The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

But having the bar disbar the judge in particular does nothing to the appointment. There is already process for that though... there simply isn't a problem to fix.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what he is even proposing which wouldn't require a Constitutional Convention.
He’ll just waive his magic wand as usual, and say it is so. Then the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional. That would be great. I think it’s hilarious that he thinks he can institute ethics rules on a separate, equal branch of government while both the administrative and legislative branches (where he spent his last 50 years) are rotten to their core.
 
Last edited:
He’ll just waive his magic wand as usual, and say it is so. Then the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional. They would be great. I think it’s hilarious that he thinks he can institute ethics rules on a separate, equal branch of government while both the administrative and legislative branches (where he spent his last 50 years) are rotten to their core.

Yeah. I am unsure as to what he thinks they would do with it, probably just ignore it. I mean, there is already a legal process for this.

I'm confused.
 
Last edited:
It's not a strawman because there's a legal process for reversals and impeachment of justices

It is because you said there is no recourse, there is. You just don't like the nature of the process, but it does exist.
😂 So, you claim something is true when actuality its not true, than offer up the solution for what already exists based on what you claim is true.

Either way, most of this would require a Constitution Convention, well, since I haven't actually seen it in particular, I would assume so.
 
It is because you said there is no recourse, there is. 😂
Whatever. I can easily, at high degree of confidence, establish statistically that Congress would vote no on overturning the decisions and any impeachment. The makeup of our governing body has sold out. Their concerns are to corporate lobbying. Their concerns are more about getting reelected and less about legislating for the benefit of their constituents. It's equally disruptive on both sides.
 
Whatever. I can easily, at high degree of confidence, establish statistically that Congress would vote no on overturning the decisions and any impeachment. The makeup of our governing body has sold out. Their concerns are to corporate lobbying. Their concerns are more about getting reelected and less about legislating for the benefit of their constituents. It's equally disruptive on both sides.

So? very rarely do people get impeached in any branch of government and for good reason.

They all have oversight.

Mob rule can be very bad as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
So? very rarely do people get impeached in any branch of government and for good reason.

They all have oversight.

Mob rule can be very bad as well.
Was it "mob rule" from 1972-1974? Of course the make up of Congress was more experienced, far more honorable ideologues sitting at that time. There are about 3-4 Presidents since then who have breached much worse since. Only one has been indicted
 
Attorneys and law professors?

Maybe it's time to nominate a Constitutional scholar .
Most of the constitutional scholars I’ve heard of are attorneys. Will Baude would have been great but he’s toast now after the disqualification article. Way too conservative for democrats and way too associated with anti-trump for republicans.
 
Most of the constitutional scholars I’ve heard of are attorneys. Will Baude would have been great but he’s toast now after the disqualification article. Way too conservative for democrats and way too associated with anti-trump for republicans.
How is Baude’s disqualification thesis seen by serious scholars in the wake of the Court’s decision?
 

VN Store



Back
Top