Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 23

[Belz...]

Trump Tweets

Why are the Democrats allowed to make fake and fraudulent ads.

"But I want to be able to make fraudulent ads too!"

 

[William Parcher]

Glibness is neither an answer nor a defense.

There is no possible answer or defense. I always am whatever you say I am.

 

[Belz...]

Why would a liberal judge resign at this point? Remember, unless one of them dies between now and the inauguration (if even that late), there is no opening. A liberal judge is not going to resign knowing that Trump an McConnell would push through a right wing judge. No one can 'sack' a SC judge. There are three things that can create an opening:
1. A judge dies
2. A judge retires/resigns voluntarily
3. A judge is impeached

Trump has zero ability to sack/force to resign a SC judge.

They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Plus, when you look at various states, you see even more problems... states like Texas (that he won easily) and Florida are now competitive.

Now, I doubt very much that places like Texas will go for Biden in the next election... but it may force the republicans to spend money an other resources to shore up their base there (which leaves fewer resources for the swing states.)

Doesn’t Trump have the largest war chest in history? If so, I’ll guess no one is worried about resource allocation

 

[Stacyhs]

I can however imagine an older conservative jurist resigning. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might be talked into resigning just so they can put in some 40 year old right winger to keep the balance of the court represented by troglodytes for decades to come. As much as the left is afraid of Ginsburg dying the right's nightmare is Trump loses Ginsburg steps aside and Alito and or Thomas kick the bucket.

Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.

 

[William Parcher]

that's not the "only" reason, as the provided link shows.

Here's a fresh headline from Daily Mail...

Donald Trump threatens harsh treatment for 'protesters' 'lowlifes' and 'agitators' who want to disrupt his Tulsa rally as city declares 'civil emergency' out of fears of 'extremely violent' protests

Factual Reporting ranked as "Low".

 

[pgwenthold]

I would like to believe that any attempt to nominate and approve a USSC judge at this point would guarantee Mitch McConnell's loss in November. Anyone who would be that blatantly hypocritical certainly needs to be voted out. The question is whether Kentucky would be smart enough to do that is a different question.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I am not denying that Trump's legal team has been less than stellar. (Of course, some of the things they are arguing are so stupid that they would probably lose even if they did have good lawyers.)

My earlier post wasn't about the reason why Trump was losing those cases.

My post was in response to a question about why Trump was bringing up the second amendment after losing court cases on gay rights and DACA. In that case, talking about gun rights seemed like a bit of a non sequitur.... he lost an immigration case, why doesn't he complain about the rulings on immigration rather than the 2nd amendment.

At this stage “your 2A rights” is just one more of his limited-vocabulary verbal tics.

 

[Stacyhs]

They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.

It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now.

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

 

[JoeMorgue]

I will wager if we see either part gain a majority in both Houses they will try though.

SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get.

If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.

 

[acbytesla]

Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.

70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more.

This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.

 

[Bob001]

Another account of how we got here, and a warning:

So, five full years into this political disaster there is another mistake Americans could make, at least decent Americans who believe in democracy and liberty rather than autocracy.

The mistake is to assume that Trump is so badly wounded by botching response to the pandemic and his racist response to the Black Lives Matter movement that he is toast. Trump is feral, a wild animal who cannot be domesticated and tamed.
To count him out before the ballots are cast and counted would be a mistake as awful as those of the politics reporters who covered the 2016 campaign.

Be smarter than they were.

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/dont-count-trump-out-yet_partner/

 

[Horatius]

Another account of how we got here, and a warning:

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/dont-count-trump-out-yet_partner/

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

 

[Bob001]

70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more.

This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.

There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.

 

[acbytesla]

It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

 

[Bob001]

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

The point is we can't be complacent. Some people are already talking about when Biden is President. Like they talked about when Hillary is President. Trump has all the powers of the Presidency, and the support of Repub governors and legislatures in a majority of the states. We can't forget it.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.

You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.

 

[Bob001]

This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

But the Judiciary Act of 1869 does.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

 

[Bob001]

You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.

Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already made.

 

[Tero]

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks?

Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.