Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:03 PM
The Flying Dutchman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 50N West Georgia Strait
Posts: 8,617

Mitch McConnell...back atcha


Let's assume that the democrats win big in 2020 and Biden gets elected

Could the house come up with a new Judiciary Act for President Biden to allow him to appoint 2 more left leaning justices to the supreme court?
  #2  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:06 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,963
The House could, but it also has to pass the Senate.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #3  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:19 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,749
If Dems don't hold the House, take the Senate and win the presidency in 2020, not much will change. And that is very dangerous, indeed.
  #4  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:13 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,149
Court packing is theoretically possible but extremely difficult and sets a nasty precedent.
  #5  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:08 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,152
I’d rather impeach the justices and judges nominated by unindicted co-conspirator Donald John Trump.
  #6  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:01 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I’d rather impeach the justices and judges nominated by unindicted co-conspirator Donald John Trump.
IANAL but I believe that even if Trump, McConnell and every other Republican in Congress were indicted, convicted and jailed, you'd have to demonstrate grounds for impeachment based on the actions of the justice themselves. I don't agree with many of Gorsuch's views but I've seen nothing to suggest that he isn't a solidly qualified jurist. Kavanaugh may be a different matter, but even that'd be an uphill battle.

The fact that it's difficult to dislodge a sitting SCOTUS justice is,by and large, a feature rather than a bug to prevent excessive tampering by the other branches of government. Of course, that's dependent on the other branches of government not in themselves being openly corrupt and collaborating to undermine the intended process to select and seat the justices in the first place.
  #7  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:41 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
you'd have to demonstrate grounds for impeachment based on the actions of the justice themselves.
Grounds for impeachment and conviction are whatever congress wants them to be. It could be that they don't like the way they part their hair.

But practically speaking, packing the court or impeaching the justices is a nuclear option. I doubt the Dems would hold together for this process, let alone get any Republicans to cross the aisle.
  #8  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:54 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,152
The House has "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has "sole power to try all impeachments". They are the only arbiters of the criteria necessary to impeach and remove from office, other than the required votes. Being nominated by a criminal President and confirmed by a corrupt Senate is sufficient. I recognize that impeachment and removal from office is difficult, but it is the morally just action.
  #9  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:01 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I recognize that impeachment and removal from office is difficult, but it is the morally just action.
IMO it is not the just action. It would set an awful precedent for future disputes that should not be settled this way, leading to mob rule. Elections have consequences, even if those consequences suck. There are better ways to resolve the problems left in their wake.
  #10  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:25 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
IMO it is not the just action. It would set an awful precedent for future disputes that should not be settled this way, leading to mob rule. Elections have consequences, even if those consequences suck. There are better ways to resolve the problems left in their wake.
It works both ways. The consequence of elections giving Democrats sufficient votes and political will would be the impeachment and removal from office of Trump's judicial nominees.

Just as decreased liberty for increased security is not a worthy trade, neither is decreased justice for increased political expediency.
  #11  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:30 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
The consequence of elections giving Democrats sufficient votes and political will would be the impeachment and removal from office of Trump's judicial nominees.
Which would lead to the same happening to the Dem's judicial nominees the next time the election pendulum swings right. It's not worth the turmoil, the unpredictability, and the retribution cycles.
  #12  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:02 PM
Grestarian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Garage & Lab
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
It works both ways. The consequence of elections giving Democrats sufficient votes and political will would be the impeachment and removal from office of Trump's judicial nominees.
Speculation and contemplation of this theme, regardless of the source, is a rallying cry for the right and a call-to-arms* for far-right extremists. "Here's why we can't let THEM undermine OUR progress (and destroy...blah, blah, blah)..."

--G!
*Second-Amendment style arms, no less!

Last edited by Grestarian; 05-22-2019 at 06:03 PM.
  #13  
Old 05-22-2019, 07:51 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
In his second term Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It was a spectacular turd of an idea then, and it still is.
  #14  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:47 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Which would lead to the same happening to the Dem's judicial nominees the next time the election pendulum swings right. It's not worth the turmoil, the unpredictability, and the retribution cycles.
You're a reasonable person and I respect that it's not worth it to you, but it is worth it to me. I feel it's time for the full power of democracy and law be levied against Trumpists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grestarian View Post
Speculation and contemplation of this theme, regardless of the source, is a rallying cry for the right and a call-to-arms* for far-right extremists. "Here's why we can't let THEM undermine OUR progress (and destroy...blah, blah, blah)..."

