No, that title is not hyperbole. More on that below.

Trump is as anti-American as possible for a US president. Every time he says "I love America" or "I love (this or that state)", know that he is lying. But you can believe him when he acts like he loves Putin or that thug in North Korea.

Trump has packed the judiciary with over 200 federal judges, not a single one of which did Trump appoint based on the quality of their legal expertise. Rather they were nominated because their judicial temperament is far right-wing. More than one has been rejected by the all-too-accommodating Senate because of the lack of competence.

Then there's Trump's Supreme Cort nominees for the same partisan reasons. Now he's pushing for Barrett to be confirmed because he expects the Court then to rule in his favor post-election on issues of the validity of the election and Obamacare and abortion. She will probably take her seat before I finish writing this.

But the last minute business referred to in the subject title is his bizarre executive order stripping job protections for hundreds of thousands of civil employees. These workers take an oath to be non-partisan but Trump would prefer all government employees to take an oath to him and support whatever polices he tries to make. Dissent will not be allowed.

Not quite the personal loyalty oath Hitler demanded, but getting close.

Trump came to drain the swamp. Instead he has created a far bigger swamp which is more sewer than swamp.

so your argument is that Trump has replaced the alligators with crocodiles?

Trump's nominees have, on the whole, been impressive and highly qualified. While there are some notable exceptions, the qualifications of Trump's judicial nominees compare favorably with those of his predecessors. Through the first two years of his Presidency, a higher percentage of judges nominated by Trump received "Well Qualified" ratings from the ABA than his predecessor .The emperor nominated a large number of highly qualified jurists, but according to the ABA, a higher percentage of Trump's appointees were "Well Qualified."


"Trump has a higher rate of "well-qualified" confirmed first time judges than any other president on the list aside from George W. Bush."

https://empiricalscotus.com/2019/09/25/a-whole-new-ballgame/

Overall, a majority of Trump's judicial nominees have received "Well Qualified" ratings from the ABA—80 percent of Circuit Court nominees and 62 percent of District Court nominees....and the ABA evaluates Republican nominees more critically than Democratic nominees with equivalent experience.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368891

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=290186

Some of Trumps nominees were rated unqualified by the ABA . But the difference is that under the emperor the potential nominees were pre-submitted to the ABA . No matter what you believe of Trump .he has nominated and got confirmed a large number of highly qualified individuals to the federal bench.


She will probably take her seat before I finish writing this. some time today .. booooo hooooo

stripping job protections for hundreds of thousands of civil employees.

good !!! get rid of the swamp critters who assume their jobs are permanent ;and think their role is to oppose and undermine the policies of a Chief Executive they disagree with. The President is elected . These swamp critters are not .

If setting record low figures for unemployment is an attempt to "destroy America", then let's hope we get some more of that destruction. Talk about getting a little on the shrill side. Good grief.

yes the losing side always become shrill near the end, but remember this thread is about the swamp and in the swamp there are snakes, reptiles and other nasties. Trump gave the corporate sector confidence and this led to recovery and all that nonsense about trickle down economics evaporated, however, Trump could not see past his nose when it came to a real crisis because it was no longer about him and he has led the US into a malstrom. He has indeed made it the greatest in every respect

ACB was confirmed today. JB said he would tell us about his court-packing decision once that happened. I'd say it's 50-50 that he announces before the election. Probably a certainty that he will pack the court. Any opinions?

Some specifics of the U.S. government were written into the original Constitution after (often lengthy) deliberations by the Founding Fathers. The number of Supreme Court justices was not one of those things. The total has varied throughout the years this country has been in existence.

It hasn't varied in the past 150 years, but JB should at least let the American people know his plans.

It hasn't varied in the past 150 years, but JB should at least let the American people know his plans.

As it hasn't varied in 150 years, the case load must have increased just as population has, so there would be good reason for increasing the number. Some people just don't like change, they are threatened by it

It hasn't varied in the past 150 years, but JB should at least let the American people know his plans.
To counter Trump's plan to pack the court with conservatives who will declare certain ballots illegal and thus grant him (a minimum of) four more years?

The Supreme Court is, at least ideologically, supposed to be unbiased.

To counter Trump's plan to pack the court with conservatives?Not the same thing, but DT and JB would both be within their authority to do so. The difference is that DT was very open that he was going to appoint conservative judges who would not invent law out of thin air. JB refuses to tell the American people what he will do. It is deception on a grand scale.


The Supreme Court is, at least ideologically, supposed to be unbiased.Were you saying that when the Supreme Court was packed with liberals?

Were you saying that when the Supreme Court was packed with liberals?
Yes, I did! And if Congress and the president add and subtract justices at will, it will tarnish the ideal that it stands for.

and the president add and subtract justices at willSo you would be opposed to JB expanding it to, let's say, 11 justices?

So you would be opposed to JB expanding it to, let's say, 11 justices?
Abraham Lincoln expanded it to ten in order to add another abolitionist vote. Was that bad?

That wasn't the question. You said, "And if Congress and the president add and subtract justices at will, it will tarnish the ideal that it stands for." So based on that, would you support JB expanding it to eleven?

That wasn't the question. You said, "And if Congress and the president add and subtract justices at will, it will tarnish the ideal that it stands for." So based on that, would you support JB expanding it to nine?
Now it's nine. You had said eleven earlier. How about three?

The words "at will" mean something. Do you understand what?

I meant eleven. Just edited it.

I meant eleven. Just edited it.
Why? and what about my second question?

Never mind. Forget it.

