“Permanent judges in the higher courts are appointed by the President…”
Oh wait, that’s South Africa. 
Yes, in most democratic and demsoc nations politicians have some role in selecting the judiciary. The degree of that role varies considerably, but the US is not alone.
.
Do, I don’t.
No, it isn’t. Except in the imagination of some folks.
RBG isn’t leaving until rigor mortis sets in. She could go more coocoo than a clock, but she would not step down.
No, I don’t. Forget, that is.
True. That being said, I think election years should play no role whatsoever in SCOTUS nomineeing.
Just ask Justice Garland.
That’s nice, but no party in power is going to agree to that. I’m not sure that Jan 1 has any particular significance that Dec 31 doesn’t. Drawing a line on the calendar and saying “SCOTUS nomination should not take place after this date” might be a feel good gesture, but it’s doesn’t really make any sense. I suppose one might argue that a sitting president who has been voted out of office shouldn’t do so after the election, but even then it’s going to depend on the power dynamic. If the president’s party is in control of the Senate, it’s a purely political decision as to whether to try and confirm someone.
Stop pretending that there is a “Biden rule”. McConnell blocked Garland because he could, not because there was any justification for it. The justifications were provided after the decision was made. If Biden had never opened his mouth, there would have been some other justification. Remember, the GOP was also discussing blocking justices after an eventual Clinton election. The move was 100% political.
The founding fathers weren’t wizards and they didn’t anticipate that a political party would get to this level of anti-democracy where the majority of voters could be ignored.
I’m sure they will stop now that they know it irritates you. 
Whether something qualifies as a “dick move” is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
I enjoy your wide-eyed naivety concerning Mueller, though. It seems to me that the longer the investigation goes on, the worse it looks for Trump, and anyone else who is complicit.
Mueller strikes me as someone who understands the gravity and magnitude of his task. He’s not going about it lightly, and, to quote Maude Lebowski, “he’s a good man, Jeffrey. And thorough.”
I’ve heard the standard Republican talking point about this being a witch hunt. Given the plea bargains, indictments, and guilty pleas (not counting Trump’s own son admitting - nearly bragging - about colluding with Russia, and releasing the email proving it), there seem to be an awful lot of witches getting caught in the snares.
I don’t see Mueller having nothing. Quite to the contrary. With his team playing their cards in a manner where nothing has been leaked, but we know that he’s shared information with state Attorneys General, it seems like he’s just making sure that he doesn’t leave any avenue open that might let Trump wiggle out of any sense of justice. Mueller’s a Republican, appointed head of the FBI by a Republican president. I don’t see it as a partisan effort.
But if Mueller has nothing on Trump, what’s with all the indictments, plea bargains, guilty pleas, etc? Why are so many people either flipping on Trump, or at least considering it? Why have both Trump’s son and Rudy Guliani admitted to there being collusion?
Simply put, what exactly would it take for you to change your mind about this investigation? What would have to happen for you to believe that there’s a forest fire under all this smoke?
I’ll answer that for me: for me to believe that everything was on the up-and-up, I’d like to read the completed report once the whole thing is over. Not idle speculation, but the actual complete report, with as much info not redacted as possible. I trust the investigation. They’ve never given me reason not to. Unlike Trump, who lies about everything, and does it horribly, even after being proven wrong.
So let’s wait until the investigation is over before you or I convict someone in the court of public opinion.
No sir. If you think the Republicans nominating a supreme court justice in a midterm is a dick move in your eyes, as you clearly do, it must be the same for the Democrats who in fact did it before them. That is if you want to be viewed as even minded as opposed partisan.
If you want to start a separate thread on Muller’s investigate, go for it.
My short reply is I find it disturbing how the FBI sent anti-Trump messages during the investigation. The FBI should be neutral, not partisan. I find it disturbing how the dossier was obtained, and after nearly two years there is zero evidence that Trump did anything wrong!