--G!
*Second-Amendment style arms, no less!
I'm happy to fill our ample prison space with those who would wage war against the United States.
  #15  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:50 AM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
In his second term Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It was a spectacular turd of an idea then, and it still is.
How did FDR plan to do that?
  #16  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:50 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
There is no chance that the Dems get enough Senate seats to start impeaching (at least the removing from office bit, which is presumably the part you care about) Republicans / Republican-appointed judges at random.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-23-2019 at 09:51 AM.
  #17  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:52 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
How did FDR plan to do that?
Ask Congress to pass a law increasing the size of the Court
  #18  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:58 AM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ask Congress to pass a law increasing the size of the Court
From Wikipedia: "The Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and for the first time included a provision allowing federal judges to retire without losing their salary.[1] This is the most recent legislation altering the size of the Supreme Court. "

Hunh. I'm surprise the size hasn't increased before. The party controlling Congress could do it whenever they disagreed with a ruling.
  #19  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:01 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
How did FDR plan to do that?
Here you go. Another thing they didn't teach in school until you got into 300-level political science courses
  #20  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:19 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Here you go. Another thing they didn't teach in school until you got into 300-level political science courses
And, from your cite -
Quote:
In the end, Perry says, two members of the Court switched to a pro-New Deal position, known as “the switch in time that saved nine.”

“And FDR eventually packed the Court the old-fashioned way,” she says, “through attrition, naming nine members.”
So even a not-terribly-credible threat was enough. Although neither Trump nor any further President is likely to be in office long enough to appoint more than one or two Justices.

Regards,
Shodan
  #21  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:29 AM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,544
Thanks.
  #22  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
... Hunh. I'm surprise the size hasn't increased before. The party controlling Congress could do it whenever they disagreed with a ruling.
Not exactly. There are the issues of the Senate filibuster, and a presidential veto. And that most Congress critters are self-aware enough to realize that if they do it, the other side will respond in kind when the opportunity arises.
  #23  
Old 05-23-2019, 04:59 PM
Wheelz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,531
I think the only possible way Congress even begins to consider removing justices is if voluminous and absolutely incontrovertible evidence comes to light that actual votes were tampered with to the extent that everyone agrees that Trump didn't really win the Electoral College.

I don't foresee that happening, but if it did, you could argue that any justices added during his administration were not legitimately appointed. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, you couldn't make that argument, and -- as others have pointed out -- it would set a terrible precedent of any party with enough seats just picking off justices they don't like.
  #24  
Old 05-24-2019, 09:41 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I’d rather impeach the justices and judges nominated by unindicted co-conspirator Donald John Trump.
1) The Dems would theoretically be able to impeach them, but removal would fail, since they'd need a 2/3 vote of the Senate, which means they'd need a shitload of GOP votes. So it ain't happening.

2) If it could be done with a mere majority of the Senate, it would be an absolutely horrible precedent to set: removing Federal judges or Justices because they'd been chosen by the 'wrong' President. You'd end up with each party removing all judges too liberal/conservative for their tastes every time either party had unified control of Congress.

It's a really good thing that impeachment is hard.
  #25  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:24 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,272
Moved to GD
  #26  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:00 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,833
Democracy would work a whole lot better if we deserved it.

Last edited by elucidator; 05-24-2019 at 12:01 PM. Reason: Eleven words without screwing it up? Nope, can't do it....
  #27  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:16 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Court packing is theoretically possible but extremely difficult and sets a nasty precedent.
So does refusing to allow a nomination to come to the floor - that also sets a nasty precedent. And so does refusing to do oversight while the leader of your party claims extra-constitutional authority - that sets a nasty precedent too.

Setting nasty precedent is a ship that sailed like a mighty long fucking time ago.

Joe Biden will campaign on being a normal president, and on returning the country to normalcy. The problem is that he will have to unfuck a lot of the things this president has fucked up, and he will face an opposition party that will still be committed to procedural warfare and obstructionism, short of being completely and utterly crushed in the elections. Trump has put a Democratic president in the position of having to be unconventional and having to assert extra-constitutional authority in order to reverse the extra-constitutional damage done by this moron and his enablers. People don't understand the permanent damage that this president and his kooks have inflicted on this country, and they won't until it personally bites them in the ass.

Last edited by asahi; 05-24-2019 at 12:19 PM.
  #28  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:20 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Democracy would work a whole lot better if we deserved it.
This.

But I'm not convinced that we do. To paraphrase Churchill, though, what other choices do we have?
  #29  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:32 PM
carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This.

But I'm not convinced that we do. To paraphrase Churchill, though, what other choices do we have?
"Democracy is the worst political system, save for all the others that have been tried."
  #30  
Old 05-24-2019, 02:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... It's a really good thing that impeachment is hard.
I agree with this sentiment.
  #31  
Old 05-24-2019, 02:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... Trump has put a Democratic president in the position of having to be unconventional and having to assert extra-constitutional authority in order to reverse the extra-constitutional damage done by this moron and his enablers. People don't understand the permanent damage that this president and his kooks have inflicted on this country, and they won't until it personally bites them in the ass.
Specifically what "permanent damage" has President Trump done that you think would require "extra-constitutional authority to reverse"? What sort of extra-constitutional actions are you imaging Biden might take?
  #32  
Old 05-25-2019, 10:03 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,833
An excellent point, you are wise to express your concern about the possible spectacle of a power-mad Joe Biden running rampant and berserk over Constitutional safeguards against authoritarian rule! Clearly, this man is a threat to the calm and orderly system enhanced by Donald, of House Harkonnen, worst of his name...
  #33  
Old 05-25-2019, 07:58 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,240
Court-packing by adding just 2 new liberal justices to SCOTUS would be like "going nuclear" by lobbing "just 2 nukes" at Russia. It gives you the worst of both worlds; not only have you crossed the threshold and invited your opponent to go all the way, much further than you did, but you didn't even accomplish. A 6-5 liberal majority wouldn't necessarily hand Democrats many judicial victories; that one-vote margin is very slim. Whereas Republicans could just pack 20 or 100 new justices when it's their time.
  #34  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:11 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 936
As somebody who is firmly behind Court-packing and is thrilled that groups like Pack the Courts are out there building support for the idea, I still don't think that Democrats will actually pursue it until/unless SCOTUS issues an obviously bullshit legal opinion that crosses a Democratic red line (i.e., think about a decision that overturns Medicare-for-All or DC statehood or something). Others have contended that Court-packing becomes more viable as well if Court decisions begin to usurp election results or make elections more difficult (e.g., the upcoming census case which has the potential to dilute Democratic representation in Congress).

I honestly think a more plausible alternative to Court-packing is plain and simple jurisdiction stripping, which is perfectly constitutional and eliminates the possibility that SCOTUS would ever overturn a key Democratic law. So, for example, a Dem president and Congress would pass Medicare-for-All legislation that also includes language that dictates that 'no court may adjudicate the constitutionality of this legislation in any way' (or a similarly phrased passage).

Also, and this is something that David Faris has discussed, a Dem president could hold Court-packing legislation hostage in order to spur a Constitutional amendment. I.e., Court-packing legislation could reach the Dem POTUS's desk, but then the president could announce that (s)he will first give the states three months to pass an amendment that removes Gorsuch/Kavanaugh, sets the number of justices at 9, and establishes term limits. If the states do not do so, then the Court-packing legislation is enacted. And I think it's an equally solid approach.

Last edited by 2ManyTacos; 05-26-2019 at 02:11 PM.
  #35  
Old 05-27-2019, 06:42 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,372
Let's say that first thing tomorrow evidence comes to light that Bill Clinton did something really bad. I mean we all agree that it was really bad. Clinton holds a press conference and admits it.

Why does it follow that Ginsburg and Breyer should be impeached?
  #36  
Old 05-30-2019, 11:46 PM
flurb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Also, and this is something that David Faris has discussed, a Dem president could hold Court-packing legislation hostage in order to spur a Constitutional amendment. I.e., Court-packing legislation could reach the Dem POTUS's desk, but then the president could announce that (s)he will first give the states three months to pass an amendment that removes Gorsuch/Kavanaugh, sets the number of justices at 9, and establishes term limits. If the states do not do so, then the Court-packing legislation is enacted. And I think it's an equally solid approach.
Well, there's the small matter that the President only has ten days to decide what to do with a bill. If he does nothing and Congress is in session, it becomes law. If he does nothing and Congress has adjourned it does not become law (the pocket veto).
  #37  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:16 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Court packing is theoretically possible but extremely difficult and sets a nasty precedent.
So does refusing to allow a nomination to come to the floor - that also sets a nasty precedent. And so does refusing to do oversight while the leader of your party claims extra-constitutional authority - that sets a nasty precedent too.

