No supreme court judge from democrats

How does Sup Forums feel about the fact that republicans are willing to permanently block supreme court judges that the democrats might pick?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/CqkcTQWQVgY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Good.

/thread

Republicucks are fucking traitors

Sums up the hypocrisy of the entire party quite nicely

I only wish they could. Anyone telling you they can or plan to thinks your a stupid moron who will believe anything.

kys

Why is it hypocrisy when they do it, but when obama and biden think it should be done, its fine?

Shitskin faggot

Its quite worrisome. Especially since several of the the other judges are pushing their elder years and could very well die in office.

Doesn't the court need at least 5 or 6 to be considered in session?

We could legitimately be looking at a complete collapse of one branch of government.

Good since they only appoint blatant antidemocratic judges with no respect for the law who read whatever they feel like into the constitution. Poop-dickinck, poop dick marriage, abortion, prohibition of race facts in the court room, voter IDs be racist, affirmative action gerrymandering, affirmative action juries, the feds can do whatever they want despite the 10th amendment etc.

They claim it's their constitutional right, and they did block that some what right wing judge that Obama picked.

what does that mean

Yea the would be 4th jew on the 9 member supreme court of the United States.

I don't feel bad that (((they))) can't choose a new Supreme Court judge. It's us (Americans) vs (((them))).

When has Obama or Biden said it should be done?
But he is a right wing Jew

Nah. If the Senate chooses to do so then it's little more than the checks and balances at play.

No, there is no upper or lower bound actually.

Sup Forums care so much about voter fraud

unless Republicans do it of course

Yeah they can block an appointment, but not permanently.

If Dems win the white house and Senate, they'll just invoke the nuclear option and pass SC nominees with 50 votes.

Democracy is a means to an end. If it doesn't work you make it work.

you honestly think your bottom example qualifies as gerrymandering?

meet a democrat stronghold

>The democrats don't gerrymander, honest!

If Republicans lose the Senate (which is very possible) then it can't be done.

the whole gerrymandering districts shit started with republicans

Before or after the southern strategy?

>t-they started it
Even if that's true, the democrats are being far more devious with their third world immigration.

How old are you? Do you not remember when Biden and Obama opposed George Bush's SCOTUS appointments? Or are you just a retarded teenager?

lol, please

you shouldn't bring up things you don't know anything about

>oh please
Cognitive dissonance?

Excellent, all Democrat politicians are corrupt communists that need to die. The moment they'd have leverage in the supreme court, they'd ban guns, free speech, probably property rights and every freedom you enjoy like they've been trying for the past century.

quite a bit on your end

There is literally no constitutional redress if they do and a Republican Senator has said they should.

They definitely can and some plan to.

not an argument

They absolutely can permanently block an appointment either by refusing to hear or refusing to certify every proposed appointment.

This isn't like assembling a jury, each party doesn't only get 6 strikes.

Sure they can, they can filibuster everything

Hyperbole aside, I completely agree

This. Another way to look at it is like this: The same constitutional provision (the advise and consent clause) that requires the Senate to confirm presidential judicial appointments is also the one that requires the Senate to confirm treaties negotiated by the President. And historically, we have had treaties that have gone unconfirmed by the Senate for years at a time, without their advice and consent. We have treaties right now that are in legal limbo and have been for years because the Senate has not yet confirmed them.

And yet nobody says shit about that. But suddenly when it comes to judges it's a problem? Nonsense.

Feels like the right thing to do.

If they didn't, the Supreme Court would immediately try to dismantle the Second Amendment, among other things.

>you started it first

Nigga, the Voting Rights Act started it, and Democrats took full advantage of it.

lrn2history

>you shouldn't bring up things you don't know anything about
I know something about it

You do know that the court was once larger than it is today, it was also smaller at one point. The number of justices can change. And to answer your question pretty fucking good.

Treaties aren't 1/3rd of government.

Completely irrelevant. The point is, the Senate has historically exercised their advice and consent power however they saw fit, so matter if matters of government that require their consent are left in legal limbo for years at a time. That is their prerogative as the upper house of a co-equal branch of government, and no other branch gets to tell them otherwise. There is no constitutional mechanism at all for forcing the Senate to advise and consent, there is only a mechanism that requires their advise and consent when the President wants to make treaties, appoint judges, appoint ministers and ambassadors, etc.

If another branch of government suffers, that is by DESIGN. It was set up that way. That's WHY the Senate has that power. To check the other branches.

