SCOTUS Tracker

[owknows]

Rumor has it that it’s Amy C Barrett

Works for me... let's commence tuh votin.

[Vlad the lad]

I've been hearing some chatter for a few days about some Dem wanting to pass a bill limiting a SCOTUS term. I kind of blew it all off, thinking that it's just another ploy by a Dem to raise their collective hackles, as well as my belief that it would take a constitutional amendment to do so (I still do believe that). Anyway.....I came across this article about the supposed pros and cons of the idea, as well as touched on the idea of term limits in general. I have to say that it presents interesting points. I know it'll probably never happen, but it makes for a good read, I suppose. Although I'd love to see congressional term limits, I'm not so sure that setting them for SCOTUS is a good idea. I am a bit surprised that a member of Congress wouldn't know that it may (will?) take more than a vote by them for it to come to fruition.

https://wlos.com/news/connect-to-con...-pros-and-cons

This is the agenda of antifa (the dems). They were always in favor of the electoral. Until they started losing. Then they wanted to abolish the existing rules to favor them
And now that it will probably be a 6-3 conservative advantage for several years, they want to change it.
When they win the presidency again, they will talk about removing the two term limit

[bacchys]

I'm 52. I've followed politics since I was in high school and I love reading history. The Democratic party hasn't been fans of the Electoral College for longer than I've been alive. Since 2000, they've generally hated it.

Having completely abolished even the idea of norms guiding the behaviour of our government officials, those who support Trump don't have any room to complain if the Democrats, should they win the White House and both Houses of Congress, move to expand the size of SCOTUS. You guys support a lying, corrupt Trump and the lying hypocrites McConnell, Perdue, Rubio, Cruz, and, with the exception of Romney, the entire GOP caucus in the Senate. Every single Republican except Romney decided it's okay for a POTUS to send his personal lawyer to conspire with the Russian mob, abuse his office to aid the scheme, and refuse to cooperate with Congress's constitutional powers of oversight and impeachment. It's a broken, corrupt, unamerican party.

[wickedsolo]

I'm 52. I've followed politics since I was in high school and I love reading history. The Democratic party hasn't been fans of the Electoral College for longer than I've been alive. Since 2000, they've generally hated it.

Having completely abolished even the idea of norms guiding the behaviour of our government officials, those who support Trump don't have any room to complain if the Democrats, should they win the White House and both Houses of Congress, move to expand the size of SCOTUS. You guys support a lying, corrupt Trump and the lying hypocrites McConnell, Perdue, Rubio, Cruz, and, with the exception of Romney, the entire GOP caucus in the Senate. Every single Republican except Romney decided it's okay for a POTUS to send his personal lawyer to conspire with the Russian mob, abuse his office to aid the scheme, and refuse to cooperate with Congress's constitutional powers of oversight and impeachment. It's a broken, corrupt, unamerican party.

Wow, you still believe the Russia stuff?

I can respect someone that just doesn’t like Trump and isn’t a fan of Republican principles...

...but to continue to believe the Russia stuff after literally the entire narrative has been debunked numerous times?

...AND to suggest that Romney is the one lone respectable Republican?

There is really no point in even conversing with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NCRAVEN]

Russia?! Well this should get interesting.

[CarrollCoRaven]

Wow, you still believe the Russia stuff?

I can respect someone that just doesn’t like Trump and isn’t a fan of Republican principles...

...but to continue to believe the Russia stuff after literally the entire narrative has been debunked numerous times?

...AND to suggest that Romney is the one lone respectable Republican?

There is really no point in even conversing with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, the MSM has accomplished their goal. So sad. I'm sure he still believes Obama had no scandals during his presidency.

[Ortizer]

I've been hearing some chatter for a few days about some Dem wanting to pass a bill limiting a SCOTUS term. I kind of blew it all off, thinking that it's just another ploy by a Dem to raise their collective hackles, as well as my belief that it would take a constitutional amendment to do so (I still do believe that). Anyway.....I came across this article about the supposed pros and cons of the idea, as well as touched on the idea of term limits in general. I have to say that it presents interesting points. I know it'll probably never happen, but it makes for a good read, I suppose. Although I'd love to see congressional term limits, I'm not so sure that setting them for SCOTUS is a good idea. I am a bit surprised that a member of Congress wouldn't know that it may (will?) take more than a vote by them for it to come to fruition.

https://wlos.com/news/connect-to-con...-pros-and-cons

I'm not necessarily opposed to term limits for SC justices, but it seems hypocritical for reps that have been in office for longer than the 18 year term they're proposing to take a stand for this.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[blueridgemtnman]

I'm not necessarily opposed to term limits for SC justices, but it seems hypocritical for reps that have been in office for longer than the 18 year term they're proposing to take a stand for this.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Yeah....well maybe they can can set their own term limits before addressing them for the SCOTUS. In other words.....probably never happen. I'd say even if Congress tried to pass such a measure, it'd go to the SCOTUS to make the decision. The irony.....

https://fixthecourt.com/2020/09/firs...nt-introduced/

[ravenmaniac4life]

Wow, you still believe the Russia stuff?

I can respect someone that just doesn’t like Trump and isn’t a fan of Republican principles...

...but to continue to believe the Russia stuff after literally the entire narrative has been debunked numerous times?

...AND to suggest that Romney is the one lone respectable Republican?

There is really no point in even conversing with you.

If you peruse the forum and go back to the Re: A moral obligation to impeach thread...you will find some golden-oldies from bacchys about his thoughts on the Russian collusion hoax.

