What About the Supreme Court?

[JackLuis]

‘Pack’ the Supreme Court? Absolutely

The recent controversy of expanding the Supreme Court to make it more liberal and prevent another Citizens United debacle has opened the issue for public debate. It is the one arm of Government that has no democratic input.

Lifetime appointments are at the root of the issue. However the article raises other points that should be discussed.

One issue that the article doesn't discuss is: Should there be a screening process to prevent the nomination of unqualified Judges to the Supreme and the Circuit courts? WHo should do this, the ABA, the Courts themselves, or some Yahoo like Moscow Mitch?

 

[phrodeau]

If Trump loses, he’ll be packing the SC in December.

 

[FescueFan]

‘Pack’ the Supreme Court? Absolutely

The recent controversy of expanding the Supreme Court to make it more liberal and prevent another Citizens United debacle has opened the issue for public debate. It is the one arm of Government that has no democratic input.

Lifetime appointments are at the root of the issue. However the article raises other points that should be discussed.

One issue that the article doesn't discuss is: Should there be a screening process to prevent the nomination of unqualified Judges to the Supreme and the Circuit courts? WHo should do this, the ABA, the Courts themselves, or some Yahoo like Moscow Mitch?

LOL......Citizens United was the liberal option.

Raw, surprise surprise!~~!! You might want to get sources that have a BASIC understanding of politics.

Well enough to quit confusing communism with liberalism.

 

[Mr_Neb]

One issue that the article doesn't discuss is: Should there be a screening process to prevent the nomination of unqualified Judges to the Supreme and the Circuit courts? WHo should do this, the ABA, the Courts themselves, or some Yahoo like Moscow Mitch?

That article is total BS. The entire blatant justification for packing the court is to move the court more liberal. This idiot doesn't like what happened so any measure to undo it is OK in his book.

As to the question, well theoretically, that is the job of the Senate in confirmation hearings. Not to prevent the nomination of unqualifieds but to not confirm those that in the eyes of the Senate are not qualified.

The problem is the definition of "qualified". I have not seen a single nomination in my lifetime where I felt that the nominee wasn't qualified from a legal experience or career basis to sit on the bench. What I have seen in the vilification of nominees (on both sides) on subjects that are (or should be) irrelevant to the the screening process.

I've also seen gamesmanship with the process for political purposes, again on both sides.

When Obama had the opportunity to appoint a judge, I thought it absolutely wrong that McConnell help the process up. Obama was the president and he had every right to nominate a candidate right up until inauguration day and the Senate has an obligation to swiftly deal with the it. The Democrats claimed foul and I agreed with them. Elections have consequences and this is one of them.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Trump has the exact same right to nominate a candidate and the Senate has the same obligation to swiftly hold confirmation hearings.

Both parties are lying through their teeth to get their way on the exact same subject. There is no better example of just how morally corrupt both parties are to their very core. Neither cares about the constitution of "the American people" as they keep touting.