Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
The Republicans know they are ruling on borrowed time, and it feels like they are trying to destroy as much of the government as possible, for as long as possible, so crazy things like social programs, tax collection and mail take decades to recover (if ever).
I'd honestly never thought about it until I typed it this morning...but here's hoping none of the SCOTUS judges die until at least January...maybe January 2028 depending on the mid-term results.
It may be possible that one of the current justices (Alito, Thomas) decides to hand Trump another win by resigning before Trump's term is over so he can appoint a younger, equally conservative justice. Breyer IIRC did this.
With this administration anything might be attempted (Greenland, Canada, unapproved tariffs, etc.). Opposing a clearly-worded clause like birthright citizenship, in the 14th Amendment, was once something only brought up by extremist, fringe groups, now it only seems to have been upheld by a slight majority of the court. Still, approving a non-attorney, who doesn't even have a nominal knowledge of the law and American law history, would seem very unlikely, given the confirmation process, and his numerous, blatant biases, even among the present GOP bootlickers in the Senate - or so I would hope.
Yeah... How could they confirm and extermist, fringe, knowledge-less, unqualified mook for such a serious role?
It's a feature, not a bug.
The Republicans know they are ruling on borrowed time, and it feels like they are trying to destroy as much of the government as possible, for as long as possible, so crazy things like social programs, tax collection and mail take decades to recover (if ever).
I'd honestly never thought about it until I typed it this morning...but here's hoping none of the SCOTUS judges die until at least January...maybe January 2028 depending on the mid-term results.
With this administration anything might be attempted (Greenland, Canada, unapproved tariffs, etc.). Opposing a clearly-worded clause like birthright citizenship, in the 14th Amendment, was once something only brought up by extremist, fringe groups, now it only seems to have been upheld by a slight majority of the court. Still, approving a non-attorney, who doesn't even have a nominal knowledge of the law and American law history, would seem very unlikely, given the confirmation process, and his numerous, blatant biases, even among the present GOP bootlickers in the Senate - or so I would hope.
No they'd interpret "advise and consent" to mean "advise." They'd let him take his seat without holding any hearings.
Sadly, I think you're right.
The Republicans know they are ruling on borrowed time, and it feels like they are trying to destroy as much of the government as possible, for as long as possible, so crazy things like social programs, tax collection and mail take decades to recover (if ever).
I'd honestly never thought about it until I typed it this morning...but here's hoping none of the SCOTUS judges die until at least January...maybe January 2028 depending on the mid-term results.
What if one of the justices has a heart attack this summer and is gone.
Trump followed advice before (first term), but now he's persistently pushing his own flunky's who he knows will do exactly what he wants.
He decides that Stephen Miller is the perfect "justice". No legal degree. 40 years old. Irrationally conservative. Racist. Family separation and immigrant torture specialist. Perfect for the job.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Jul 1, 2026 - 4:17am
Red_Dragon wrote:
Perhaps not, but you need to be one to get there - unless I'm again mistaken.
Just like it would be rational to have some sort of political experience before folks made you president of the United States. A
We see now how incredibly stupid that decision was.
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.
So let's play this out for fun....
What if one of the justices has a heart attack this summer and is gone.
Trump followed advice before (first term), but now he's persistently pushing his own flunky's who he knows will do exactly what he wants.
He decides that Stephen Miller is the perfect "justice". No legal degree. 40 years old. Irrationally conservative. Racist. Family separation and immigrant torture specialist. Perfect for the job.
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.
The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a "diploma of graduation." Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912.
You don't have to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. The lack of ethics displayed by Thomas has been a critical component of the courts lost luster. He's the perfect justice for a guy like Trump, albeit one that arrived decades earlier.
Perhaps not, but you need to be one to get there - unless I'm again mistaken.
He's also more than happy to sell his decisions for money and gifts. He should be disbarred and prosecuted for graft.
You don't have to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. The lack of ethics displayed by Thomas has been a critical component of the courts lost luster. He's the perfect justice for a guy like Trump, albeit one that arrived decades earlier.
Thomas is on record as crediting the 14th Amendment with securing his family's citizenship after slavery, yet consistently argues it shouldn't extend that same birthright logic to children of immigrants. The ability to interpret the same clause expansively for freedmen, yet narrowly for everyone else, is illogical.
He is a judicial whore, who seems happy to interpret some of the Constitution as expansive (#2), yet unreasonably narrow elsewhere (#14)... it just depends on what Harlan tells him pays him to think.
Alito is just a bit nuts (and so's his wife... which he and Clarence have in common). He'll be down the road here for the rest of the summer... but I doubt I'll get a chance to ask him much.
He's also more than happy to sell his decisions for money and gifts. He should be disbarred and prosecuted for graft.
A world of school shootings and space tourism just weren't things Jefferson considered. Interpreting today through the eyes of someone born 280 years ago is foolish, and "originalist" is a way to cloak partisan bullshit that's often indefensible.
Exactly. Scalia was always calling himself an originalist.
Unrelated but sort of, I saw a quote from Mike Johnson complaining that the SCOTUS ruling is "a textualist, originalist view." Now wait a goldarn minute. I thought conservatives loved constitutional originalist views.
Originalist seems to be pretty damn flexible.
A world of school shootings and space tourism just weren't things Jefferson considered. Interpreting today through the eyes of someone born 280 years ago is foolish, and "originalist" is a way to cloak partisan bullshit that's often indefensible.
Thomas is on record as crediting the 14th Amendment with securing his family's citizenship after slavery, yet consistently argues it shouldn't extend that same birthright logic to children of immigrants. The ability to interpret the same clause expansively for freedmen, yet narrowly for everyone else, is illogical.
He is a judicial whore, who seems happy to interpret some of the Constitution as expansive (#2), yet unreasonably narrow elsewhere (#14)... it just depends on what Harlan tells him pays him to think.
Alito is just a bit nuts (and so's his wife... which he and Clarence have in common). He'll be down the road here for the rest of the summer... but I doubt I'll get a chance to ask him much.
Unrelated but sort of, I saw a quote from Mike Johnson complaining that the SCOTUS ruling is "a textualist, originalist view." Now wait a goldarn minute. I thought conservatives loved constitutional originalist views.
I could be wrong but I'm sure both Thomas and Alito had ancestors who benefited from Amendment 14. Not sure what Gorsuch's deal is.
Thomas is on record as crediting the 14th Amendment with securing his family's citizenship after slavery, yet consistently argues it shouldn't extend that same birthright logic to children of immigrants. The ability to interpret the same clause expansively for freedmen, yet narrowly for everyone else, is illogical.
He is a judicial whore, who seems happy to interpret some of the Constitution as expansive (#2), yet unreasonably narrow elsewhere (#14)... it just depends on what Harlan tells him pays him to think.
Alito is just a bit nuts (and so's his wife... which he and Clarence have in common). He'll be down the road here for the rest of the summer... but I doubt I'll get a chance to ask him much.
