PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: SCOTUS Decisions  (Read 2224 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6156
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
« Reply #90 on: Yesterday at 04:22:44 PM »
What makes you think that is bad faith?  "We're in an election and we could get someone better by waiting" is a good faith reason to wait.

Remember, checks and balances work in both directions.  The appointment power is one of the executive and legislature's checks on the judiciary.  There is no bad faith in saying that electoral politics played a role in the appointment decision.  Appointment is a political power.  It is shared by the executive and legislative branches as a check on the judiciary.  It is, in fact, the primary check on the judiciary, since impeachment is vanishingly rare and simple defiance (i.e., the Andrew Jackson strategy, premised on the fact that the judiciary does not command or fund an army, as the executive and legislature do) actually is a bad faith means of "checking" the judiciary).

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3491
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
« Reply #91 on: Yesterday at 04:33:11 PM »
You described bad faith behavior.   He mentioned no issue with the nominee.  He took it upon himself to break with norms. 

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9904
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: SCOTUS Decisions
« Reply #92 on: Yesterday at 11:36:05 PM »
Or rather, to set a new norm- that a party must hold the Presidency and the Senate in order to appoint judges.  This will be unworkable in the long run, I think.