It’s a witch hunt, with unchecked powers going after anyone associated with Trump, and charging them many things that are unrelated to the initial investigation. If Muller had something on Trump, it would have been used to stop him long ago. Time ups, Mueller needs to show his cards. Enough time has passed. Then the USA public, who is fair-minded to those being attacked by the government should have some sympathy for Trump.
To parallel, suppose we investigate the Clinton Foundation for collusion with Iran, who gave many millions to her campaign and linked it in with say Obama’s Iran deal, which gave them 400 million in cash, and access to frozen assets in the billions. The QUID PRO QUO is much higher with the Democrats lately.On the outside looking in, Iran gave far more money than the Russians spent on Facebook ads, didn’t they? Now, all we have to do is use flimsy stories in the press which have no proof, and say " according to sources " to make it look like something is foul.
So let’s drill down and find out those politicians connected to her foundation, charging others along the way with crimes unrelated to the initial investigation.
Would you before that? Trump can order it. I hope he doesn’t.
I actually see more $$$ changing hands between the Democrats and Iran than the Russians supporting Trump.
1- There were TWO FBI agents exchanging their personal political views privately. Horrors!
2- Obama gave the Iranians their OWN MONEY back.
How is it that Republicans are pooping their panties over an investigation that is little more than a year old and has already produced indictments and guilty pleas but have endless patience for investigating Benghazi! ™ multiple times with NO guilt ever being found.
if Trump was a lawyer he would probably appoint himself during his 2nd term , assuming he wins in 2020. And he would stay on until he was 6 feet under.
I see where a bit of confusion lies. When I suggested that it was a dick move, I worded it so that it could be inferred that it was only a dick move when Republicans do it. I didn’t mean to imply that. Chalk that up to an oversight on my part. It’s a dick move when anyone does it. My apologies for any confusion.
Clinton? Go ahead, if you so desire. I’d counter, however, that she’s among the more investigated politicians in recent history. And, given the multitude of hearings surrounding Benghazi, where Republicans seemed determined to keep repeating the investigation until they finally found something they could pin on her, I think it’s premature to only investigate Trump once. We should keep investigating until something finally turns up. After all, Republicans have set a precedent for investigation possible wrongdoing. Same standard should apply to both parties.
And I suppose that I could make a new thread about Mueller, but you mentioned him before I did, so perhaps it should be you to open that thread. Just a suggestion.
I did notice, however, that you didn’t answer my question about what it would take to convince you that Trump actually did the things he’s been accused of. Would you mind answering that question, please?
There’s no such thing. It is a figment of your imagination.
It’s not “anti-democracy”, it’s “anti-social contract”. And that’s why it’s dangerous and scary: not because it’s anti-democracy, but because it’s anti-social. Society will only take so much shit before it pushes back, and the push back is seldom fun.
:rolleyes:
Nice grammar and typos there, eh; a real quality post. And your diction! I love the way you phrase things; where are you from? Iowa? Wisconsin? :dubious:
Nope. The Groupies Of Putiun have set the standard: the time allotted for an investigation shall at least be sufficient to write down the Nine Billion Names of Benghazi.
Attempting to parse his arguments, I get the impression that he is from outer space, but only works in Iowa.
“The FBI” didn’t send anti-Trump messages, one or two FBI agents did. It would be shocking if a few members of every organization in the world didn’t exchange a few anti-Trump texts during the campaign. The guy was a joke, and a dangerous one. Saying so isn’t partisan, but just the way it is. You may remember some prominent Republicans trashing candidate Trump around the same time.
Unhinged, unserious, ill-prepared, a boon to Hillary Clinton Jeb Bush
Misogynist, pathological liar, no business genius Fiorina
Xenophobic, bigoted carnival barker Sen. Graham
Reckless, clueless and irresponsible Kasich
Why is time up? Why has “enough time passed?” I’ve seen clips from Fox News where this is the constant refrain, but I don’t know where it comes from.