Donald Trump
Comments
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of June 2, 2020,2 judges for the Unitedpblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.0 -
nickice said:
It depends if another judge retires or dies. There is no great conspiracy here. Presidents have to right to nominate federal judges. The American system is actually pretty well set up with checks and balances to prevent it turning into a dictatorship. For example, term limits.pblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
Checks and balances mean squit all when Trump and Barr ignore all oversight requests, and Barr is not a neutral AG, rather acting as Trump's legal fixer.0 -
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
briantrumpet said:nickice said:
It depends if another judge retires or dies. There is no great conspiracy here. Presidents have to right to nominate federal judges. The American system is actually pretty well set up with checks and balances to prevent it turning into a dictatorship. For example, term limits.pblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
Checks and balances mean squit all when Trump and Barr ignore all oversight requests, and Barr is not a neutral AG, rather acting as Trump's legal fixer.
Eric Holder called himself Barack Obama's 'wingman'. I'm all for going after Trump but I think we should actually go after him for things that aren't common practice.0 -
briantrumpet said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of June 2, 2020,2 judges for the Unitedpblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
Another great example of why term limits are a necessity. It's not like Trump can just decide to appoint a judge. There has to actually be a vacancy first. Then, when there is a Democratic president, he/she'll appoint judges, too.
0 -
That's as maybe but it was specifically Supreme Court judges under discussion.briantrumpet said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of June 2, 2020,2 judges for the Unitedpblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It will help Trump deflect from their own screw up on corona. A big batch of reinfections and he can blame the protests.0
-
Only if the senate confirms them.nickice said:briantrumpet said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of June 2, 2020,2 judges for the Unitedpblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
Another great example of why term limits are a necessity. It's not like Trump can just decide to appoint a judge. There has to actually be a vacancy first. Then, when there is a Democratic president, he/she'll appoint judges, too.
Judges also retire, and McConnell is appointing young, unqualified men to replace them. The senate is sitting now, pretty much with the sole purpose of confirming judges.
It was McConnell's stated aim to hold open positions while Obama was president and confirm as many as possible while a republican is president. There is zero pretence now of them being non partisan. It's very dark, and quite dangerous.0 -
Well, of course, because that's politics if you're looking for people playing politics with judicial appointments you don't have to look any further than the Democrats attacks on Brett Kavanaugh (no location, time, date or witnesses but somehow a 'credible' accusation). We know that the Democrats didn't really care about what Kavanaugh had allegedly done because the accusations against Joe Biden are more credible yet they choose to ignore them. And 'unqualified' is a bit of a stretch. That sounds like politics again. Both parties are as bad as each other in my opinion.kingstongraham said:
Only if the senate confirms them.nickice said:briantrumpet said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of June 2, 2020,2 judges for the Unitedpblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
Another great example of why term limits are a necessity. It's not like Trump can just decide to appoint a judge. There has to actually be a vacancy first. Then, when there is a Democratic president, he/she'll appoint judges, too.
Judges also retire, and McConnell is appointing young, unqualified men to replace them. The senate is sitting now, pretty much with the sole purpose of confirming judges.
It was McConnell's stated aim to hold open positions while Obama was president and confirm as many as possible while a republican is president. There is zero pretence now of them being non partisan. It's very dark, and quite dangerous.0 -
It seemed a strange reply as if a president appointing judges was somehow suspect when, in fact, all federal judges are nominated by the president.pblakeney said:
That's as maybe but it was specifically Supreme Court judges under discussion.briantrumpet said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#:~:text=As of June 2, 2020,2 judges for the Unitedpblakeney said:
It might only be 2 but that is 2 out of only 9. And counting...nickice said:
Judges have been appointed as and when vacancies come up really (though there were some political games during the Obama administration). There are only two Trump appointees on the SC and neither of them would ever support what would amount to a coup. Even if they did, there would be no law to base it on.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
Courts are there to enforce the law so there is no interest (legal or otherwise) in allowing him to stay on. There is a very good reason for judicial tenure.kingstongraham said:
That's all very well, but this president has done a lot of things he isn't allowed to. If the senate, the courts, the military, and law enforcement decide that they're on his side when he declares an emergency and stays there, what happens then?schlepcycling said:
The great thing about the US Constitution is that the 20th Amendment states that the President and Vice President's terms both expire ends at noon on 20th January. Also he can't cancel the election without an act of Congress as a trio of Federal election laws set Election Day for presidential electors, senators, and US representatives as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” If Republicans want to change this law, they will need to go through the Democratic House.Pross said:
I can see him challenging the validity of the election, refusing to leave office until it's been reviewed and stirring up the lunatics who support him as he'll claim he's being punished for fighting for their rights.rick_chasey said:You do wonder what will happen in the event he loses an election.
