Reply With Quote
I cited A 2, S2, C2 of Cons ution that the president does nominations (confirmed by Senate), and that life terms are not guaranteed either directly or by current law. It's your fellow chumpettes doing the circles, bruh.
score:
you - 1
me - 0
I cited A 2, S2, C2 of Cons ution that the president does nominations (confirmed by Senate), and that life terms are not guaranteed either directly or by current law. It's your fellow chumpettes doing the circles, bruh.
No, the argument is legally. Presidents have abode the custom of not nominating new judges without vacancies. That Congress has chosen to cap judges is their right via the Cons ution.
No. The judiciary is still independent; and any nomination is still dependent upon the Senate. If you're saying that any ideological vent could dominate for such action, that's fine. But an ideological vent could dominate on the Supreme Court as well (this is a very well known fact of the matter). Thus your balance/separation of powers argument is very specious.
Bla, bla, bla....
It's already been explained to you how impeach and remove are not interchangeable terms. You can choose to be dense if that's what you want to do.
Legally, you quoted it yourself: “whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law”. The law says the President can appoint 9 judges to the SCOTUS. He can’t remove judges, he can’t change how many judges, he can’t replace judges (replacement includes removal implicitly, as their term is for life).
You didn't know that Trump impeached Sessions?
He doesn't directly remove them; he nominates someone new and the Senate confirms him. Short of a legal term in place, this is absolutely allowed by the Cons ution. In fact, that is exactly what the Cons ution says the process is.
Blah, blah, blah...
I already explained to you that impeachment is the process by which government officials are removed. Another quote:
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction by a legislative vote, which judgment entails removal from office.
But cos no president has exercised this Cons utional option, somehow justices are guaranteed life terms even though the law says no such thing. Don't you know this?
Impeachment's not the only means of removing govt. officers. This is axiomatic, and you're a desperate jack ass for even pretending it to be the case. In fact, there are many removals for which impeachment would be wholly inappropriate.
He implicitly would be removing somebody since there can only be 9 judges. That’s per law. Other than changing the law, he cannot do such a thing.
dp
Yes, he would be removing someone (implicitly). If you don't like that, you should advocate for legal life terms and not pretend life terms.
Why are you angry at me for pointing out what’s the law? Ive been nothing but patient.
We’ve gone through law, logic, history and you’re still arguing about something that’s clearly incorrect.
Hey man, have it your way.
It's so cringy watching derp try to punch up.
I don’t have to do anything, tbh. There’s plenty of precedent supporting life terms. If anything, those that don’t want life terms have their work cut out for them.
There’s no route/option/authority granted by the Cons ution by which the POTUS can remove a judge, directly or indirectly. Heck, impeachment, which is the process to do that, has generally a high bar, because it upends the normal cons utional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (election, ratification, or appointment)
I can’t read it. I can generally appreciate a EN or SR impart knowledge but this is unbearable.
That's okay if there's no precedent. If precedent was all we ever needed, there'd be no Cons ution. There's no precedent for a president trying it and getting rejected either; the law is clear nonetheless.
Yea, those that don't want EFFECTUAL life terms do have their work cut out for them. But that doesn't validate your pretend law.
It’s no pretend law, it’s written in Article 3 of the Cons ution, and precedent is the #2 guidance for justices (after law, cons utional or otherwise). Even, in arguendo, somebody were to argue that ‘good behavior’ does not mean life term, there’s simply no way for the executive branch to remove a judge, only the legislative can do that and only through an impeachment proceeding. That’s also why the life term is implicit.
BTW, it’s not that I’m ‘woke’ or anything, there’s like 100+ years of presidents trying to subvert the SCOTUS to their will. People don’t give credit on how s my older presidents were and attempts like these are fairly we’ll do ented. It’s actually pretty sobering to see how well the nation has survived to those attempts.
You talked yourself into a law that doesn't exist, bruh. My favorite has to be when you got so desperate that you pretended impeach and remove are interchangeable terms.
Cons ution is clear that terms are a matter of explicit law, actually (A 2, S2, C2).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions