an example of a better way, and show such examples, I would love to hear it. Justices that behave as interpreters of the law is what Republicans want. They do NOT want Justices that behave in a political manner or making rulings that in effect create new law in the manner of a legislature. That is what the legislature is for to create law.

2 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

RBG's body not  yet buried. Shame on these people.

The Constitution of the United States requires the seat be filled, and should their be numerous cases that arise from the general election it will be important to have a full court. I do not like you casting shame upon the American people by the way. Look no further then your own if you wish to throw stones.

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There are more Democrats than Republicans.

A Republic is designed to protect the minority from the "Tyranny of the Majority" NOT the other way around.

11 hours ago, Susco said:

This is not gonna end well.

 

There will be last minute appeals, and other excuses for not following the ruling to the letter.

 

Trump has instigated something, and he will use it to reject the election results, if he doesn't get re-elected

I am sure it is possible there will be an appeal because that is how the law works. There is a Right to appeal to a higher Court. You are OK with that right? An appeal is not an excuse, nor does it have anything to do with refusing to follow the law as it stands.  Trump has not instigated anything, nor is Trump planning to reject election results. Nor do you have any reason to say such a thing. Nor do you have any proof of such a thing. Nor do you read the President's thoughts.

Many believe (myself included) that nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts are in and of themselves not constitutional, and that this is a topic that the SCOTUS needs to revisit. As for this particular case, I would like to see how it plays out on appeal.

I am not saying that such injunctions are not valid law under current rulings, but it needs to be reviewed. Judges in these lower courts have way to much power to issue rulings that affect the entire Country. I hope to see a challenge in the Supreme court over this soon.

Justice Thomas has written a brilliant dissent on a case regarding this issue. I would cite it but I can't remember the case at the moment. I may come back and post it if I can think of it. I think it was one of the cases related to the Trump travel ban on certain Muslim countries. It would be at the SCOTUS blog if anyone wants to find it before me.

15 hours ago, forehandplus said:

Despite all his denunciations of NAFTA, Trump actually made very small changes to it. One big thing he did accomplish though was to triple the wages of auto workers. It's just that they were Mexican auto workers. Japanese companies preferred to raise their Mexican workers' pay rather than move to the USA.

The State of the economy of the USA prior to the Chinese CCP Bat virus is quite clear. Crystal clear. And it will rebound again. The State of the economy during Obama is also quite clear, as clear as Obama's words that manufacturing jobs will never again return to the USA. I disagree with your NAFTA characterization.