Should a new Scotus judge be appointed before the 2020 Presidential election?

Why? By appointing a SCOTUS Justice before the elections, then it makes the issue a mute point. As the DNC found out with Kavanaugh, a SCOTUS Justice can not be removed after being appointed. Further, it is to everyone's favor to have a full SCOTUS bench if the Presidential Election is contested in court. The worst thing we could have happen is an evenly divided SCOTUS ruling. Take a look at the SCOTUS ruling on the 5th Court of Appeals decision on DACA in 2016. The case was sent back to the lower court with no action after the SCOTUS split 4 to 4. If this were to happen in an Election ruling, it would be devastating for the country.

Further, the President has a clear Constitutional right to make the appointment. The only claim otherwise is based on a claim of hypocrisy by the left. The problem with that is that the left is also being hypocritical in this case. They claimed that Obama had a right to make the appointment in 2016, but now they are on the other side of the fence. They do not think that President should make the appointment. Nothing that the GOP did to block the appointment in 2016 was unconstitutional. Yet, the DNC will embrace any illegal tactic to block President from making the appointment including another attempt to Impeach the President. Yes, I understand that they claim to have that right, but there is clearly no grounds for an Impeachment. The fact is that the people elected the President and kept the GOP in control of the Senate. So, the people have already spoken on the issue.

 

Their constitutional prerogative in their advise and consent role, they didn't consent.

What you claimed and didn't say it was, the fact remains the Dems have to change rules so they can make a drastic and fundamental change to a branch of the government, one that FDR could not even get, and then change the rule back. The Republicans are following the rules and Constitution as it exist. Apples and oranges.

 

Actually no government respect of any religious establishments, existing or not, be they Christian or Catholic or Jewish or Muslim. And no religious test to hold any office. Both mentions keep government out of religious faith and religious faith out of government and the people are free to practice their personal religious faith as they see fit. They founding fathers had the recent histories of mingling the power of government with the power of religious faith and it wasn't pretty.

 

Well no you couldn't you had to register it but that changes nothing, the clause is there to allow the government to pay for it's necessary functions and upkeep which are then listed.

The preamble as no force in law and note

" provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare," one it pays for as further established the other doesn't.

Of the federal government

The preamble doesn't say provide the welfare of the People. It says "We the PEOPLE" establish the UNITED STATES through the Constitution. And through the Constitution the PEOPLE are the citizens the STATES are the states and the UNITED STATES is the federal government.

The 10th amendment to Constitution does not govern state taxation or how they spend their money.

See above the Tax and Spend clause says exclusively the United States.

"Neighborhoods like war zones" are the responsibilty of the State and local law enforcement are you saying you support Trump sending in federal troops on his own?

 

The Democrats would be following the rules and Constitution as it exist.
What are you having difficulty comprehending?

 

Nope they would be changing the entire makeup of the court and jockying with the rules to do so while the Republicans are doing nothing but following what the Constitution and the rules say as they exist.

 

why the hurry, Trump has till Jan 2021

 

yep, dems will add seats when they take control, just doing what the Constitution and the rules say they can do

two can play that game

 

Thank you. I'm glad that somebody besides me understands that the Republican-led Senate has until noon on January 3, 2021 to confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court. The Democrats will howl and bitch, as usual, but nobody with any sense cares what they think, frankly.

That timeline for a feasible confirmation is an absolute FACT, whether hyperliberal, America-hating, Constitution-hating libs like it or not!

 

~ Yes indeed. Better be safe than sorry .

 

If that's your logic, wait until November 4th. If Trump wins, move forward if not, let Biden chose.

 

The speed and EASE with which hyperliberal Democrats got pieces of biased CRAP like Sotomayor and Kagan thrust into the SCOTUS
by the Obama regime makes it all the more imperative that we on the Right truly 'balance' this Supreme Court!

This is especially true since 2011, when Chief Justice Roberts showed everyone that he was perfectly willing to illegally re-write a law -- changing it unilaterally from a "mandate" to a "tax" (Obamacare!)....

 

~ This should disqualify Roberts to sit on the Court .

 

Like I said, Trump with the assistance of the Republican senate CAN install Barrett.

But why all the passion on either side?

Because ideology is involved!

Consider this: on the face of it, a SC consisting of the "finest legal minds" really ought to be able to arrive at unanimity of judgement, rather than reflecting the ideological differences of the general public.

Such is the human condition, resulting from our lack of ability to perceive "truth" rather than self-interested ideology.

My explanation:

The Right's concept of liberty is based on the instinctive self-interest of all creatures on earth.

The Left's concept of liberty is increased by a conscious awareness of "justice", an awareness which only exists among humans by virtue of possessing a cerebral cortex ("thinking" brain).