>the Supreme Court would immediately try to dismantle the Second Amendment

that's not how the court system works in the USA. They are not some little cabal that picks to "do" anything. They rule on a very few select cases that come before them in given session. It's a checks and balance thing and nothing more.

If Hillary wins she will go with some Republican appointed lower level judge or some nature that is slightly left leaning and he will get appointed. As in looking to get someone say 55/45 in your favor vs 70/30.

it's not that big of a deal...

hopefully my GOP will not keep looking for ways to embarrass themselves when it comes to trying to obstruct everything.

>1/3 of your government is irrelevant

It's well within their constitutional power to do so. It would be supreme stupidity for the Republicans to concede to Obama when there is a possibility of a Republican president.

The Democrats would do the same if the positions were reversed.

I didn't say that, Ahmed. I said it's irrelevant that one third of government suffers under the constitutional prerogative of another third. It was designed that way on purpose. The judicial branch is unelected. The only way to check that inherent power is through the other two branches. That's why appointments cannot be made unless the Senate advises and consents, on their time, or not, if they so choose. If the people don't like it, they can vote in new Senators.

But guess what? Republican voters like it. I don't want them to confirm communists agents handpicked by globalist Democrats. Period. And if they do, I will vote against them. They know that, which is why they're not confirming.

Gee, it's almost as if the Constitution is, for once, working as intended.

Good. Checks and balances of power. The president has the power to nominate, congress has the power to say no. Sounds like the system working

>rest of conservative judges have unfortunate accidents

What now?

But to block everything?

>supreme court judge
they should have term limits 8 years

/3 of your government is irrelevant

technically, due to the check and balance of a 3 part system any one branch can or will be irrelevant by design at some given time. It just depends on the issue.

take gay marriage for example. If the legislative area had done the correct thing the judicial would of never come into play. Yet during the entire debate the executive branch was pretty irrelevant.

Pfft. If only these lily livered Republicucks blocked everything the Democrats tries. That'd be wonderful! But they don't. More often than not they roll over like pussies. One this one matter though, because it's so important, they're not. And you want tot guilt them out of even that?

I wish we could go to war with Sweden instead of Russia.

are you retarded

You shouldn't consider that a hyperbole. Hillary and the Democrats have done some pretty damning things for some people who have a nasty agenda.

>Completely irrelevant
It's completely irrelevant that one section of government could effectively remove another's existence given a decade or two?

That sure sounds intentional.

It's a good thing. Hussein's "centrist" judge would set up Hilldabeast to strip away the 2nd A once and for all.

That's not their main objective though; their objective has been control of the electoral college, third worlders are just a tool to achieve this

>supreme court judge
In 2015 two-thirds of Americans supported a 10-year term limit on Supreme Court justices, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll.

I guess 2/3's of America is retarded.

"...WELL REGULATED..."

at LEAST 2/3rds of america is retarded, dude.

Considering no nominations were made from Alito until Sotomayor, I am going to say you are talking out your ass.

>I guess 2/3's of America is retarded.

its a lot higher than that

>Gee, it's almost as if the Constitution is, for once, working as intended.
Ignoring the fact that the Constitution says the president shall appoint judges and that isn't happening.

Shall, not may.

What is the logic in requiring something to be done while allowing for that thing to become impossible to be done? Congress's contribution to appointments, ie advice and eventually consent, is implicitly required by the constitution requiring the President appoint with it.

Nope, just need 1

youtu.be/CqkcTQWQVgY
Probably what he's talking about

IN WORKING ORDER

true
only Only 17 percent said they supported life tenure..
so 83% of America is retard.

I feel good about it. Hillary's Presidency would not be legitimate anyways considering she is a criminal and will be rigging the election. They will probably buckle though. They are cucks, after all.

>two-thirds of Americans supported a 10-year term limit on Supreme Court justices

Most American's don't even understand our legal system or can name all three branches. They just know that some judge is listed as not supporting their pet peeve issue so they lust after a way to get that judge off the bench.

Being they tend to think if you removed this or that judge then you just repeal Roe Vs Wade or whatever. Maybe remove a judge and ban all guns or remove all gun controls but that's not how the system works, at all.

>anyone over the age of 25 posting on Sup Forums

S-some people blossom late, user. You might s-still get laid.

Good. I hope they succeed.

Why not just abolish the supreme court and give all power to the president?

80+ year old judges shouldn't be a thing
people never used to live that long
shit needs changed