Setting nasty precedent is a ship that sailed like a mighty long fucking time ago...
McConnell has made it clear only SCOTUS nominees put forward by a Republican President will ever be granted a hearing as long as the GOP controls the Senate. Nasty precedent has already been established by that shit sucking fuckwad. I say the Dems should pack the Court and impeach any conservative Justice they can at the first opportunity. Once McConnell retires or dies there is no reason to think the GOP will allow things to go back to how they were before the Garland nomination. The Democrats would be wise to keep that in mind and act as soon as they are able.
  #38  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:05 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,532
No less an authority than Gerald ford once opined that ground for impeachment is whatever a majority of the House thinks it is. As for changing the size of the court, Mitch effectively and temporarily changed it to eight.
  #39  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
... I say the Dems should pack the Court and impeach any conservative Justice they can at the first opportunity. ...
You don't have the votes to do any of this. Talking about it makes it less likely you'll ever get the votes to do any of it.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-31-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #40  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Court-packing by adding just 2 new liberal justices to SCOTUS would be like "going nuclear" by lobbing "just 2 nukes" at Russia. It gives you the worst of both worlds; not only have you crossed the threshold and invited your opponent to go all the way, much further than you did, but you didn't even accomplish. A 6-5 liberal majority wouldn't necessarily hand Democrats many judicial victories; that one-vote margin is very slim. Whereas Republicans could just pack 20 or 100 new justices when it's their time.
Nothing the Democrats could do would stop McConnell and those like him from doing everything they can get away with to prevent popular progressive policies from being enacted. They might as well fight under the same principles rather than just give up and surrender. "Nuclear option" already happened years ago. There are no rules any more, except what they can get away with.
  #41  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:39 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,871
Barring something unprecedented actually restoring some legitimacy to the Senate and SCOTUS, the next time a Democratic president has a Republican Senate that refuses to even consider (hold hearings or a vote) on a SCOTUS nominee, they should rent some office space in DC, hold hearings with all the Democratic Senators (with the Republicans invited, of course), hold a vote, and presuming there's a majority of the Senators present in favor, just seat the SCOTUS nominee. That would be the equivalent of what McConnell did with Garland -- it doesn't conflict with the letter of the Constitution (advice and consent of the Senate -- they did as best they could, and received "advice and consent" from every Senator who decided to get off their ass and advise), just like McConnell's actions didn't conflict with the letter of the Constitution. It'd be norm-breaking, but no more norm-breaking than McConnell's actions.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-31-2019 at 01:39 PM.
  #42  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:46 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Barring something unprecedented actually restoring some legitimacy to the Senate and SCOTUS, the next time a Democratic president has a Republican Senate that refuses to even consider (hold hearings or a vote) on a SCOTUS nominee, they should rent some office space in DC, hold hearings with all the Democratic Senators (with the Republicans invited, of course), hold a vote, and presuming there's a majority of the Senators present in favor, just seat the SCOTUS nominee. That would be the equivalent of what McConnell did with Garland -- it doesn't conflict with the letter of the Constitution (advice and consent of the Senate -- they did as best they could, and received "advice and consent" from every Senator who decided to get off their ass and advise), just like McConnell's actions didn't conflict with the letter of the Constitution. It'd be norm-breaking, but no more norm-breaking than McConnell's actions.
And we now have a new contestant in the category of "silliest idea proposed in this thread". What do think will happen if the fake nominee shows up at the Supreme Court? Do you think the actual justice are just going to have an empty chair waiting for him and shrug when he sits in it?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-31-2019 at 01:48 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:19 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Let's say that first thing tomorrow evidence comes to light that Bill Clinton did something really bad. I mean we all agree that it was really bad. Clinton holds a press conference and admits it.

Why does it follow that Ginsburg and Breyer should be impeached?
If Clinton comes out and says that he murdered Vince Foster and embezzled whitewater, then those are things that he did.

If Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed through corruption or graft, or in an attempt to avoid or obstruct justice, then they should be investigated, and if they are found to be complicit in aiding the corruption or obstruction, then they should be.

This isn't that hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You don't have the votes to do any of this.
He did say "at the first opportunity", so your contribution is irrelevant.

Quote:
Talking about it makes it less likely you'll ever get the votes to do any of it.
And why would that be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And we now have a new contestant in the category of "silliest idea proposed in this thread".
Thank you for your entry.
  #44  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:19 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You don't have the votes to do any of this. Talking about it makes it less likely you'll ever get the votes to do any of it.

I suggest you read posts more closely in the future. I very clearly stated “at the first opportunity” or in other words, when they control the Federal government at some unspecified point in the future. Anyone who doesn’t realize the balance of power will shift, just as it has in the past, is seriously misguided. Even McConnell knows this, he just doesn’t give a shit because he’s a soulless evil fuck.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017