The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on December 09, 2018, 09:51:00 PM
-
Trump Must Go (25 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211530453
Why do we not require SC justices
to receive approval from 2/3 of the Senate in order to be confirmed? They are just as important as any treaty. This would force any nominee to be middle of the road and non-controversial
non-controversial is DUmbese for shit we don't agree with/following established law.
Trump Must Go (25 posts)
5. I understand this, my real question is
Why do we not change the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote? This will end the trend of the selection of justices becoming politicalized and based on a strong ideology.
:thatsright:
Trump Must Go (25 posts)
15. Since the Constitution does not state how many vote are needed
Could we pass a law that required a 2/3 vote to confirm a SC justice? Since it is only a law it could be changed back, however, it would be subject to a filibuster. Or we could change it to 60 votes, the same as a filibuster and what it had been in the past. But it would no longer be just a Senate rule, subject to the whim of the majority leader.
:mental:
Star Member CTyankee (52,670 posts)
8. It's ridiculous that we still have the Electoral College.
The president should be elected by the people in this day and age.
Star Member Algernon Moncrieff (4,605 posts)
6. At some point, we need to amend to set some SCOTUS rules
- 9 justices
- President appoints; Senate has 90 days to hold an up or down vote. If they don't hold a vote by day 89, they are all subpoenaed into Washington and locked in the Senate chambers until a vote is completed.
- 20-year service limit
- 3/5 or 2/3 to confirm
:stoner:
-
Hey, DUmmies--Merrick Garland still wouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
-
Why do we not require SC justices
to receive approval from 2/3 of the Senate in order to be confirmed?
I beleive a dimocrap named dirty harry reid made the change, live with it.
Elections have consequences. :loser: :bird:
-
It's called the Constitution. It prescribes methods by which it could be - and has - been amended.
:rotf: Write your amendment, introduce it, :rotf: and see how far it goes. :rotf: It won't. :rotf: It'll get as far as the circular file, :rotf: plus or minus some dust. :rotf:
Are DUpipo suddenly afraid RBG's health has almost failed?
-
Star Member CTyankee (52,670 posts)
8. It's ridiculous that we still have the Electoral College.
The president should be elected by the people in this day and age.
The EC is there to keep people like you from instituting the tyranny on the masses that you fantasize about all the time.
-
The EC is there to keep people like you from instituting the tyranny on the masses that you fantasize about all the time.
You don't hear them griping about Bill Clinton losing the popular vote yet winning the EC in 1992. He lost the popular vote by roughly 15MM.
KC
-
You don't hear them griping about Bill Clinton losing the popular vote yet winning the EC in 1992. He lost the popular vote by roughly 15MM.
KC
Nope they called his win a mandate.
And in 1994 when the Republicans took over the House and Senate...Peter Jennings called that a "tantrum" by the American people.
-
Trump Must Go (25 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211530453
Why do we not require SC justices
to receive approval from 2/3 of the Senate in order to be confirmed? They are just as important as any treaty. This would force any nominee to be middle of the road and non-controversial
Senator Dingy Harry Reid! C'mon on down. Your the next contestant on "Who Screwed the Pooch"