It might turn out to be a weakness of the US Constitution that judges are political appointees. Trump & McConnell have been packing them in as quickly as they can. There's a lot to be said for an awkward, independent judiciary.
Not bad going when one was appointed by G.Bush senior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama0 -
I've lived in the UK, France and Spain and and the British ones are definitely the least brutal. I think in the USA it depends on the jurisdiction. I'm not surprised people are getting angry in France at the moment. The plainclothes police that go out on patrol are notoriously brutal.pangolin said:Here's a guy getting shot point blank with a tear gas canister.
https://imgur.com/gallery/lHs4esy0 -
The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
0 -
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
0 -
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.0 -
This clip is from the USA in case that wasn't clear.nickice said:
I've lived in the UK, France and Spain and and the British ones are definitely the least brutal. I think in the USA it depends on the jurisdiction. I'm not surprised people are getting angry in France at the moment. The plainclothes police that go out on patrol are notoriously brutal.pangolin said:Here's a guy getting shot point blank with a tear gas canister.
https://imgur.com/gallery/lHs4esy- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Sorry it was I was just thinking out loud. But there are also protests in France at the moment against police violence.pangolin said:
This clip is from the USA in case that wasn't clear.nickice said:
I've lived in the UK, France and Spain and and the British ones are definitely the least brutal. I think in the USA it depends on the jurisdiction. I'm not surprised people are getting angry in France at the moment. The plainclothes police that go out on patrol are notoriously brutal.pangolin said:Here's a guy getting shot point blank with a tear gas canister.
https://imgur.com/gallery/lHs4esy0 -
And yet they have only had 6 "unanimously not qualified" ratings since 1989.0
-
What difference does it make that it's a political organisation with a name that makes it appear like the regulatory body of all lawyers?rick_chasey said:
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.0 -
nickice said:
What difference does it make that it's a political organisation with a name that makes it appear like the regulatory body of all lawyers?rick_chasey said:
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
Well, at the moment, maybe upholding legal norms is a Democrat thing, given the contempt with which Republicans are treating them. Incidentally, their pronouncements of Gorsuch's and Kavanagh's suitability ("well qualified") don't bolster your view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association0 -
It's actually pretty well-documented. Just because we can find some examples of Republican nominees being considered as 'well-qualified' does not mean there is no bias.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
What difference does it make that it's a political organisation with a name that makes it appear like the regulatory body of all lawyers?rick_chasey said:
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
Well, at the moment, maybe upholding legal norms is a Democrat thing, given the contempt with which Republicans are treating them. Incidentally, their pronouncements of Gorsuch's and Kavanagh's suitability ("well qualified") don't bolster your view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41759317?seq=1
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/
It's essentially an advocacy group. That's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's some kind of neutral panel that assesses everything on the merits.
As to upholding legal norms, I don't think either party really do. Barack Obama was notorious for the overuse of executive orders and the list of scandal the Obama Administration was involved in is long. I'd much prefer the USA had a different president but I'm not in the least bit surprised Trump won and I can see him winning again.
0 -
Now your just horsing around!darkhairedlord said:
the right to bear arms?step83 said:
the photo op was clearly a move to panda to his main support base...
0 -
A few days ago, George Floyd was killed by the actions of a policeman
Today Donald Trump has tweeted: "Get tough police!"
JeezWilier Izoard XP0 -
nickice said:
It's actually pretty well-documented. Just because we can find some examples of Republican nominees being considered as 'well-qualified' does not mean there is no bias.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
What difference does it make that it's a political organisation with a name that makes it appear like the regulatory body of all lawyers?rick_chasey said:
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
Well, at the moment, maybe upholding legal norms is a Democrat thing, given the contempt with which Republicans are treating them. Incidentally, their pronouncements of Gorsuch's and Kavanagh's suitability ("well qualified") don't bolster your view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41759317?seq=1
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/
It's essentially an advocacy group. That's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's some kind of neutral panel that assesses everything on the merits.
As to upholding legal norms, I don't think either party really do. Barack Obama was notorious for the overuse of executive orders and the list of scandal the Obama Administration was involved in is long. I'd much prefer the USA had a different president but I'm not in the least bit surprised Trump won and I can see him winning again.