Hence the Right's conception of "inalienable Rights" , being both instinctive as well as conscious, is equated with individual liberty, whereas the (Marxist) Left is more open to a conception of Rights that is compatible with socialist co-operation and "justice", "fairness" and "equity".

Yes, it is an ideological document, as examined above.

Though the contest between ideologies, rather than Truth, will prevail, given a strong antipathy to open and transparent education in matters of religious and political ideology.

Yes..... such is human disinterest in Truth, in favour of mythology.

Correct, but Thomas Paine would be horrified by the current standard of debate and politicization of religion in the US.

My interest in all this is to shine a light on the divisive partisanship which can have disastrous outcomes (.....including women taking their own lives, because they must deal with the fetuses growing in their own bodies......)

 

the right wants bigger government that chooses for you, and favors the corporations and the rich

the left ants equal rights for all and favors the working class over the corporations

 

Yes just shows the intellectual antics one must adopt when the premise - compulsory health insurance - is wrong. You either have single payer (publicly funded) health care or you don't.

But the US is into a particularly nasty ideological interpretation of individual liberty, resulting eg in single payer being equated with infringement of individual liberty, as Hillary Clinton discovered when she tried to introduce it in the 90's.

Pathetic.

 

How does my logic get you to that conclusion, my logic is the President carries out his constitutional authority, to nominate and he did, and then the Senate carries out it's constitutional authority to advise and consent if it so chooses. Biden has nothing to do with it nor has any constitutional role in the matter.

 

And since the two are not mutually exclusive what is your point. I am on the right and am fully conscious and aware of justice and it is embodied in those beliefs as is individual freedom and liberty.

 

So why didn't the Senate advice and consent on Garland? A no vote and not doing their job isn't the same thing. If your argument is they knew Obama was a lame duck and wanted the next person to decide, you need to wait until after the election in case voters chose Biden.

 

The right wants only the government authorized by the Constitution which favors no one over anyone else. The left want to separate us and pit one group against another and care about keeping the working class oppressed and dependent of the government.

 

Fact remains: 'welfare' refers to people, not to governments tasked with implementing the peoples' welfare. Stop being a conservative ideolouge who reads the letter of the constitution rather than its spirit.

Addressed above: the preamble sets the spirit of the Constitution. (It's interesting you are trying to emphasize the pramble has "no force in law".

[/QUOTE]The preamble doesn't say provide the welfare of the People. It says "We the PEOPLE" establish the UNITED STATES through the Constitution. And through the Constitution the PEOPLE are the citizens the STATES are the states and the UNITED STATES is the federal government.[/QUOTE]

That's your interpretation. The actual preamble is:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

I interpret it as meaning the states agree to form a union in order to promote, inter alia, the general welfare of the people.

I asked what does the constitution say about taxation within the states.

But of course the welfare of the people of a federation depends not only on the rules governing the union, but also on the rules in the individual states.

Addressed above. I'm saying a half-decent union capable of promoting the general welfare both across the union and within the states forming the union, will eliminate "neighborhoods like war zones" where they exist.

 

that is what the right wants, that is the Trump platform entirely, divide the country, make the working class poor

 

Because they didn't consent to the appointment, it's not they SHALL consent to a President's nominee. He was a lame duck and had an opposition Senate. Trump is not a lame duck and he has a complimentary Senate. There is NO requirement or need to delay Trump executed his constitutional authority and now the Senate will just as if the President and Senate were Democrat controlled.

 

They SHALL advise though. If it was optional, it'd have no legal function. By rights Garland should have been seated by default, the Constitution calls for advise and consent but not a formal vote (that's simply how consent is interpreted). When the Senate opted to abstain, if we're being technical, Obama's nomination should have become an appointment. If the opposition you speak of truly existed, a no vote would have been forthcoming.

 

Welfare of the UNITED STATES...........................that you cannot even grasp that sentence makes this pointless.

[/QUOTE]The preamble doesn't say provide the welfare of the People. It says "We the PEOPLE" establish the UNITED STATES through the Constitution. And through the Constitution the PEOPLE are the citizens the STATES are the states and the UNITED STATES is the federal government.[/QUOTE]

Which establishes the Federal Government the UNITED STATES.

Promote and the preamble has no legal standing or constitutional interpretation. That Tax and Spend Clause is quite clear, to pay the debts and maintain the welfare of the government and it assets and pay it's debts, it does say the welfare of the People and to pay their debts.

I told you now go look it up and get back to me.

The State government maintain their own welfare was their state constitutions dictate.

Providing the general welfare of the people? In what country has that worked? The Soviet Union? China? Italy? Venezuela? North Korea? We as a people do best when we are free to provide for ourselves and as much for ourselves as possible due to our own skills and initiatives. Justice insures we hae a civil society in which to do that and courts to take our grievances and punish those who engage in illicit behaviors in the system.