- 14,061
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,911 comments
- 1,802,212 views
- 24,640
- Anoka, MN
- 13,911
- Adelaide
- Neomone
He won't be the only one. Trump has opened the door for people with no political experience but broad celebrity appeal to take the highest office in the land. There will be lots of celebrities who will see this as a way to cash in.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Yes, well actually it depends on who you ask.
Thanks, but not really I was aiming for. I know the USA had problems with chinese with the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882. But I was wondering if there were any Immigration issues that were around the revolutionary war, excluding the obvious.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
So should the GOP rush the appointment of Kavanaugh after the recent allegations? I am finding it difficult to understand a president can nominate 2 people for a lifetime appointment during their 4 year term.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
No of course not. They should IMO continue with the original schedule. This whole allegation thing is a blatantly obvious delaying tactic that stinks to high heaven.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
"Rush"? His name has been known for months and the hearings have been going on for some time. The allegations were presented to the Democrats 2 months ago but were kept secret until it was politically expedient to reveal them or so it appears. The process seems endless. The lifetime appointments are made so Justices don't have to worry about being subject to changing political styles or whims and so they don't have to worry about being thrown off the court for making a decision that the person in power doesn't like. It has it's positives and negatives.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
You are right. I shouldnt have said "rush". But I still dont get why Trump gets to pick a 2nd justice, but Obama was blocked 2 years ago??
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Obama was in his lame duck year, and his party did not control the senate.
Trump, on the other hand, is just beginning his term, and with his party firmly in control. It's possible it will fall to him to make several more nominations. But it's also very possible the Dems will soon control one or even both branches of the congress, forcing him to choose candidates more acceptable to a new majority.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
No, not at all. A quick glance shows that only two Presidents, William Henry Harrison and Gerald Ford, nominated one or no justices. In fact Obama nominated three, two of whom were confirmed.
Hardly unprecedented.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I dont understand this lifetime appointment of a judge. The proces in its execution just doesnt seem like a seperation of powers to me. I understand the nominee requires a 51 majority vote. Wouldnt it be a lot more democratic and in the line of the constitution to have higher threshold? A supreme court justice should always be a bipartisan effort at least.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
At this very hour, the president of Poland is requiring his judges to retire early so that he may then pack the court with judges more suitable to his (extreme?) views. Lifetime appointments are intended to prevent this abuse of power.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 1,684
- Houston, TX
- The_TetsuKobura
Because it’s more tyrannical to remove a long standing judge from their seat because they don’t suit the president’s political ideals.
It used to be 60 votes for a confirmation, until Harry Reid introduced the nuclear option during Obama’s presidency.
With how politics are nowadays in the US, the term bipartisan is basically extinct/endangered.
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
America and its leaders is turning out just like the Roman Empire with jokes of a ruler like Nero, Caligula and Elgabulus.
In America its now Trump and its going to be Kanye West or Oprah.
So ridiculous.
In America its now Trump and its going to be Kanye West or Oprah.
So ridiculous.
- 13,911
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Lifetime appointment is a good idea. It means that the judges are essentially sheltered from the whims of current political discourse, and can focus on the real business of ruling on nation level legal precedent.
It's also incredibly dependent on how the selection process works. Ideally, you'd want nine justices who are not rigidly bound to an ideology and willing to take each case on it's own merits for the good of the country. Ones who have a long demonstrated history of ruling impartially and rationally.
In particular, it would be ideal to have justices who do not have strong ties to political parties or organisations, ones whose devotion to the country over rides any political connections.
Of course, when the election of justices is a political matter you pretty much guarantee that any nominee is going to have had to play the political game to get to that point. And while we expect justices to be impartial and independent, they're also humans. Even if somehow a moderate gets through who wasn't selected specifically for their views on hot topic issues, there's always that connection back to "well, you wouldn't be where you are if not for us, so now you owe us a favour".
I dunno, I think it's to their favour to appear magnanimous and open to criticism. What I don't understand is what anyone thinks it's going to do to Kavanaugh. It's a 30+ year old he said/she said. Unless there's actual evidence, it's going to go nowhere. I don't necessarily agree with Kavanaugh's views on some things, but I've seen and heard nothing so far that would be disqualifying for him being confirmed. It's very old hearsay at this stage.
On the other hand, Trump seems like he's winding up to say something colossally stupid again. Someone really needs to tell him to sit down, shut up and let this take it's course. Unless more comes out, he will get the result he wants.
- 30,026
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
No, it isn't.
I mean...that's rather like saying "Earth seems like it's gonna keep on turnin'", isn't it?
- 13,911
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Maybe. Again, it doesn't really change much. At worst it turns some cases that would have been 5/4 into 4/4, and the matter will probably come back to the court later when there's a full set of judges.
My understanding, which is admittedly extremely limited, is that the Supreme Court largely chooses their own cases and the order in which they hear them, and so they could choose to spend the start of the session hearing cases which need a ruling but are likely to be unanimous or nearly so, not depending on that ninth justice for the tie break. The Supreme Court as it stands right now seems to me like it can to a large extent choose not to play into the silly willy waving games going on between the Republicans and the Democrats at the moment.
If it wants to do so, of course. I guess at some point maybe we'll see whether the Supreme Court has the ability or the will to push back against the other branches of government trying to constrain it to behave according to their own designs.
I guess fundamentally though this is just another example of the complete inability of the Democrats and Republicans to stop being children and just work together for the good of the country.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I'd say I hate that guy, but that's more emotional effort than I am willing to spare for the <fit any expletive here>.
I am curious as to how he still manages to have a support base. I mean I think at this point only Truman had a worse approval rating. I mean, I guess maybe he has done something good, but I sure couldnt tell you what that would be other than he managed not to blow up another country or overly endanger ours... yet.
I am curious as to how he still manages to have a support base. I mean I think at this point only Truman had a worse approval rating. I mean, I guess maybe he has done something good, but I sure couldnt tell you what that would be other than he managed not to blow up another country or overly endanger ours... yet.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
The economy? Unemployment? Rocket man not shooting rockets anymore?
He is doing good for America, even though you'll never hear that on the news.
- 30,026
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I found this utterly fascinating
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/republican-party-favorability/index.html
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Can you give me a clue on what a roll of astro-turf means?
- 30,026
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 24,640
- Anoka, MN
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I don't think his warlike military actions in Syria (such as bombing the Assad regime for supposed chem weapons use) are justified. Furthermore, I think his overly zealous prosecution of sanctions against Russia and Iran are in fact endangering our country. While I do think there is a widespread grassroots movement for Trumpism*, I would have to agree with Tex that Trump himself is controlled firstly by his own impulses, but finally by a group, not of concealed unknowns or corporations, but of neocons.That's sadly quite an accomplishment for a sitting president half-way through his term.
*America First nationalism, the antithesis of globalism.
Last edited:
