I refuse to be happy about the democrats doing so little that we’re stuck relying on
ancient judges appointed by centrists clinging to life and their career long enough that maybe the next democratic administration will get around to actually appointing leftist judges. It’s better than Trump’s appointments would be but not nearly good enough.
Judges should be nonpartisan
Nothing is non-partisan. Conservatives attack reality, truth, and science, because these compete with their worldview.
If you look at my post history, I consider(ed) myself a non-Christian conservative.
I just want a functioning government, man. The only way to fix conservatives is to have a leftist party so center is center again.
My views haven’t changed. I shouldn’t be aligning more and more with democrats.
And Donald Trump should not be president of the US. Mitch McConnell violates senate norms. The federal government is a laughing stock. Instead of subverting laws as a norm, we need to enforce existing laws.
In a world where every last thing is political, the non-partisan person is merely hypothetical.
Put another way: non-partisan is a political stance
My original comment was too glib so here’s the truth. So long as the right is viciously opposed to democratic norms, consensus based governance, and the rule of law when it suits their needs, we don’t have the luxury of purity tests. Judges aren’t non-partisan. Nothing is non-partisan.
Tell that to Republicans and who they put on the SC. Yes judges SHOULD be nonpartisan, but the highest court in the land is a fucking cesspool of corruption. Any judiciary left should be protected against their tyranny.
Supreme Court Republicans of the United States
SCROTUS
Yeah at the very list ACB and the boofing guy should get gone
Probably realized with 42 vacancies and Biden only nominating 12 of them, that Schumer and Biden just aren't motivated enough to fill their seats even if they leave today.
Ah the good old "Dems just need to want it more".
Well their is the norms of not appointing judges on a year of an election. Oh yah trump totally respected that.
That was never a norm...
That was the party betting that enough SC seats up for grabs might get people to vote for Hillary, but they were wrong
Obama could seat someone on the legal rationale that while the Senate has the option to approve SC picks, there's nothing that says they have to. So he was taking refusal of a confirmation as implicit confirmation and seating him.
Instead of, you know, just accepting that a SC seat was stolen.
There is zero chance the Supreme Court would have sided with this approach of bypassing the senate.
It's not bypassing them.
Senate is entitled to a vote, but literally nothing says a vote needs to be held, just that they can.
They had a year, and didn't.
There's no such thing as a SC pocket veto.
Sometimes I forget that was almost a decade ago, but this was widely talked about back then. It's not something I just thought of.
He also could have done a recess appointment
If you believe nothing could have been done so it was pointless to try...
Well. We saw how that's worked out, didn't we?
looks at a novel argument that President Obama can directly appoint a Supreme Court Justice if the Senate doesn’t act on a nomination.
Excerpt from an op-ed column in The Washington Post on April 10 by Washington, D.C., lawyer Gregory L. Diskant
That about says it all. This is a fringe legal theory and not how it actually works. You're spreading misinformation just to say "Dems bad".
That norm was also made up by McConnell because he didn't want Obama to replace Scalia.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.