Posted on 08/23/2019 3:41:37 PM PDT by libstripper
That didn't take long.
A former Obama adviser set the stage for a potentially nasty confirmation fight in the Senate next year within an hour of the Supreme Court announcing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently completed three weeks of radiation treatment after doctors found a localized cancerous tumor on her pancreas.
* * *
Ginsburg, who is 86, has battled various illnesses over the last 20 years. The Supreme Court said in a statement Friday that she “tolerated the treatment well" and concluded that there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in her body.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
~~~~~Isn’t it scary that we don’t hear about her condition until weeks or months later? We’re led to believe that she’s doing cartwheels, but the reality is that she could be gone at any moment.~~~~~
Laura Ingrahm said last night her situation is “dire”, which is the first time I’ve heard any real indication her time might be near.
The dems were vicious with Gorsuch.
They were bitter, mean, vindictive, deceitful and willing to do anything at all, no matter what, to stop him from going to the court.
If Trump gets to nominate another one, the dems will get even worse.
All to let feminazis kill their babies.
If you listen to Mark Levin, who vetted Souter for Bush, you will see that Souter lied completely and totally deceived the conservative team created to ensure we get a constitutional originalist.
The problem is that Republican presidents often wanted stealth candidates. Even if stealth candidates are the only way to overcome the Senate’s opposition, it is necessary to choose a candidate whose judicial philosophy is known to someone we can trust.
Sometimes it was known even before the confirmation that the candidate isn’t an originalist. John Roberts was said to be a minimalist, not an originalist. After John Roberts was nominated, I read in an online forum a sigh of relief by someone who presented himself as a liberal. He was nominated anyway.
It makes me wonder whether previous Republican administrations really wanted the Supreme Court with an originalist majority. The moderately-conservative Supreme Court, yes, but the originalist Supreme Court, no.
Treatments are getting better. A neighbor of ours had it and she has been OK for 8 years..
You do likewise, Brother!
The constraint you are systematically ignoring is the need to insulate the judiciary from the Executive Branch. There being no magic formula for identifying exactly who should be on SCOTUS, you need to have the POTUS nominate people to fill vacancies. I accept that, but it does involve the POTUS in the judiciary, and we could wish otherwise.Why not go the other way and reduce to 7?My proposal that the POTUS name, effectively, running mates to be “candidates" for SCOTUS like the VP is a running mate for the POTUS isn’t perfect. In fact I would expect and respect some vehement opposition. But at least the electorate would know something about what electing a particular presidential candidate would imply for the judiciary. If the Democrat named some Ninth Circus clown, that would energize his base but also his opponent’s base.
Perhaps instead of naming the particular name of the person to be elevated to the Court, each candidate should be “required” (incentivized) to name ten possibilities on a shortish list. That way none of them would be actual “candidates” in the political sense. And if any one of them was objectionable, the opposition would have good cause to attack, claiming that “If you elect Joe then Judy, of all people, will be on SCOTUS.”
Again I repeat, the POTUS must not be able to influence SCOTUS. SCOTUS justice terms have to be long - or at least longish - and independent of POTUS. Think what the Obamanation years would have been if Obama, of all people, had controlled not only the executive but the deciding vote on SCOTUS! You have to be off your gourd if you like that idea!
Here’s how the numbers work:The more members on the SCOTUS bench, the longer each one’s term is.Presidential elections occur every 4 years, nobody expects that to change. You can go to 7 justices, but that implies that either the POTUS names one every 4 years - times seven justices equals 28 years as the judicial term - or the POTUS names two every 4 years, meaning a 14 year term for each - and in the POTUS’s second term, and the first term of his successor, he would have named the majority of the members of SCOTUS. And that is simply to much churning, and too much presidential influence, on SCOTUS.
The more members nominated by each POTUS, the shorter the term.The more members on the SCOTUS bench, the less influence each POTUS’ nominations affect SCOTUS.
The more members nominated by each POTUS, the more influence each POTUS’ nominations affect SCOTUS.Keeping SCOTUS at nine justices works if POTUS names two of them each inauguration day: that maps to an 18 year term but I don’t like each POTUS naming even four of nine justices.
Raising SCOTUS to eleven justices works if POTUS names two of them each inauguration day: that maps to a 22 year term, and the influence of a two-term POTUS’ picks would only be four out of eleven - which I think about right.
I wouldn’t seriously consider going to 13 since a 26 year term implies that you are approaching the present unlimited term situation - why bother at all? And then, I think that eleven justices is just about the max from the POV of the function of the Court itself. I note that you would like even fewer justices on the bench. That’s why I come down on either 9 or 11, I prefer 11. As a practical matter of implementation, allowing the first POTUS under the new dispensation to add two justices to the bench works better than trying to reduce the number.
Always :^)
It could just be conservative wishful thinking. I will reserve judgement until someone who does not have a vested interest speaks.
I hope that the next nominee is able to throw the innuendo right back at the Demos and Deepers who will come after her with everything they can make up. Show the Planet how truly horrid these people really are.
I think everything you say makes sense, and again I’m all for truncating these old goats lifer terms. But, to do all this requires a Constitutional Amendment (I think). You will note most constitutional amendments can be put on a bumper sticker. Isn’t your plan a little cumbersome? Couldn’t the same thing, or at least a major improvement, be had by passing a simple one sentence amendment that says “U.S.Supreme Court Judges terms are limited to 20 years”.
HOWEVER, I do remember Reagan / Mondale. We loved Reagan and Mondale promised to raise taxes, which I liken to 2020. ...with another 'TV Star', plain speaking, and crazy dems. :)
Why?
Because they were the ones forcing their ideas down on the rest of us.
White Liberal Elites also hate the Constitution. For them it's a document that kept them down... Checks their power.
If Bill Clinton had his way corrupt ‘elites’ would be taking the children of middle class families and handing them over to rapists - rapists like himself and Jeffery Epstein and the hundreds of white liberal 'elites' who flew on his Lolita Express. We don't have to 'wonder' if that's how they would act - we have the proof. Epsteing was given two 12 year old sisters to rape and torture as a birthday gift. I'm sure those we're the only 12 year olds gifted to our 'elites'...
The law protects the innocent and powerless - the law's a load-stone to the corrupt and criminal...
Democrat goals are to weaken the just and give power to the corrupt. Listen to democrats and you can hear it - they side with the criminal OVER the law biding every time.
Why?
Because they were the ones forcing their ideas down on the rest of us.
White Liberal Elites also hate the Constitution. For them it's a document that kept them down... Checks their power.
If Bill Clinton had his way corrupt ‘elites’ would be taking the children of middle class families and handing them over to rapists - rapists like himself and Jeffery Epstein and the hundreds of white liberal 'elites' who flew on his Lolita Express. We don't have to 'wonder' if that's how they would act - we have the proof. Epsteing was given two 12 year old sisters to rape and torture as a birthday gift. I'm sure those weren't the only 12 year olds gifted to our 'elites'...
The law protects the innocent and powerless - the law's a load-stone to the corrupt and criminal...
Democrat goals are to weaken the just and give power to the corrupt. Listen to democrats and you can hear it - they side with the criminal OVER the law biding every time.
Sadly there is the GOP !eadership that will willingly go zlongwith the leftists!
Sounds like the Democrats are making plans while the GOP isbusyjerking off.make your own plans the life you save will be your own!
Yes, but float trial balloons that it will be a male. Let the Democrats spend time and money lining up rape accusers - then hit 'em with a female nominee.
They’ll accuse the husband, then. These people are not deterred by reality at all. They’re like the Borg, relentlessly adapting to whatever they need to do to achieve their goal of total domination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.