ADVERTISEMENT

Schumer Should Be Gone

millerbleach said:
How have Kavenaugh or Gorsuch acted like bullies?
What have they done and what is Chuckie saying other than threatening them? It won't be removal at the ballot box so what is he saying will be the price they will pay? What will hit them?
Click to expand...

Here is the thing, I am not totally disagreeing with you, but I don't wholly agree either. Chuck deserves the bad press for what he said, and that was also part of my point. But me personally I don't find what he said as a personal attack or threat in today's political climate. When I read that and listened to it, what it sounds like to me is him reaching for the moon knowing good and well he has no power to change any decision that the court comes out with, he is powerless but he is throwing a fit basically screaming I will get you my pretties!
But in 20 years the court could flip the other way, all in who appoints who. If anybody needs term limits I think it is the Justices, we have some really old people hanging on way to long because of who is in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RawMeat
bullitpdq68 said:
Here is the thing, I am not totally disagreeing with you, but I don't wholly agree either. Chuck deserves the bad press for what he said, and that was also part of my point. But me personally I don't find what he said as a personal attack or threat in today's political climate. When I read that and listened to it, what it sounds like to me is him reaching for the moon knowing good and well he has no power to change any decision that the court comes out with, he is powerless but he is throwing a fit basically screaming I will get you my pretties!
But in 20 years the court could flip the other way, all in who appoints who. If anybody needs term limits I think it is the Justices, we have some really old people hanging on way to long because of who is in power.
Click to expand...

Why is a Supreme Court appointee a lifetime position?
 
Veerman_12 said:
Why is a Supreme Court appointee a lifetime position?
Click to expand...
So they can't be swayed into making decisions just to get "re-elected". There have been numerous justices who have changed from who they were when appointed but that is part of the equation.
 
Veerman_12 said:
Why is a Supreme Court appointee a lifetime position?
Click to expand...

the intention was to insulate the process from partisan politics. So they could be free to rule by the law. However it has become one of the most important issues when picking a president now. I see both pro’s and con’s. But when the lifetime appointment was decided the average age was 50. Most never served that long. Now times have changed.

somebody mentioned the other day and I believe it to be true, after 70 you start down hill just facts of life.
 
bullitpdq68 said:
the intention was to insulate the process from partisan politics. So they could be free to rule by the law. However it has become one of the most important issues when picking a president now. I see both pro’s and con’s. But when the lifetime appointment was decided the average age was 50. Most never served that long. Now times have changed.

somebody mentioned the other day and I believe it to be true, after 70 you start down hill just facts of life.
Click to expand...

it would be ok if the process changed from a life appointment to say a max term of say 10, 15 or 20 years but it should take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to change it.
 
Rock Hard Corn Frog said:
it would be ok if the process changed from a life appointment to say a max term of say 10, 15 or 20 years but it should take nothing less than a constitutional amendment to change it.
Click to expand...

totally agree, I think appointment is fine and say like an 18 year term. But then the question is what do you do with death or early retirement. Never an easy answer and the system is not that bad. But there was a time the justices never weighed into politics. That is not the case many are now outspoken.
 
bullitpdq68 said:
the intention was to insulate the process from partisan politics. So they could be free to rule by the law. However it has become one of the most important issues when picking a president now. I see both pro’s and con’s. But when the lifetime appointment was decided the average age was 50. Most never served that long. Now times have changed.

somebody mentioned the other day and I believe it to be true, after 70 you start down hill just facts of life.
Click to expand...
I think it would be better to have a term limit than an age limit because an age limit would give incentives to pick absurdly young justices. Then again, we already see that impact. Look at the age of the last few justices that were nominated that had a chance to go on the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RawMeat and bullitpdq68
I could go for a max age of 75 on judges, Congress, and POTUS. Never have understood the value to limit on length of term. If they are good keep them if not cut them.
 
millerbleach said:
How have Kavenaugh or Gorsuch acted like bullies?
What have they done and what is Chuckie saying other than threatening them? It won't be removal at the ballot box so what is he saying will be the price they will pay? What will hit them?
Click to expand...
A lot of SC justices care about their legacies. Their legacies will pay the price for being on the wrong side of history.
His wording is awful, and he should be reprimanded.
 
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be seen as having made votes and written opinions that are not on the right side of history. Just as other judges are known for their poor decisions in history such as Taney in Dred Scott, or Fields in Plessy v. Ferguson.
 
Expect2Win said:
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be seen as having made votes and written opinions that are not on the right side of history. Just as other judges are known for their poor decisions in history such as Taney in Dred Scott, or Fields in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Click to expand...

So nothing specific, just partisan nonsense. Got it.

Can you stop with the hate just because people don't think like you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Draftpik
Rock Hard Corn Frog said:
The only caveat I would say is that the justices have lifetime appointments so what is the thing that they don’t know will hit them? Some criticism?

Like I said before I don’t think it was like Maxine Watters comments but it is worthy of a vote for censure condemning the remarks.
Click to expand...

Not a issue IMO....just normal politics. The only thing is clearly this would be a Major Media Talking point if someone on the Right had spewed that. Yahoo,NYtimes,NBC,CBS,CNN,ABS etc. would be all over it for Days. I think that is what causes conservatives to balk so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerbleach
Veerman_12 said:
Why is a Supreme Court appointee a lifetime position?
Click to expand...