Here are a couple gems...

the Mueller report details collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign, the Transition, and surrogates.

You've been willingly played by rightwing media

meanwhile...

Mueller:

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

It's pretty funny.

[FloridaBasedFan]

This is the agenda of antifa (the dems). They were always in favor of the electoral. Until they started losing. Then they wanted to abolish the existing rules to favor them
And now that it will probably be a 6-3 conservative advantage for several years, they want to change it.
When they win the presidency again, they will talk about removing the two term limit

I doubt the dems would propose doing away with the 2 term limit. The only person I have heard of mentioning this was Trump himself.

As for term limits for SCOTUS...very torn, there are legitimate arguments both pro and con. I would like to see a minimum age for appointment to the court. I understand each president wants to see their appointment have a lasting influence but Im not sure that someone under the age of, maybe, 45, certainly 40 should be allowed to be seated. Simply not enough life experience (or judicial experience if they are a judge) IMO.

[bacchys]

Wow, you still believe the Russia stuff?

I can respect someone that just doesn’t like Trump and isn’t a fan of Republican principles...

...but to continue to believe the Russia stuff after literally the entire narrative has been debunked numerous times?

...AND to suggest that Romney is the one lone respectable Republican?

There is really no point in even conversing with you.

Mueller's indictments of 19 Russians and Russian entities for conducting "active measures" in the U.S. to influence the elections, the indictment of 12 GRU agents for their role in hacking the DNC and disseminating DNC internal communications via Wikileaks, the Mueller Report Volume I which not only goes into Russia's influence activities at some depth, but also details collusion between Russia with the Trump campaign, Transition, and surrogates, the Roger Stone indictment which discusses his interactions with the 12 GRU agents mentioned already and were Guccifer 2.0, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report which Nunes waved around at Fiona Hill when she accurately pointed out he was repeating Russian propaganda during the hearings on Trump's conspiring with the Russian mob in Ukraine, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russia's activities during the 2016 elections, including the most recently released Volume V which goes into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Transition, and surrogates with Russia.

Despite all of that you don't believe it because? Why? Some rightwing, Trumpist shill blurted "Hoax! No collusion!"?

Romney is the only Republican who didn't vote in a way that approved of Trump's sending his personal attorney to conspire with the Russian mob in Ukraine in a scheme to frame Americans and an American company for corruption. He voted against a President abusing his office to aid such a scheme, including unlawfully impounding appropriated funds and trying to use those funds to extort the cooperation of a foreign government. He's the only Republican who voted to uphold Congress's constitutional powers of oversight and impeachment. The only other Republican to say a POTUS can't do those things is Amash, and he's not a Republican anymore. So, yes. Romney is the only one with integrity. Denying that isn't reasonable. It's just stupid.

Do you know who Dmitro Firtash is? Probably not. John Solomon knows. He knows because he was present in meeting with Giuliani, his employers-and-bagmen Parnas and Fruman, husband and wife legal team Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensig, and Nunes's aide Derek Harvey on how they were going to publicize information acquired through Firtash- an affadavit by corrupt former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin- here in the U.S. Solomon didn't mention he was part of the scheme when he was writing articles in The Hill, nor has he mentioned his participation in his article on his own site, Just The News. He certainly should have mentioned it, but didn't. Nor did he mention Firtash's role in the scheme, or discuss Parnas's and Fruman's connections with Firtash. He didn't mention where Parnas and Fruman acquired $500,000 dollars to pay Giuliani even as they were being hired by Firtash's lawyers, husband and wife legal team Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensig.

Who is Firtash? He's a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch and a member of the Russian mob. You don't have to take my word for Firtash's mob associations: you can ask Rudy Giuliani.

Furthermore, just four years ago McConnell, Graham, Perdue, Cruz, Rubio, and the rest of the Republican caucus insisted replacing a SCOTUS justice in an election year was wrong. They insisted it was a matter of principle and they would say the same thing if the POTUS was a Republican. Romney wasn't in the Senate, so he's not hypocritically flip-flopping on this supposed principle. He's not the only Republican who was elected in '18, so he's not alone in not being a hypocrite by saying he'd vote to confirm a nominee to replace Ginsburb, but most of his caucus is.

As for Republican principles: most of my adult life I've leaned Republican. Even after I quit the GOP in '95 and began voting third party in most elections, the GOP was the closer of the two major parties to my political views. That's changed with the rise of Trump. The Republican party no longer holds to Republican principles.

[Greg]

I'm 52. I've followed politics since I was in high school and I love reading history. The Democratic party hasn't been fans of the Electoral College for longer than I've been alive. Since 2000, they've generally hated it.

Having completely abolished even the idea of norms guiding the behaviour of our government officials, those who support Trump don't have any room to complain if the Democrats, should they win the White House and both Houses of Congress, move to expand the size of SCOTUS. You guys support a lying, corrupt Trump and the lying hypocrites McConnell, Perdue, Rubio, Cruz, and, with the exception of Romney, the entire GOP caucus in the Senate. Every single Republican except Romney decided it's okay for a POTUS to send his personal lawyer to conspire with the Russian mob, abuse his office to aid the scheme, and refuse to cooperate with Congress's constitutional powers of oversight and impeachment. It's a broken, corrupt, unamerican party.

In 2016 Biden said even if there were only a few months left before an election the president should still nominate somebody for a SCOTUS opening and they should get a vote. The hypocrisy runs deep on both sides regarding this issue.

Unfortunately for the left the Republicans have the Constitution on their side.