Forget Ideology, This Is The Real Reason Why A SCOTUS Nomination Is Ill Advised

Forget Ideology, This Is The Real Reason Why A SCOTUS Nomination Is Ill Advised
By:   docphil
Created:   2 weeks ago
Comments:   21

Tags

We're going to argue the nomination of a potential SCOTUS member for the next year, if not the next century, or maybe even the next millennium. Most of our arguments are centering around the issues that will face the court in the next few years. We might have different views on the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, Janus, Citizens United, etc., and may want to see judges appointed that see the issues through the same lens that each of us do. 

We also argue about the issue of whether a president should nominate a SCOTUS justice when an election is pending {whether presidential or senatorial}. That is a debate whose roots fall directly on the democrats for changing the rules on filibusters and the republicans for changing the rules on nominations during a president's term. Ultimately the stupidity of both political parties come back to haunt them; if not now, then in the near future.

There is another issue that we should be exploring in much more detail. That issue is the ongoing investigation by the Mueller team, which may be issuing a report accusing the President himself of significant criminal activity. We don't know this for certain, but the possibility has not been rebutted or denied by the Mueller Team. What we do know is that members of the Trump campaign {high ranking} have been indicted or have already pled guilty to crimes related to the campaign. Multiple indictments have been made against Russian oligarchs who had at least peripheral involvement in the Trump campaign. Pairing that with the current pending indictments of Michael Cohen {and his possible willingness to flip} and the Senate investigatory committee report led by Richard Burr {R-NC} indicating that the Russians tried to influence the election in support of Donald Trump, there is a real question whether criminal charges will soon be filed, either through a report that recommends impeachment, or states that find that the President violated state criminal statutes.

I am not saying that the President will definitely be indicted, but I am saying that there is some serious doubt as to whether a President who is under criminal investigation should have the right to appoint a supreme court justice while that investigation is occurring. Does that immediately raise a constitutional issue? Is there an immediate conflict of interest for both the President and the nominee? Would that nominee be forced to recuse him/herself on any case that would involve potential Presidential criminality? In fact, would Justice Gorsich also have to recuse himself?

These are all questions that are interpretive and form an ample set of reasons why this nomination should not move forward until the Mueller report is finalized. We survived with an 8 person supreme court for over a year when the Republicans wouldn't move forward on Merrick Garland's nomination. That stunt was political. This issue moves much deeper into the core of American morality. Can we afford to have a possible criminal appointing judges to the highest court who could wind up with the "mark of Cain" indelibly pressed on their legacy.

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_profile_id: user_id parameter required
Landshark
1  Landshark    one week ago

 If we’re going to discuss the real reason why Democrats don’t want a supreme court nomination to take effect during this term and let’s be completely frank and honest about It.

 By and large by their clear admission Democrats don’t want someone appointed to supreme court that will uphold the Constitution they want somebody who for the most part will  fall in line with their activist feelings agenda rather than  a scholarly approach  rooted in constitutional principles. 

The notion that there should be a delay at this stage of the process is absolutely absurd on its face and anybody would tell you that including a Democrat if they thought that they could nominate another douche bag to the High Court

 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Landshark @1    one week ago

Democrats don’t want someone appointed to supreme court that will uphold the Constitution they want somebody who for the most part will  fall in line with their activist feelings agenda rather than  a scholarly approach  rooted in constitutional principles

That's it. Everything else is just noise.

IF  Garland had been confirmed, if Trump wasn't under investigation, it wouldn't change a thing. The nominee, whoever it is, would be opposed by every democratic senator who can get away with it electorally. It doesn't matter who the nominee is, what their qualifications are, what they say at their hearings, the democrats will vilify them, distort their record and generally try and scare the voters with nonsensical prediction of what will happen. It's been the same thing over and over since the 80s. 

 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    one week ago
There is another issue that we should be exploring in much more detail. That issue is the ongoing investigation by the Mueller team, which may be issuing a report accusing the President himself of significant criminal activity.

In other words, supposition, conjecture, innuendo, rumor, hyperbole, guesses and all the other synonyms related to any of those words.

Or, maybe it's possible that some people that post some commentary are unaware of the fact that in this country, one is innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law of specific criminal violations of those laws.   What some believe or wish for is NOT//NOT relevant in court.

 
 
Greg Jones
4  Greg Jones    one week ago

Trump has the Constitutional authority to nominate a new Justice of his choice. So he can, he should, and he will. I am betting on Barrett, a Catholic conservative, and she will once again have to take the abuse of the Democrats during the confirmation hearings. It's not the fault of Trump or the Republicans that Mueller has been dragging his feet on this inquisition and can't seem to find anything to pin on Trump, his associates, or his family. Who knows...since he can investigate anywhere the breadcrumbs lead, he might be looking at some of Obama's people.

 
 
Sunshine
4.1  Sunshine  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago

I do believe Mueller and his top notch team have solved who framed Roger Rabbit.

 
 
96WS6
5  96WS6    one week ago

What kind of loony logic is this?  It's OK to run for president if you are under criminal or federal investigation, but you can't appoint SCOTUS and innocent until proven guilty only applies during the primaries.Makes No Sense

 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    one week ago

Bill Clinton was under investigation by an independent counsel when he nominated Steven Breyer. I don't remember Democrats objecting. 

 
 
KDMichigan
7  KDMichigan    one week ago
Can we afford to have a possible criminal appointing judges to the highest court who could wind up with the "mark of Cain" indelibly pressed on their legacy.

Hmmm I didn't hear this talking point when he appointed his last one.

So I guess Hillaryious Hillary shouldn't have been running for President when she was under federal investigation?

Bottom line is elections have consequences and at the end of the day Trump won, so His pick trumps your feelings. crying

 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @7    one week ago

Most people can't name and don't care who selected which Justice.

Once they are on the Court, it is a moot point anyway!

And the Justice's image would not be tarnished by thinking people anyways.

 
 
livefreeordie
8  livefreeordie    one week ago

An argument in absurdium

Tell us what underlying crime(s) could Trump be indicted for as a result of Mueller’s investigation?

Political collusion with Russia? Not only the biggest farce in American history, but no such crime exists in our code of law

obstruction of justice?  You cannot be charged with a crime for exercising your Constitutional authority

 
 
Skrekk
8.1  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @8    one week ago

I welcome our Russian overlords.

 
 
devangelical
9  devangelical    one week ago

IMO if trump is impeached and convicted for criminal acts committed prior to becoming POTUS, that all appointments, EO's, and any legislation bearing his signature are now legally null and void.

 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @9    one week ago

Well, if your learned legal advice is ever necessary, I am sure some SCOTUS member will be in touch with you soon enough.

 
 
Texan1211
10  Texan1211    one week ago

Trump will nominate someone for SCOTUS.

The Democrats will whine, cry, and defame, vowing to never vote for any Trump nominee.

Eventually, when they see that the GOP has enough votes to confirm without them, some Democratic Senators in swing states or very tight races will be "allowed" to vote for Trump's pick.

In the end, Trump gets his pick through.

The end.

 
 
DocPhil
11  DocPhil    one week ago

If President Obama was being investigated for the same type of potential crimes that President Trump may face, the republicans would have initiated impeachment proceedings within a month of the special counsel's appointment. It is only because this republican party is complicit with Trump that we haven't heard anything about impeachment. The truth is there will be plenty of time for that if the Mueller report has credible proof of obstruction of justice, illegally working with a foreign power {the legal equivalent of collusion} to influence an American election, money laundering, criminal coercion, as well as potential crimes that may have occurred prior to his presidential run that may be prosecuted at a state level. 

This has already proven to be the most corrupt administration in history with more scandals, indictments, and criminal proceedings for members up and down the administration food chain.

The one thing most of you are right about.....Trump can nominate anyone he wants for the SCOTUS. It is up to the Senate to engage in their constitutional duty to do due diligence on the nominee. That can, as McConnell proved in 2015, not to act on even a legitimate nominee. We'll see what happens and how the majority of the American people react to what the Senate does.

 
 
Texan1211
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  DocPhil @11    one week ago

See post 10.

 
 
bbl-1
12  bbl-1    one week ago

Make up of high courts can be very important.

It was through the courts that the Nazis were legally able to disenfranchise voters, seize property and revoke citizenship.

The Nazis installed hundreds of Roland Freisler mindset people in Germany's court systems.  This was how they did it and it was legal under The Weimer Constitution.

 
 
Texan1211
12.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @12    one week ago

Well, it is a good thing this isn't Nazi Germany!

 
 
lennylynx
12.1.1  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1    one week ago

Not quite, but Trump has it about 90% there!

 
 
Texan1211
12.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @12.1.1    one week ago

If they gave Academy Awards for Melodrama, you'd win hands down!

 
 
Vic Eldred
13  Vic Eldred    one week ago

"but I am saying that there is some serious doubt as to whether a President who is under criminal investigation should have the right to appoint a supreme court justice while that investigation is occurring."

That argument is historically and Constitutionally unfounded.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gordy327
sixpick
pat wilson
epistte
Enoch
arkpdx
dave-2693993
PJ
bbl-1


38 visitors