If Thomas passes away?

[pecksniff]

Biden has made no particular promises, but it would be unthinkable for him to appoint anyone not black to what amounts to Thurgood Marshall's seat. And of course confirmation will have to be done before the midterms. We think we're seeing a foofraw now! The Jackson hearings will be a nonpartisan tea party by comparison!

 

[WillJ8787]

Biden has made no particular promises, but it would be unthinkable for him to appoint anyone not black to what amounts to Thurgood Marshall's seat. And of course confirmation will have to be done before the midterms. We think we're seeing a foofraw now! The Jackson hearings will be a nonpartisan tea party by comparison!

....someone is going to get some copies of Long Dong Silver in their inheritance distribution.

 

[phrodeau]

He’s 73. It’s more likely he’ll retire or be impeached.

 

[LLCox]

If Thomas passes away will his wife go to jail for supporting a coup.

 

[YDB95]

If he's impeached, he'll never be convicted. He should be, but that's beside the point.

 

[PaxNurgle]

He'd probably try to appoint a moderate, non-partisan judge and the Republicans will shoot down his nominee for not being activist or extremist enough for them. Or claim that because he has almost 3 years left in office, he is a "Lame Duck" and therefore should not have the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. (Much like they did with Obama. Though, Ironically, they rushed through Barrett's appointment even though Trump had less than two months left in office. Republicans feel that they, and only their party, should have the right to appoint Supreme Court Justices.)

 

[KeithD]

Republicans will continue to do this until the voters call them on it at the ballot box.

 

[Champakian]

Good lord...

Project much?

 

[Dribble]

Republicans will continue to do this until the voters call them on it at the ballot box.

But the problem is....this is what all Republicans are. Why would they stop voting their true morals?

 

[Champakian]

*groan*

 

[Chobham]

*chuckle* So now adhering to the Constitution is "extremist."

 

[Champakian]

How did Marshall get the seat of a white man in the first place?

I don't think peck even thinks about what he posts...

 

[Dribble]

*chuckle* So now adhering to the Constitution is "extremist."

The difference between people like you and people like me is simple...I believe the Constitution applies to everyone equally. You believe it only applies to those you approve of. And yet, you call people like me "extremist".

 

[Champakian]

That's one of the worst ascriptions that you ever engaged in to the point that I think it is projection.

The difference between you and us is that you think some pigs are more equal than others...

 

[RobDownSouth]

The difference between people like you and people like me is simple...I believe the Constitution applies to everyone equally. You believe it only applies to those you approve of. And yet, you call people like me "extremist".

AJ is one of the Founding Fathers of the "rules for thee, but not for mee!" movement.

Many mixed-race white wannabees have adopted this principle as a core value of their existence.

 

[pecksniff]

How did Marshall get the seat of a white man in the first place?

LBJ wanted to make a gesture.

 

[pecksniff]

*chuckle* So now adhering to the Constitution is "extremist."

The Citizens United decision is constitutionally arguable but cannot fairly be characterized as anything other than extremist.

 

[YDB95]

The difference between you and us is that you think some pigs are more equal than others...

If you're going to bash progressives, you probably shouldn't allude to works of literature written by one of us.

 

[PaxNurgle]

*chuckle* So now adhering to the Constitution is "extremist."

Define "Adhering to the Constitution."

Because no, Thomas, and a lot of the more extreme-right justices do not adhere to the Constitution. "adhering to the Constitution" means, adhering to ALL parts of the Bill of Rights (beyond just amendment number 2) and the concept of separation of powers (rather than unchecked executive power) as well as the concept of separation of church and state (if Islamic Sharia law is unconstitutional, then so is the Christian version of it that many would like to see implemented.) Thomas does not respect these things.

