Page 1850 of 1900 FirstFirst ... 85013501750180018401846184718481849185018511852185318541860 ... LastLast
Results 27,736 to 27,750 of 28494
  1. #27736
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    Ill agree with there should be a term limit. Just the way you phrased it. "didnt think it was fair to force her to work to her death." That is what I was responding to. You make it sound like she had no choice in stepping down.

    i would say a term limit of maybe 22 years? Dont know. And a President can not appoint a replacement if there is an election with in 90 days.
    At the same time, a SCOTUS seat should not be vacant for more than 150 days. We can't let McConnell or anyone else block an appointment for a whole year.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.

  2. #27737
    Astonishing Member babyblob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    New Richmond Ohio
    Posts
    3,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    At the same time, a SCOTUS seat should not be vacant for more than 150 days. We can't let McConnell or anyone else block an appointment for a whole year.
    I agree with this as well. one party should not have the power to hold up a nomination just to let their candidate if they win make the call next time around. i diodnt think of that end of things so good call on that
    Favorite teams. Alpha Flight, Avengers, Fantastic Four, West Coast Avengers, Justice Society of America, Legion of Superheroes.

  3. #27738
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post

    How would it stay fixed in place? Wouldn't Republicans be able to change it the next time they have the White House and Senate, making the Supreme Court so full of federalist society approved conservative jurists that we'll need a new building for them?

    They had the Senate and the White House, and they didn't try adding new seats to the court.
    If the law states that the number of seats on the SCOTUS is equal to the number of Appeals Circuits, then it's fixed in place as it is tied to that. No one, Democrat or Republican, can change the number of seats without also changing the setup of the Circuit Courts that reflect the number of States in the US.

    If they want to create more Circuit Courts, then that might change the Supreme Court, but only by increasing it. It is unlikely that the number of Circuit courts would be reduced.

    The only way to make the adjustment is to tie it to something else. The only other option is to create a Supreme Court Seat for every State and Territory, in which case you would be talking about 50+ seats and no one wants that many.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.

  4. #27739
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    Also, respectfully disagreed with everyone critical of RBG for not stepping down. Planning to do the most that you can while you're alive is more admirable than stepping aside and waiting to die. Abdicating because you're old doesn't seem the automatically most responsible choice, to me.
    So once you retire, you're just "waiting to die"? I'm retired, and I hope to keep waiting for a long time yet. Many Supreme Court Justices who have retired have in fact led active lives, including professionally (teaching, writing, lecturing, etc.). RBG just figured that she could keep working as a Justice until she died, because either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would appoint her successor, and so her seat would taken by someone who shares her judicial philosophy. That of course was a bad miscalculation, and had she valued her judicial philosophy more than her personal ambitions, then she should have retired early in Obama's second term. (Note that one of the currently retired Justices is Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan and who retired early in the Trump administration so that Trump could appoint his successor. He was in fact succeeded by one of his former clerks, Brett Kavanaugh.)

  5. #27740
    The Nature Boy AnakinFlair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Saint Ann, MO
    Posts
    3,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Yeah, RBG put her own vanity and career of wanting to be a long-term SCOTUS over her civic duty.
    I don't think it was her own vanity that made RBG not want to step down, at least not at the end. During Obama's term, she may have been worried that they wouldn't have been able to put someone as liberal as her in her seat due to Republican obstinance. Then Scalia died and Mitch blocked Obama's nominee, so she knew that Mitch would probably block BOTH seats from being filled. She was probably waiting for Hillary to win, and for hopefully more Democrats in the Senate, before she retired- and then Trump won. So then she had to hope she could hold out until the next election, which, unfortunately, she couldn't.

  6. #27741
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    I don't think it was her own vanity that made RBG not want to step down, at least not at the end. During Obama's term, she may have been worried that they wouldn't have been able to put someone as liberal as her in her seat due to Republican obstinance.
    There were calls for her to retire when the Dems had the Senate which they did in 2012-2013 before Mitch became Sen. Maj. Leader.

  7. #27742
    Amazing Member Adam Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seismic-2 View Post
    So once you retire, you're just "waiting to die"? I'm retired, and I hope to keep waiting for a long time yet. Many Supreme Court Justices who have retired have in fact led active lives, including professionally (teaching, writing, lecturing, etc.). RBG just figured that she could keep working as a Justice until she died, because either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would appoint her successor, and so her seat would taken by someone who shares her judicial philosophy. That of course was a bad miscalculation, and had she valued her judicial philosophy more than her personal ambitions, then she should have retired early in Obama's second term. (Note that one of the currently retired Justices is Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan and who retired early in the Trump administration so that Trump could appoint his successor. He was in fact succeeded by one of his former clerks, Brett Kavanaugh.)
    Talk of her stepping down was not and has not been so that she could live an active life, so please do not try to twist that around on me. You're saying she should have retired so Obama could have appointed her successor; that argument is not about the life she would live after retiring, but about when she would die.