If you're quoting an article by someone who is high up in the Federalist Society and runs Judicial Crisis Network, you'll have to excuse me if I think that their viewpoint might be less than neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Crisis_Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society0 -
0
-
And the academic article? Just because there is a bias in the National Review article doesn't mean you can discount it.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
It's actually pretty well-documented. Just because we can find some examples of Republican nominees being considered as 'well-qualified' does not mean there is no bias.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
What difference does it make that it's a political organisation with a name that makes it appear like the regulatory body of all lawyers?rick_chasey said:
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
Well, at the moment, maybe upholding legal norms is a Democrat thing, given the contempt with which Republicans are treating them. Incidentally, their pronouncements of Gorsuch's and Kavanagh's suitability ("well qualified") don't bolster your view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41759317?seq=1
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/
It's essentially an advocacy group. That's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's some kind of neutral panel that assesses everything on the merits.
As to upholding legal norms, I don't think either party really do. Barack Obama was notorious for the overuse of executive orders and the list of scandal the Obama Administration was involved in is long. I'd much prefer the USA had a different president but I'm not in the least bit surprised Trump won and I can see him winning again.
If you're quoting an article by someone who is high up in the Federalist Society and runs Judicial Crisis Network, you'll have to excuse me if I think that their viewpoint might be less than neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Crisis_Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society0 -
They are open about the fact that their criteria for judicial temperament include "compassion" and "open mindedness", which may be viewed as not Conservative.0
-
nickice said:
And the academic article? Just because there is a bias in the National Review article doesn't mean you can discount it.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
It's actually pretty well-documented. Just because we can find some examples of Republican nominees being considered as 'well-qualified' does not mean there is no bias.briantrumpet said:nickice said:
What difference does it make that it's a political organisation with a name that makes it appear like the regulatory body of all lawyers?rick_chasey said:
Equal rights also has a bias towards the democrats, nick, what difference does it make?nickice said:
The ABA is not an organisation like the Law Society to be clear. It is a voluntary organisation not known for being neutral and there is good evidence it has a bias towards the Democrats.kingstongraham said:The American Bar Association has rated 9 of trump's nominees as "not qualified". The senate confirmed 7 of them.
Read the letter saying why Stephen Grasz is not qualified. "the Committee found that temperament issues, particularly
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic." To this administration, it's a letter of recommendation.
Well, at the moment, maybe upholding legal norms is a Democrat thing, given the contempt with which Republicans are treating them. Incidentally, their pronouncements of Gorsuch's and Kavanagh's suitability ("well qualified") don't bolster your view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41759317?seq=1
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/
It's essentially an advocacy group. That's fine, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's some kind of neutral panel that assesses everything on the merits.
As to upholding legal norms, I don't think either party really do. Barack Obama was notorious for the overuse of executive orders and the list of scandal the Obama Administration was involved in is long. I'd much prefer the USA had a different president but I'm not in the least bit surprised Trump won and I can see him winning again.
If you're quoting an article by someone who is high up in the Federalist Society and runs Judicial Crisis Network, you'll have to excuse me if I think that their viewpoint might be less than neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Crisis_Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
Although the academic article does suggest there is a bias against Republican nominations, from the abstract, it is impossible to tell for what reason - pure bias, or because they tend to hold views contrary to established law (such s on abortion)? We're not told.
With my scant knowledge of the US judicial system, there's no way I can assess if the Federalist writer's piece is of any worth, but given the FS's extreme stance, I'd be as deeply distrustful of whatever she claims as I would of Rees-Mogg giving an assessment of the benefits of the EU.
Anyway, all of which kind of backs up my dislike of US judicial appointments being political ones: it's not really an independent judiciary, and will always be prone to political direction and the tempering of its independence.0 -
You're right, I can't imagine Trump or many other politicians responding like he did.pblakeney said:Can anyone imagine the Trumpster responding like Trudeau?
Not just the pause to consider the response, but the honesty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52900486/george-floyd-protests-trudeau-s-epic-pause-when-asked-about-trump-s-response
BJ too, come to that.
For starters, I don't think Trump could be that eloquent even if he was reading from a sheet written by someone else!
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Especially when you just know that he was being set up to give the Trumpster a kicking. Which he would deserve, but that's not diplomacy. Something else he wouldn't recognise.capt_slog said:
You're right, I can't imagine Trump or many other politicians responding like he did.pblakeney said:Can anyone imagine the Trumpster responding like Trudeau?
Not just the pause to consider the response, but the honesty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52900486/george-floyd-protests-trudeau-s-epic-pause-when-asked-about-trump-s-response
BJ too, come to that.
For starters, I don't think Trump could be that eloquent even if he was reading from a sheet written by someone else!
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0
