There's quite a big difference between the random opportunties that politics affords and the structural rejection of an independent judiciary. Anyone who hasn't spent 4 years with their hair on fire would know this.
Why Doesn't Biden Just Answer The Question?
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
But the GOP embracing a structural rejection of an independent judiciary has been a decades long project.
Although even then you can make the argument that constitutional hardball with Article II powers is just part of the deal with the balance of powers. If Congress pushes too hard, the President or the Supreme Court can push back.
(Or, since this is ideological, the opposing party can just re-legislate to reform and rebalance the court when it has become out of alignment as a balanced part of the government.)
Either way, the solution to this rejection is for the Democrats to reform the courts.
Which would be wildly unpopular, and cost them many independent voters. That's the real reason they won't answer the question.
LOL. My hair may be on fire but I have not spent the last four years with my head up the super spreader in chief's ass. Have you not hear his not very subtle attempts to politicoize and weaponoize the SCOTUS? If not try pulling your head out of his ass for a few moments and look at his tweets and interviews on FN. your projection is showing through.
Trump is trying to take credit for what he thinks are good nominations to the bench. Since it's a president's job to nominate, it makes sense that he wants political credit for what he has done. Judges have different approaches to applying the law, and it is a political issue which approach is best for the country. It seems you are objecting to Trump doing the very job that Presidents are obliged to do. If the public wants a President with different views on this subject, they can always vote for a different candidate.
However, whatever a President's views are on judicial merit, he can only nominate when there are vacancies, and he is only generally assured of his picks if his party also controls the Senate, and that is a matter left to chance. The Democrats want to change that- structurally and forever. A bad look that I believe would be very unpopular with independent voters.
There is a difference between nominating someone who is qualified and nominating someone who the super spreader in chief believes and has said will do his bidding. He does not understand the concept of the independence of the judiciary.
Make no mistake i think she whould be confirmed as the POTUS whoever it is has the right to appoint. Although i disagree with virtually everything she says and stands for she is qualifued. and should be confirmed. it is the rank hypocrisy of the McConnell and the GOP that i find offensive.
You might not understand the meaning of the independence of the judiciary. It isn't the judiciary who decide what judicial qualifications should be. Some bare bones qualifications are established by the Constitution or by statute (both, of course, enacted by the legislative branch) and the rest of the qualifications are determined by the executive branch who nominates judges. The independence of the judiciary only arises once a case is before the courts. Those who have been appointed have independent power to determine those cases. It has nothing to do with judicial qualifications.
Whether a politician believes a judge will "do his bidding" is really not relevant. He has no power to force a judge to do anything. Trump is taking credit for promoting a particular qualification for a judicial appointment. No more than that. He has no ability to force any of his appointments to reach particular results in specific cases.
Last edited:
Are you just posting that so that I will think you are smart. Read my post. I have said that she should be confirmed. The super spreader has said repeatedly that he believes the SCOTUS will do his bidding. Is that your view of the independence of the judiciary? Whether or not he has the ability to compel that behavior is beside the point. he is making the selection based upon what he believes will be the case.
Sure, the judge will be free to make decisions as they have.
And presidents are free to pick the judges that have a history of making the kinds of judgements they want.
It's only polls but they don't seem to show it as a mistake.
And considering a huge percentage of Americans think it's wrong to fill the seat now....
Can the Senate be forced to seat a pic? Within a time frame. Or can they do the same thing McConnell did?
Do you truly believe the judiciary branch is independent in its current state? It's been fucked with for decades by the executive branch.
Not sure if you noticed, but American democracy is a shambles already because of past (and current) presidents.
And SC decisions like allowing dark money to fund elections and qualified immunity that has been partially responsible for the acts that lead to the BLM protests.
You should really read things.
Since I'm not removing the advise and consent power of the Senate, they can hold out sure. But it requires consistently winning elections (since the openings no longer come up at random.)
If they do what they did to Garland and refuse to even hear it, there is a 120 day time limit in the bill. Silence is considered consent.
They could listen to each new person and vote them down each time, but that's trickier to do of course. (Especially if you adopt the "you need a super majority to stop it" barrier.)
But no, unless you completely remove the power of the Senate to be involved, it is impossible to remove the power of the Senate to block completely.
Would the US system be better if it didn't have so many veto points? Of course. But outside a constitutional amendment that isn't happening.