To keep the political process at bay to a degree,congress doesn't need to be confirming nominations all the time...and because the thought process is that those Judges are more impartial and the best of the best so you don't want to churn through them all the time based on some set guideline.

They system is fine, and nothing needs to change at all really. This all boils down to one super partisan activist judge....Ruth baby......she is the exception not the rule. She thought she was playing it smart and would gracefully retire under Hillary, but that plan was blown to heck and now she is trying to outlast Trump. That will be her legacy.

If it was a conservative Judge playing the same game, conservatives would be all for it. That is just human nature.

Don't change the system because of the exception....and this is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Veerman_12 said:
You cite no specific examples yet your hate makes you believe those two judges will make rulings "on the wrong side of history" just because Trump appointed them.

That's prototype Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Click to expand...

Well in all honesty, it is no different than what conservative might say about Ruth or any other more liberal judge, what a person will personally think of each one and will say about them all depends on our ideology.

Funny, for years I never really cared, only been in the last 15 years of my life I really started to care more about politics. Love the debates here however and all of the different ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Expect2Win
The title of this thread is Schumer should be gone. The suggestion of the whole thread is that he threatened those 2 justices. The insinuation is that it was a physical threat. I answered with what I thought Schumer have meant besides a physical threat.
As far hate, I don't hate either of them. I don't even know where Gorsuch would stand on a lot of issues. I don't know how he will vote, and I wasn't saying I thought that is what he would do, that is what I believe Schumer was saying.
I do dislike Kavanaugh. I did not like how he handled himself in his confirmation hearing. His ridiculous conspiracy involving the Clintons was totally laughable. At other times he acted like a petulant child, and not someone with a temperament to be making any rational decisions.
 
Expect2Win said:
The title of this thread is Schumer should be gone. The suggestion of the whole thread is that he threatened those 2 justices. The insinuation is that it was a physical threat. I answered with what I thought Schumer have meant besides a physical threat.
As far hate, I don't hate either of them. I don't even know where Gorsuch would stand on a lot of issues. I don't know how he will vote, and I wasn't saying I thought that is what he would do, that is what I believe Schumer was saying.
I do dislike Kavanaugh. I did not like how he handled himself in his confirmation hearing. His ridiculous conspiracy involving the Clintons was totally laughable. At other times he acted like a petulant child, and not someone with a temperament to be making any rational decisions.
Click to expand...

Then I misunderstood. My bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Expect2Win
Veerman_12 said:
Then I misunderstood. My bad.
Click to expand...
Also, just because they have a lifetime appointment, it doesn't mean they can't be impeached.
It won't really happen, but it's not like that couldn't be what he was insinuating, and not below him to attempt to bring articles of impeachment against a sitting judge.
 
Expect2Win said:
Also, just because they have a lifetime appointment, it doesn't mean they can't be impeached.
It won't really happen, but it's not like that couldn't be what he was insinuating, and not below him to attempt to bring articles of impeachment against a sitting judge.
Click to expand...

He could bring them...but for what and why? Seems like an exercise in futility. Oh and purely partisan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71 and millerbleach
Veerman_12 said:
He could bring them...but for what and why? Seems like an exercise in futility. Oh and purely partisan.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that. I am just saying that he could have meant any of those things as opposed to it just be a physical threat. Schumer is not a genius, but I am pretty sure he knows he is not going to go physically attack one of those judges.
 
Expect2Win said:
I don't disagree with any of that. I am just saying that he could have meant any of those things as opposed to it just be a physical threat. Schumer is not a genius, but I am pretty sure he knows he is not going to go physically attack one of those judges.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but inciting violence? Perhaps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerbleach
Expect2Win said:
Perhaps. I agreed his wording was bad and problematic. He does deserve to be called out for it.
Click to expand...

I hate the word "problematic" it's such a left wing buzzword.

That has nothing to do with the current topic per se, just throwing it out there.
 
millerbleach said:
WHO HAS TRUMP THREATENED?????
You guys are great at KNOWING things you can't support with evidence.
Click to expand...
If you didn't see him during his campaign doing what many have told you he said then I can't help you. You would only believe he did or something if he did or said it right to YOUR face.
 
millerbleach said:
WHO HAS TRUMP THREATENED?????
You guys are great at KNOWING things you can't support with evidence.
Click to expand...
I tagged you in a post about presidential, which covered this but hey no one put it in this thread so you can ignore it and act like you never have seen any facts. Please keep acting like an arrogant $$$ and keep running off at the mouth.
 
Expect2Win said:
I tagged you in a post about presidential, which covered this but hey no one put it in this thread so you can ignore it and act like you never have seen any facts. Please keep acting like an arrogant $$$ and keep running off at the mouth.
Click to expand...
Well he did say "IF" you see a threat stop it. Pretty much the same as threatening SC judges.
Really? You consider that to be Trump threatening to harm someone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Toots_mcgee

Biden makes a move to shore up his base

Replies
0
Views
259
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
Toots_mcgee
Toots_mcgee
Toots_mcgee

Extreme

Replies
1
Views
507
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
Toots_mcgee
Toots_mcgee
Toots_mcgee

Smooth transition

Replies
1
Views
205
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
r14veer
R
C

Drink is a Clown

Replies
2
Views
767
FOOTBALL
Toots_mcgee
Toots_mcgee
NorthKansascity

Kearney observations

Replies
52
Views
2K
FOOTBALL
J. Kane
J. Kane
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back