General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums5-4; 5-4...
I've listened long enough to see where this is going, today the s. court will decide that we have a king. Our only hope is a landslide win in November wiping all of the pukes out of power. Then we must stack the courts to their fullest and never allow this to happen again.
GusFring
(756 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)GusFring
(756 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)Like requiring tax returns to run.
Like clear unassailable sunshine laws to require testimony and presentation of documents when requested by Congress.
So much to do.
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)...because we dont have a Federal Presidential Election. Per the Constitution, each STATE decides how to select Electors (an Election isnt even necessary).
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)So then what?
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)...doesn't mean that anything is possible at the Federal level.
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
shockey80
(4,379 posts)The majority of the American people will know that decision puts Trump above the law, all future presidents above the law.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)vile crimes committed by the rumpster and the GOP.
Still torturing children on the border, getting sick etc.
Nothing is done.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,465 posts)The only way to fix the court is expand the bench to 13-15 members.
PRETZEL
(3,245 posts)been trying to keep up here while still working.
It seems by most accounts, the House attorney did not have his best day, (or as others have said, he stunk),
however, realistically how much weight is put on oral arguments vs. the briefs that were filed prior to the oral arguments?
Maraya1969
(22,482 posts)based on how well an attorney argues their point?
SCOTUS is supposed to do their own research I would think and not be swayed by some impressive attorney. They are supposed to seek out the truth.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)And you can't always tell votes from questions asked.
Still I would be shocked at a decision requiring Trump to give up his tax returns. That was never going to happen. It only happens in a criminal trial after his presidency.
dalton99a
(81,513 posts)Get rid of the Senate filibuster, and add 5 or 6 seats
Amishman
(5,557 posts)then abolish the Republicans and all other opposition parties
I am so very not comfortable with court stacking.
I want a functional government with multiple viewpoints, not single party rule.
dalton99a
(81,513 posts)not some bullshit 9-seat limitation that perpetuates minority rule
Amishman
(5,557 posts)otherwise we wouldn't have three branches of government with separation of duties; instead we'd just pick a political party and let them decide the rest.
stacking the courts is a red line for me. I will not support it. Picking the best candidates for openings is fine, that is not abusing the system to usurp power. expanding and stacking the courts to seize power is just as fascist as the republicans voter suppression.
Fullduplexxx
(7,863 posts)Of the republican court stacking
Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #17)
Amishman This message was self-deleted by its author.
dalton99a
(81,513 posts)it is a political institution.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)been really busy doing just that since the 2016 election. So many unprecedented acts have taken place since Pukes took control of the Senate. It started with their refusal to even have hearings on PBO's nomination of Merrick Garland. Anything after that should make one feel less "not comfortable" with anything the Democrats do when/if they return to power.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Yeehah
(4,587 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Is about to be shredded beyond repair. I dont know of a solution to a court that has become so obviously political but there is little if any reason to respect anything coming from that kangaroo court.