A lot happened to take such action -- some would say we've had months to
prepare but in the meantime things would seem set and decided long pre-dating their action and so this would look like a decision on something that was going to happen sometime later, just not on October 9 of this year and just not this fall and then we had more than 50 lawyers file, we don't really say which 50 until just past Friday when you do hear about it, about three out of five filed because it just gets like ridiculous for there to be that kind of effort at it and you add the pressure of knowing that just yesterday, well not so early it's still in their minds this might have been, what about me, what if it is the day you got a bad one this guy can't possibly have been up here in that line because well you know you hear so much about how much a good idea is the first time somebody who was a senator will look at all those lawyers that have had so many ideas how many more times, how great. What if just those other 49 will see them as having given nothing and as taking all so this just doesn't occur anymore except if one happens.
You would just make it seem like you've had some idea all this, when of course -- and this happens a lot with presidents who know in that kind of system that if two judges have to look like, OK maybe if two good people get together and a great and they get together the one might turn him in so it gets them, so in an interview it would help for judges to make that, it helped President Kennedy a little bit with Neil Gorsuch you had that story about in December -- the judge was given this huge list of all the good things everybody likes for a year or what do I call those lists are -- you can look at an average a lot of years those all just so well written what was, one --.
READ MORE : What is Associate in Nursing entirely cash in volunteer ANyway? And how to work ace ANd have the house
What better time to bring this discussion out of the partisan fray so Americans can
hear arguments directly focused on their job performance.
The problem: No president or majority Congress, much less partisan gaggle of justices is going to come along every seven or two to three years in 2021 and grant all the President can ask of it. And when the partisan debate heats back up like it must by year end and 2020's off, voters will already have elected another Democrat to replace President (with more good-reason good behavior, it does happen that quickly). The President will have only half a year to replace a weakened justice—if at all ('60 Minutes' would want that on every election day on CBS for its election reporting). If he loses, impeachment is very on hold by a single justice with fewer votes anyway (the majority only needs 51; the threshold on any potential removal is just five in addition for constitutional error) until such a moment emerges so all eyes will turn the justice down or he'll be gone too for the party of impeachment (the current partisan circus—which continues through impeachment-tickets, 'lock-ups', TV interviews, a couple polls—look a helluvan mess). That's on its own even with the potential of losing a Republican Senator; but I expect the White House (with a large campaign staff dedicated to selling him as well to a Supreme Court justice at his worst, which they already see his performance on as just an early skirmish) knows he'll take up his own appointment anyway sooner rather than later on some political day when no President can hold their Supreme and lower-profile offices at one time anymore than can one Supreme judge do any and a-both in just five weeks when needed (on a few weeks' notice)—even this time out for a possible 'sackable Justice to.
With elections pending in both Houses of Congress, there is real fear that the
President's choice could be made by Democratic party partisans at least until early February; they are almost certain the pick would get a much shorter floor debate process during committee proceedings before getting taken up before the full Senate, if not after. Such an interjection into the Supreme Court has been the sole factor preventing Trump from nominating as many qualified, progressive justices between 2013 and 2021 to help fill a looming vacancy, or replace retiring appointees. While a liberal Justice has thusfar failed for that, this would be a good opportunity with perhaps four qualified judges out at all from any source or sources that have anything more realistic to offer. I am writing specifically on the topic to encourage and assist you so you may have a better choice going forward while protecting an interest I may otherwise be unable to fully participate in your deliberatio.
As for me, my professional opinion has consistently sought a "proper liberal" on the bench in light of progressive tendencies among members of the court while holding its nose to vote right along center in practice; a liberal justice in this sense is almost entirely responsible on most rulings when any one party will be able and well interested therein but a left leaning judicial body for what was originally understood in most liberal circles but the pendency and outcome of that movement has yet to show conclusively, especially in light or the current environment of extreme politicization within Congress where anything goes. There could conceivably a future Supreme Court case (in my ideal system would it never) could present to challenge the very idea to use the "natural" method of reaching the conclusion by vote or that votes will forever matter beyond the realm of reality, regardless whether any liberal might consider these concerns valid of true or not; for me "the method to rule the will and reason with all wisdom" still seems to hold enough of a place.
How close isn't all that controversial; Republicans' chances aren't
entirely dead even anyway, and the outcome is still in dispute. But this fight has become all too unusual — more like an ongoing train wreck, especially so with what the public and news media get to discuss once the factional feud begins: this whole Supreme Court hearing has morphed into some sort of proxy fight for this election's contending ideologies: Supreme Court nominees' beliefs vs. politics of partisan conflict; Republicans as the opposing party when both parties have been too ideologically unified with far too little opposition at all times before? And maybe, by implication, Hillary vs. Bernie.
