President Trump Is Reshaping Liberal Courts Nationwide to Make Them Conservative.

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: carewemust

While any President would want to appoint like-minded judges, I fear a county who has all the people in power thinking the same way. Don't get me wrong, the divide we have now is much too great. However, in general, checks and balances exist for a reason.

That is actually what Trump is fixing. Right now all they do is follow the liberal agenda with their rulings.

a reply to: carewemust

Just remember, Trump lied about that because he'd been in office for 2 weeks and hadn't pursued it yet. Liberals said so.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Lumenari

It's funny how Republicans continue to refer to the Dems willingness compromise during Obama's first two years as a flaw while at the same time crying about the Dems unwillingness to compromise now.

It's funny how anyone ever would say that Democrats compromise on anything they really want. Ever.

The Dems were not "willing to compromise" the first two years of the Obama administration.

They were too busy passing Obamacare, something that the majority of America didn't want.

Chuck Schumer flat out said when Trump got elected that every single appointment Trump made would be a battle to the death. There have been Trump appointments that have been sitting without being heard for over a year.

That's compromise?

/facepalm

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Lumenari

It's funny how Republicans continue to refer to the Dems willingness compromise during Obama's first two years as a flaw while at the same time crying about the Dems unwillingness to compromise now.

How did you get any of that out of Lumenari's post?

I was pointing out that they could have done ANYTHING (immigration reform, appoint anyone they wanted to for anything, prison reform) and instead they did none of those.

Simply because the Democrats don't actually want any of that fixed... they need those systems broken so they can campaign on "fixing" them.

When you point that out to the typical liberal, they cannot process that their party lies and is just using them.

So they come up with an excuse for the Democrat's actions... usually involving "but but, Republicans"...

Or in this poster's case, that the Democrats were "willing to compromise" so they are the better party.

All the while forgetting the fact that the Dems never needed the Republicans to get anything they wanted done.

Cognitive Dissonance at its finest.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Lumenari

It's funny how Republicans continue to refer to the Dems willingness compromise during Obama's first two years as a flaw while at the same time crying about the Dems unwillingness to compromise now.

How did you get any of that out of Lumenari's post?

Like this. It's easy.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

You mean when Obama had a super-majority in the House and Congress the Republicans still thwarted him?

Even though he didn't need a single Republican vote?

That word you used, fact? I don't think it means what you think it means.

Obama had an super-majority for what ended up being about 2 months in his first year in office. In 2013, the Democrats still controlled Senate but the Republicans were blocking appointments so Reid/the Democrats changed the Senate rules so that lower court appointees could be confirmed with a simple majority.

Then in McConnell held up a SCOTUS seat for the longest period in US history.

And when it didn't look good for getting 60 votes for Gorsuch, McConnell/the Republicans changed the rule for SCOTUS appointments — the so-called "nuclear option."

That word you used, fact? I don't think it means what you think it means.

Ironic.

a reply to: carewemust

We need moderate constitutionalists in these positions.

Both parties try to impose their agenda on the justice system to a point it makes it hard to support either of them.

I'm waiting before I make a full decision, but I am worried about conservatives in these high court positions.

My key concerns are legalization of Marijuana, and regardless of how you feel morally about it, it costs us incredible amounts of money and strain on the justice system for punishing people for a victim-less crime. We could be making tax revenue rather than spending it.

If they overturn women's health issues such as accessibility to birth control or abortion, we are just going to see a surge in welfare. That's me being honest, and some may take that the wrong way, but it's not doctors, lawyers and the wealthy that need access to those types of programs. I'm not saying the state has to facilitate it, but if it gets bad enough where they make it hard to be accessible to the not well off citizens, we all know this will happen.

Those are two very vital issues that I am not saying are going to be hit just because of politics, but lets be real and say it's a possibility.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I came across an article earlier today.." are Americans becoming concerned because President Trump is enjoying too much success?"

On the other hand we have this reality.
mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
When you use every opportunity presented to you to not work with, obstruct and snub the president. Don't be sad when he is no longer willing to work with you.

You reap what you sow.

Screw that, i'm reaping what they sow. I'm not a repub or a dem, and I want moderates who have A FREAKING HEAD ON THEIR SHOULDERS, not all this childish, partisan BS that BOTH SIDES are giving us. So screw Trump, screw the dems, and screw any and everyone who is forgetting about those of us with some intelligence, because the rest of you sure don't have ANY integrity whatsoever.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I came across an article earlier today.." are Americans becoming concerned because President Trump is enjoying too much success?"

On the other hand we have this reality.
mobile.twitter.com...

I don't have a dog in the fight for the left vs right battle. Whenever either one wins, even if it's spite against the wishes of the masses, the partisans are happy.

I'm not a Trump supporter per se, but I'm not rooting for him to fail out of spite either.

I can be happy if good common sense moves are made regardless of the letter next to the name on the ticket.

Unfortunately the climate has gotten so bad both parties are willing to make spite moves and it ultimately effects the whole country.

a reply to: carewemust

Too bad those are not lifetime appointments. Those judges will be unemployed as soon as trump is gone.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah were gonna laugh ourselves silly with that success when Mueller is through with him. LOL.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Too bad those are not lifetime appointments. Those judges will be unemployed as soon as trump is gone.

Better check up on that before you get smeared.

I bet those are lifetime appointments.

Stop embarrassing yourself and making other people uncomfortable.

😎

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Too bad those are not lifetime appointments. Those judges will be unemployed as soon as trump is gone.

Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term.

link

a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

When you use every opportunity presented to you to not work with, obstruct and snub the president. Don't be sad when he is no longer willing to work with you. You reap what you sow.

That was the republicans mantra during the obama years right?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Too bad those are not lifetime appointments. Those judges will be unemployed as soon as trump is gone.

Wrong again silly, you need to think before you write. So, no sorry thes Trump appointments are for life.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah were gonna laugh ourselves silly with that success when Mueller is through with him. LOL.

Day dreaming again Silly?

a reply to: carewemust

Well to be fair, it's not hard to pull one over on these corporate Democrats and it's not hard to bully them to get your way. The majority of them are weak and either won't put up much of a fight or will just flat out vote with the GOP.

They suck.

originally posted by: carewemust


Just last night, the Republican-led Senate confirmed a whopping 15 justices nominated by President Trump!
www.washingtontimes.com...

Well Obama basically turned all courts but the SC liberal, so I'm not sure your point in all this. Here is what Obama did...

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade.[2][3] Obama did not make any recess appointments to the federal courts.

Once again why would the left bitch about Trump in any of this?

a reply to: Sillyolme

en.wikipedia.org... a damndable lie federal judges do serve for life

Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased as appointed "for life"). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash, and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.[1] Since the impeachment process requires a trial by the United States Senate, and since the constitutional provision concerning federal judges' tenure cannot be changed without the ratifications of three-fourths of the states, federal judges have perhaps the best job security available in the United States. Moreover, the Constitution forbids Congress to diminish a federal judge's salary. Twentieth-century experience suggests that Congress is generally unwilling to take time out of its busy schedule to impeach and try a federal judge until, after criminal conviction, he or she is already in prison and still drawing a salary, which cannot otherwise be taken away (see Nixon v. United States, a key Supreme Court case about Congress's discretion in impeaching and trying federal judges).

good luck getting 2/3rds of the senate willing to impeach them in any administration

and on muller so far he hasn't found anything remotely tying trump to any collusion or vote rigging lol and apparently the investigation is winding down

www.businessinsider.com...

www.vox.com... guess trump could still fire rosenstine but all sources point to him not doing that certainly not before midterms

nymag.com... hes going to question trump but his questions are limited to collusion and must be submitted in writing

Seventeen months after the launch of the Special Counsel investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, President Trump will finally answer questions from Robert Mueller, according to multiple reports. The questions will focus solely on alleged collusion, not on the many times Trump may have obstructed justice during the investigation. That means no questions about the firing of former FBI Director James Comey and no questions about Trump’s highly questionable tweets. The most notable detail about the interview, though, is that it won’t be conducted in person. Rather, Trump’s answers to the 15 questions will come in writing. Even though Mueller’s office has insisted on asking follow-ups and subjecting Trump to a second round of questions, CNN reports that the process for doing so is not at all clear: There may be more rounds of questions after the first answers are returned. The special counsel had insisted that there be a chance for follow-up questions as well. But after a prolonged back-and-forth over months, the two sides agreed to start with a first round of questions. It’s also unclear if an in-person interview will follow the written portion, though Trump said Thursday on Fox & Friends that he’s willing to do both. “Well, it seems ridiculous that I would have to do it when everybody says there’s no collusion, but I’ll do what is necessary to get it over with,” Trump said.

and from the atlantic but an older link www.theatlantic.com...

Those hoping the special counsel will prosecute the president are engaging in fantasy.Color me deeply skeptical. Mueller will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any other crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy. He won’t do it for the good and sufficient reason that the Department of Justice has a long-standing legal opinion that sitting presidents may not be indicted. First issued in 1973 during the Nixon era, the policy was reaffirmed in 2000, during the Clinton era. These rules bind all Department of Justice employees, and Mueller, in the end, is a Department of Justice employee. More to the point, if we know anything about Mueller, we think we know that he follows the rules—all of them. Even the ones that restrict him in ways he would prefer they not. And if he were to choose not to follow the rules, that, in turn, would be a reasonable justification for firing him. So … the special counsel will not indict the president.