    You hope to live a long time yet, but you're faulting her for having that same hope. Just because she could have done other things after retiring does not mean that continuing to serve on the court was not the greatest impact she could continue to have; it almost certainly is.
    Be kind to me, or treat me mean
    I'll make the most of it, I'm an extraordinary machine

  8. #27743
    Astonishing Member babyblob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    New Richmond Ohio
    Posts
    3,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    There were calls for her to retire when the Dems had the Senate which they did in 2012-2013 before Mitch became Sen. Maj. Leader.
    Yes I remember the talk on the news shows during that time. And she had several health battles before and during this. She should have stepped down at that point. But she wanted Clinton as the first woman president to nominate the next SC Judge. It was a gamble and she lost.
    Favorite teams. Alpha Flight, Avengers, Fantastic Four, West Coast Avengers, Justice Society of America, Legion of Superheroes.

  9. #27744
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    It was a gamble and she lost.
    No, it was a gamble and we lost.

    RBG noped out with a state funeral and documentaries commemorating her life, career, and achievements. Now minorities, women, and others suffering under the oligarchy with their young psychopathic agents on the SCOTUS bench can do as they please.

  10. #27745
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    Talk of her stepping down was not and has not been so that she could live an active life, so please do not try to twist that around on me.
    Personally, I don't care how she would have lived her life in retirement. I'm just saying that "waiting to die" (in your words) wasn't her only option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    You're saying she should have retired so Obama could have appointed her successor; that argument is not about the life she would live after retiring, but about when she would die.
    Yes, exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    You hope to live a long time yet, but you're faulting her for having that same hope.
    Note that I did retire, even though I hope to live a good while longer. And yes, I am faulting her - not for having that hope but rather for treating that hope as grounds for not retiring. In light of her advanced age and her medical history (repeated occurrences of cancer), it should be clear that her continuing to live for several more years was simply hope rather than expectation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    Just because she could have done other things after retiring does not mean that continuing to serve on the court was not the greatest impact she could continue to have; it almost certainly is.
    It most certainly did have the greatest impact of anything that she could have done, and we shall be living with that impact throughout (and after) the likely decades-long tenure of her successor, Amy Coney Barrett.

  11. #27746
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    At the same time, a SCOTUS seat should not be vacant for more than 150 days. We can't let McConnell or anyone else block an appointment for a whole year.
    How would this work?

    Does the President get to appoint anyone they want if it's the 150th day of a vacancy? What's to keep a Republican President dealing with a Democratic Senate from nominating terrible candidates (Tiffany Trump, the legal advisor for the Family Research Council, Jim Cavaziel) with the intention of getting rejections, so that some federalist society backed state supreme court justice can get in on Day 151?

    Can there be a pause if there's an investigation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    If the law states that the number of seats on the SCOTUS is equal to the number of Appeals Circuits, then it's fixed in place as it is tied to that. No one, Democrat or Republican, can change the number of seats without also changing the setup of the Circuit Courts that reflect the number of States in the US.

    If they want to create more Circuit Courts, then that might change the Supreme Court, but only by increasing it. It is unlikely that the number of Circuit courts would be reduced.

    The only way to make the adjustment is to tie it to something else. The only other option is to create a Supreme Court Seat for every State and Territory, in which case you would be talking about 50+ seats and no one wants that many.
    To change the law so that it states that the number of seats on the SCOTUS is equal to the number of Appeals Circuits, you would need the presidency and the Senate.

    And if Republicans take over, they could easily change it. There isn't really a need to tie it to anything else, though they could easily come up with some pretext (It's the # of Circuit courts plus two! DC Circuit, 9th district and Federal Circuit get two justices due to their higher profile, while the Chief Justice isn't tied to a circuit! One Supreme Court justice for every ten circuit court judges!)