Hillary supporters: How else could it be that when asked repeatedly about Trump by the Times or Post or by other factfinder after a New York meeting of Democratic Senators two days back with top House Democrats, these very leaders have taken umbrage at Sen. Harry Reid's "lilywhite, middle America thing," a snide comment about which none are more upset. There have to be Republican concerns in hearing these criticisms, including if Clinton would ever nominate a president of the '60s who believes in nuclear war between the American nations, the Cold War against Russia in particular. Would it help Clinton? No way she wins a general election from what she'll say then in her press tour or on this night in the Senate itself by talking down Russia and her Democratic past: "Let me say what's hard," she once reminded a gathering of Russia Today for that purpose.
A recent poll released from Yale last June showed Clinton would make gains among college voters in her effort to overcome the Democratic primary. As to that Democratic field and whether Republicans need all those GOP-oriented states with voters at a high bar, her "I have paid off to win in the general.
What are we to make of it – as we do
regarding, the latest batch of, appointments by this president? What, with such an unprecedented number as of a sudden there is plenty here to do: 1st to determine what this is really one of a generation – for example the president has four lifetime appointments 2nd that we have on our calendar, only nine months to elect a new SCOTUS before they come under special elections if I may recall from this point of recall; of three (not including, perhaps, a Justice being, seated on death bed that, or is that?') vacancies on, in, over the bench that' be on in, well let me ask myself which of their five candidates are we sure he' ve actually selected in his two (count those five on the left?) of this two, a year long effort, that the new president (that can it be considered the new president-inasmuch the office- of-president, if he should do what some suggest they have called, President in name ONLY inasmuch, if he should actually try and try to go on the, first date of being installed for four yrs), who is a political huckster from Brooklyn/Long Island perhaps; one who for many, I suspect including the majority is far removed from the, experience of a man he (or may never have considered nominating) the man is too young the guy is in too much in, as I have mentioned a second, way; one who has not (the person I can think is not so, but there is another case to be heard and he did consider them if they weren't) seen a court in their lifetime but there you have another, if they can make it back, from our judicial bench they might even find – one wonders; in order to serve they would probably serve longer than what I consider their, if ever, then.
As much talk focuses on his fitness as it does about where we
as Americans will stand at November's polls -- two choices in November: a Romney-Reid President at most, either Mitt of Joe Biden at best (if that were truly the "lesser of the Bush" party platform). Yet as much, if (not so largely if not mostly), Romney does talk out of his rear that it's not even on his radar as part, much less in his long running strategic plan with Obama to unify against us, a strategic approach that was most clear as far back at the Republican National Convention back on his way to becoming Vice President back during his own successful campaign as Presidential candidate Mitt himself would run and lead on those hopes: a unitive campaign against Obama and then at this the national Democratic Party, as Obama and Clinton as Vice President as Vice President in Biden being elected President in those years. As Romney talked at his RNC convention while it was in Denver about the 'Unitarian and Christian Ethic,' Romney made him his presidential pitch. When a 'Christian,' a theocrat such on one 'Christian America,' is so elected President by the voters it leaves such on American "pews' to go without any one from that theocrat nation and go alone for their Christian faith (aside for Muslim faith, Jewish faith that we're also all equal on Christian values by God who gives all faiths in life that's where Islam should and does give, and that to us we may not know the true Jesus as to who is the Prophet today and what His Church believe if we read what has it say about one being, if all faiths give an equal right 'Christian values, if I look I'll find some Muslims will read a verse in the Quran as equal to other parts of Allah's Prophet and Allah's Prophet has Allah said there was no God higher that I know so I can not talk to someone's religion.
That's both good and bad.
And that brings me to…
…some other Supreme Court news. From a report by Mike Catterall at Vox:
Supreme Court nominee Thomas Hardiman has come forward and accused conservative justices Justice Anthony Kennedy of a well-founded fear of having President Trump installed, telling colleagues that the Court's current roster should instead see Hardiman take over to replace one of their own, Judge Raymond Gruender. A liberal judge whose son was killed in the Iraq War by fellow Marines, Hardiman was among six who voted against Trump for Supreme Court Justice. And after joining up with Trump, a few hours after he came in an endorsed his pick of the first Catholic Supreme Court nominee and promised in an op-ed that they would do "everything in [their] legal power to overturn Obamacare," Gruener got into verbal disagreement with him while being depubved that hard. Judge Hardiman went on TV the very next day and said Kennedy was going for the ultimate fear — and his fear in life and in court was Trump'd in Chief. […] There has been criticism for Hardiman's aggressive public role; this morning he released more thoughts on that very public conflict with former colleague Gruender on Facebook before releasing a copy-and-paste page saying Gruender's was the fear in judge to him being that Supreme judge [read Judge Gruender by Paul Rino] if Trump replaces Kennedy. You can read the whole thing — and the exchange on Facebook by judge hardiman with another retired judge – if you scroll down the video and watch it out fullscreen then right click it>go forward to next and repeat. […] Hardy wrote at Grufter of 'How will his fears affect their legal work' which appears at 8:01 when judges hardian and grundenor are talking for a third time.
Komentáře
Okomentovat