A good Supreme Court justice should be neither "Republican" nor "Democrat" and neither "Conservative" nor "Liberal." And they should not be an "Activist." If a justice applies for a vacancy stating "I'm going to make it a point to overturn Roe Vs Wade" or "I'm going to undo Citizens United-" guess what- you may or may not agree with either of those things, but...that is, by definition, an activist judge, and should therefore have no place at the Supreme Court level.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Republicans will continue to do this until the voters call them on it at the ballot box.

Because waiting for the cucked elected Democrats to do anything about it is a waste of time. Every dastardly deed from stealing Supreme Court Justices to committing war crimes are done on the feckless Democrats watch and Republicans never pay a price.

 

[YDB95]

Because waiting for the cucked elected Democrats to do anything about it is a waste of time. Every dastardly deed from stealing Supreme Court Justices to committing war crimes are done on the feckless Democrats watch and Republicans never pay a price.

What do you suggest the Democrats should have done about, for example, the theft of the Supreme Court seat? What McConnell did was unethical and wrong in every way, but it was not actually illegal and he had the authority to do it. And the Dems had no means to stop him.

 

[pecksniff]

Because waiting for the cucked elected Democrats to do anything about it is a waste of time. Every dastardly deed from stealing Supreme Court Justices to committing war crimes are done on the feckless Democrats watch and Republicans never pay a price.

What better choice is there than the Dems? Third-party efforts are pointless in our system.

 

[pecksniff]

FTR, Thomas does not have a good record on the court.

Some critics downplay the significance of originalism in Thomas's jurisprudence and claim Thomas applies originalism in his decisions inconsistently.[128][129][130][131] Law professor Jim Ryan and former litigator Doug Kendall have argued that Thomas "will use originalism where it provides support for a politically conservative result" but ignores originalism when "history provides no support" for a conservative ruling.[129] Others have argued that Thomas employs a "pluralistic approach to originalism" in which he relies on a mix of original intent, understanding, and public meaning to guide his judgments.[128][131] Such critics observe that Thomas's originalism most often seems inconsistent or pluralistic when court decisions intersect issues related to race.[130][131] Robin, while calling originalism "at best episodic" in Thomas's rulings, claims it still plays a significant role in how Thomas envisions the Constitution and "functions as an organizing" narrative for his interpretation.[128]

Thomas has argued that the executive branch has broad authority under the Constitution and federal statutes. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, he was the only justice to agree with the Fourth Circuit that Congress had the power to authorize the president's detention of U.S. citizens who are enemy combatants. Thomas granted the federal government the "strongest presumptions" and said "due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination" to justify the imprisonment of a U.S. citizen.[159]

Thomas was one of three justices to dissent in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which held that the military commissions the Bush administration created to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay required explicit congressional authorization and that the commissions conflicted with both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and "at least" Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention.[160] Thomas argued that Hamdan was an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention, and agreed with Scalia that the Court was "patently erroneous" in its declaration of jurisdiction in this case.

 

[YDB95]

FTR, Thomas does not have a good record on the court.

What he does have is a solidly right-wing record. That is what the deplorables care about.

 

[BluesDriver66]

What do you suggest the Democrats should have done about, for example, the theft of the Supreme Court seat? What McConnell did was unethical and wrong in every way, but it was not actually illegal and he had the authority to do it. And the Dems had no means to stop him.

How about something. Or anything. Absolutely nothing is what they do every time the Republicans do anything unethical or illegal.

My bad I take that back. They'll praise them and pledge to work with their friends and colleagues across the aisle in the spirit of bi-partisanship like nothing ever happened.

Biden praises McConnell as 'man of honor' ahead of Supreme Court confirmation​

I don't want to hurt your reputation, but we really are friends'​

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-praises-mcconnell-man-of-honor-supreme-court-confirmation


WASHINGTON – Mitch McConnell, who blocked Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick in 2016, during that year's presidential campaign, said he'd be fine helping to confirm Donald Trump's choice if an opening were to occur on the nation's high court in the 2020 election cycle.

Three years ago, McConnell led the successful effort to obstruct Obama's choice of Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-court-choice-wouldnt-stop-trump/1268883001/