    Quote Originally Posted by seismic-2 View Post
    So once you retire, you're just "waiting to die"? I'm retired, and I hope to keep waiting for a long time yet. Many Supreme Court Justices who have retired have in fact led active lives, including professionally (teaching, writing, lecturing, etc.). RBG just figured that she could keep working as a Justice until she died, because either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would appoint her successor, and so her seat would taken by someone who shares her judicial philosophy. That of course was a bad miscalculation, and had she valued her judicial philosophy more than her personal ambitions, then she should have retired early in Obama's second term. (Note that one of the currently retired Justices is Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan and who retired early in the Trump administration so that Trump could appoint his successor. He was in fact succeeded by one of his former clerks, Brett Kavanaugh.)
    It probably would be healthy to normalize retirements. The justices can devote themselves to the next generation. Stevens wrote three books.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    I don't think it was her own vanity that made RBG not want to step down, at least not at the end. During Obama's term, she may have been worried that they wouldn't have been able to put someone as liberal as her in her seat due to Republican obstinance. Then Scalia died and Mitch blocked Obama's nominee, so she knew that Mitch would probably block BOTH seats from being filled. She was probably waiting for Hillary to win, and for hopefully more Democrats in the Senate, before she retired- and then Trump won. So then she had to hope she could hold out until the next election, which, unfortunately, she couldn't.
    During early 2014, it was recognizable that Republicans might soon take back the Senate.

    That was her moment.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  12. #27747
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    12,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The President was 78 during his inauguration. Should Biden resign on his 80th birthday?
    At least with the president there is a 4 year time limit before a new election at the minimum. In the event of obvious mental decline, there is the 25th amendment (not applicable in cases of high treason).
    Dark does not mean deep.

  13. #27748
    Amazing Member Adam Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seismic-2 View Post
    Personally, I don't care how she would have lived her life in retirement. I'm just saying that "waiting to die" (in your words) wasn't her only option.



    Yes, exactly.



    Note that I did retire, even though I hope to live a good while longer. And yes, I am faulting her - not for having that hope but rather for treating that hope as grounds for not retiring. In light of her advanced age and her medical history (repeated occurrences of cancer), it should be clear that her continuing to live for several more years was simply hope rather than expectation.



    It most certainly did have the greatest impact of anything that she could have done, and we shall be living with that impact throughout (and after) the likely decades-long tenure of her successor, Amy Coney Barrett.
    I wrote four sentences, even already separated into two tiny paragraphs. There is something wrong with how we're "communicating", if that for some reason needed to be broken down into smaller bits, before it could be responded to.
    Be kind to me, or treat me mean
    I'll make the most of it, I'm an extraordinary machine

  14. #27749
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    I wrote four sentences, even already separated into two tiny paragraphs. There is something wrong with how we're "communicating", if that for some reason needed to be broken down into smaller bits, before it could be responded to.
    I thought that replying to each tiny paragraph separately rather than collectively (so that it was clear in each case just what I was replying to) actually facilitated communication. However, if that mode of writing is what you consider important rather than what I actually wrote, then it is clear that in fact we are not communicating at all.

  15. #27750
    Astonishing Member CSTowle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,831

    Default

    I don't think we can set a time limit on when a vacancy is filled (for some of the reasons Mr. Mets pointed out, again think long-term and worst-case), nor can we keep the other party from obstructing. I get the instinct to want to have the ability to do things when we have control of some of the branches of government. But there are two things to consider. One: the way this government is run was decided centuries ago by a group of people wary of too much power being in the hands of a few and is conservative (small c) and slow and difficult to change for a reason. They wanted all things to be considered, they didn't want reactionary changes to law based on the current trends/attitudes, and they didn't want one election to allow a single group to change the way our country is governed.

    While this is frustrating when you want change now or when quick action is called for (or on the depressingly common ongoing issues that needed to be fixed decades ago but are still waiting for action). But I can understand the reasoning and to some extent even agree with it. Second, you need to consider whatever you can do the other guys can do it as well. You get no monopoly on packing the Supreme Court with new Justices. If you "tie it to the number of circuits" as a convenient excuse to add liberal/centrist Justices I guarantee you the Republicans will find a reason to make it 20-25 and make it sound just as reasonable. You also don't want them to run roughshod when they get in power again (and of course, they will) without the ability to slow them down with the filibuster. You can't just put that on a shelf somewhere while we have Democratic control then pop it back out when they win control of Congress and the White House again. Rules apply to both sides.

    Things are slow and difficult by design, and given what we just saw out of the Trump administration that's probably a good thing. Who knows how bad things would have gotten without safeguards in place against his worst instincts. How many times did he propose something only to be told he literally wasn't allowed to? You need to consider beyond the now.
    Formerly finfangfool

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •