Ah, that's fair enough. I suppose for a similar reason they can never be fired? Or can they be impeached?
Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Thread starter Ubik
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
No, its a life time appointment.
I mean, I guess the intention was that the president and the senate were going to be voted on every few years so if they make poor or unpopular decisions that the people would have indirect influence on the court through their votes.
I am British and not by any means an expert so my understanding is pretty lay and only though seeing online discussions, but from what I gather originally the Federal Govt. was meant to be limited and states were more important. The Federal government was more like the EU with overseeing shared minimum rules and upholding individual rights for people within states, with the additional responsibility of managing international relationships.
I see, makes sense, without the huge polarization in the country it wouldnt be a bad system really.
yes, although individual rights will always be controversial.
For example - abortion would likely be illegal in the majority of states, which in principle would be 'democratic' and the idea would be to move to a state that is more in line with your values, but in practice this is not what would happen and is grossly unfair and would veer too close to tyranny of the majority for me.
They can be impeached similar to any other high ranking official. Essentially, the House can impeach them, the Senate can vote to remove or acquit them. I don’t think it has ever happened though.
In practice, there is next to zero chance of them being removed that way. Take Thomas for example, the most insane SCOTUS on recent history. Even if Dems control the House and have 60 votes on the Senate, impeaching him will likely be highly unpopular. I mean, impeach him for having different political beliefs to you is hardly a just reason to get impeached.
I guess the solution is to pack the courts and give limited terms to SCOTUS (neither of these things is on constitution). And then give statehoods to DC and Puerto Rico, which will make harder for GOP to control the Senate in the near future unless they reform.
yeah because its not related to professional standards of decision making, it has to be related to personal standards of behaviour.
Its a life time appointment, unless they retire or commit a crime or are proven corrupt basically
Just had a glance at the ages of the SCOTUS justices, it’s really looking grim isn’t it? The only proper old is an Obama justice. Thomas is the oldest conservative judge at only 72.
I get what you're saying, but "only 72"
Part of the problem, that's for damn sure.
I know, but these feckers go on forever it seems
Alito is also 70. Actually, a bit surprised how Trump didn't insist to replace those two.
Breyer is not an Obama justice, and he is ancient. Sotomayer and Kagan are Obama justices and they are relatively young.
Yeah, sorry Breyer is a Clinton appointment. Still, it’s the same side and same point.
Four more years of Trump and it is likely he'll get to pick another two justices. If Biden comes in, he'll get to pick 1 at best depending on the makeup of the Senate - and that one change would be to keep things 6-3.
To be pedantic, I think it would be 3. Breyer is 200 years old, and with both Thomas and Alito being 76/74 by the end of Trump’s second term, it is possible to try to replace them too. However, they need to keep the senate which at this stage looks a toss up for this election, and very unlikely in 2022.
Not that this will happen, but the Dems should go scorched earth on SCOTUS if Biden wins and they reclaim the Senate, by changing the amount of justices to 13 then promptly getting 4 new ones on the bench so they can reverse citizens united.
That's the only way to do it and they should also ensure those appointments are in their 40's at least. It would have to be a blitz on the SC, EC and statehood for PR. DC would be a bit harder but it would be easy to make the case with more people living in the district than 3 or 4 red states.
feck the Republicans, do it loud or sneaky, it doesn't matter as long as their faces are rubbed in it. The future of the Republican party is crackpot bigots who will force their kkkristian values on as many people as possible so they can run over protesters and gleefully celebrate the sexual abuse of babies in cages. Absolutely nothing good can come from Republican rule unless you are racist, dumb, greedy or just a basic cnut.
Absolutely this.
The Constitution can be amended. Amendments can be repealed via a new amendment replacing the old one (18th repealed by the 21st).
Yeah, sorry, didn't realise about Alito. So two, possibly three appointments then.
The difference between conservative vs far right extremist and liberal vs socialist sellout is dead and buried!
Haven't you guys heard? Barrett won't overturn Roe, our good friend George Conway who makes the epic Lincoln Project ads told us so.
Good article, would be much better if it was followed
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849
Far right extremist...
Some people are really losing the run of themselves these days.
Far right extremist...
Some people are really losing the run of themselves these days.
What would you call her? Moderate?
Nah, she is pretty extreme.Far right extremist...
Some people are really losing the run of themselves these days.
Not a far right extremist anyway.
If she's a far right extremist then what do we call actual far right extremists these days? You know...Nazis and the like?
It seems to be a category issue, she's extreme when looked at generally, but a pretty standard conservative in US terms.
Far right extremists.
At least you clarified in the beginningYou don’t have to be a Nazi to be a far right extremist. The “far right” can include many groups. I’d argue that Ron Paul would classify as one.
"Far" has variable properties depending on which side of the political spectrum you're talking about. Once you understand this it makes perfect sense that "far left" can refer to anyone who wants to have some form of universal healthcare while "far right" must only be reserved for those wanting to fire up the death ovens.
how long should the hearings last and I assume it will get even more coverage than kavanaugh did?
The meat of the Kavanaugh hearings lasted around a month. ACB will easily gets more coverage.
I'm sure they will drag on for as long as possible with loads of the usual grandstanding.
i cant believe she'd use her feelings rather than the text of the constitution alone
Does n't McConnel want to repeal ACA? In which case why is he defending against the potential scenario of ACB aiding in repeal of the same?
i think the republicans straight-up lie and say that they want to protect pre-existing conditions protections which they say isn't in obamacare. something like that.
Rhodes Scholar