Like the dufus tax returns and health care plan, Biden doesn't owe anyone a sneak peak at his intentions, but has said he isn't really in favor of it. After the repub SCOTUS hypocrisy though, if dems take power they should do as they see fit, like repubs did. Let conservatives whine all they want.

Biden doesn't owe anyone a sneak peak at his intentions,But he does. He said he would announce his intentions if ACB was confirmed. She has been confirmed, so it's time to pony up.

Overall, a majority of Trump's judicial nominees have received "Well Qualified" ratings from the ABA—80 percent of Circuit Court nominees and 62 percent of District Court nominees..

Judicial qualifications are not the problem with Trump's selections. The problem is their judicial TEMPERAMENT. What you right-wingers fail to understand is that a Justice takes an oath to apply the law without prejudice, and never with an ideology. Trump always seeks those who will support right-wing issues. He's clueless about the law.

Obama, you will remember, selected Garland, a choice considered moderate whose seat was stolen by McConnell and his Republican stooges. With Barrett, the Repubs have now stolen three SC seats. The price for that bit of larceny will be paid on November 3.

What you right-wingers fail to understand is that a Justice takes an oath to apply the law without prejudice, and never with an ideology. Yeah, like the guys who decided Roe/Wade, or the gay marriage case. They just cooked it up out of thin air. One thing libs will never get a conservative's attention with is complaining about Supreme Court appointments.

ah the rhetoric, "the worst day in 231 years" so not even the election of Trump was the worst day for the liberals?

Yeah, like the guys who decided Roe/Wade, or the gay marriage case. They just cooked it up out of thin air. One thing libs will never get a conservative's attention with is complaining about Supreme Court appointments.

Both cases you cited weren't decided out of thin air as states had been moving for years in the direction favoring both. Not the first time that conservatives had to be dragged by the ankles into the right side of history (pun intended) and the will of the people, and won't be the last, even with a conservative packed SC. You won't get liberal attention with discriminatory social issue positions either, quite the opposite is my prediction.

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.KCxWOefOgiX-4obJ2gd12AHaEK&w=265&h=160&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1&rm=2

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.RXQ_R-662MzJ0_qmkv2Q_gHaFY&w=147&h=107&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1&rm=2

Both cases you cited weren't decided out of thin air as states had been moving for years in the direction favoring both.Except that that's not how you kind of, sort of decide federal law. SCOTUS is bound by fed law, and not by what states are doing. There is nothing in the Constitution that establishes a woman's right to have her baby killed, nor anything that gives two men the right to get married. You obviously don't have a clue as to how the process works.

Show me the federal law that prohibits either of those issues. The same law that give YOU freedom to practice YOUR religion, is the same law that protect ME from YOUR religion. Seems you need a history lesson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

Show me the federal law that prohibits either of those issuesThe tenth amendment expressly leaves those issues up to the states. Seems like you need a legal lesson. Might add that I have not mentioned religion. That's always the excuse that libs love to fall back on. "Oh, you're just trying to impose your religion on me!" Well, you're the one who brought the issue up, and not me. This is actually about five (or more) SC justices trying to impose their moral will on the rest of us.

I am always amused at your links. You think you are going to make some sort of point, so you link to Wiki articles that are many, many pages long so you can pretend you have done some research. Why don't you try quoting the relevant passages in those articles? It would be a very simple issue of copy and paste. Do you really think I'm going to waste my team reading dozens of pages from your "links to nowhere"? And frequently they end up contradicting the point you're trying to make.

The tenth amendment expressly leaves those issues up to the states. Seems like you need a legal lesson. Might add that I have not mentioned religion. That's always the excuse that libs love to fall back on. "Oh, you're just trying to impose your religion on me!" Well, you're the one who brought the issue up, and not me. This is actually about five (or more) SC justices trying to impose their moral will on the rest of us.

That's exactly what I have said and exactly what has happened over the years. SCOTUS doesn't look for cases, they have to be brought and argued before them after going through the lower courts. I might be wrong in assuming your objections to these issues are religiously based, but have repeatedly stated both issues have been steadily moving through the states and courts for decades. Beats me why you would think that the rights and freedoms of others that you enjoy, are such a personal imposition to you, except on religious grounds. Maybe you would feel differently if you were gay, or a woman, and the views of others actually imposed on their freedoms.


I am always amused at your links. You think you are going to make some sort of point, so you link to Wiki articles that are many, many pages long so you can pretend you have done some research. Why don't you try quoting the relevant passages in those articles? It would be a very simple issue of copy and paste. Do you really think I'm going to waste my team reading dozens of pages from your "links to nowhere"? And frequently they end up contradicting the point you're trying to make.

I don't care what you do with your time, nor if you like how I present my opinions or positions. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just two mules butting heads yet again. No big deal to me bud, YOU?

here ya go ..... a blast from the past

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo

Beats me why you would think that the rights and freedoms of others than you enjoy, are such a personal imposition to you, except on religious grounds. Maybe you would feel differently if you were gay, or a woman, and the views of others actually imposed on their freedoms.Read the Declaration of Independence. Outside of God, we have no rights or freedoms.


I don't care what you do with your time, nor if you like how I present my opinions or positions. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just two mules butting heads yet again. No big deal to me bud, YOU?I wish I could object to being called a mule, but it's probably closer to the truth than I would care to admit.

as far as court packing goes ;even FDR knew it was a bad idea, and he knew his idea would be rejected if it was viewed as an assault on the court . So he went in with the argument that there were too many geezers on the court

Feb 5 1937 .He shocked the country by asking Congress for the authority to nominate a judge for any that were 70+ (6) .He also wanted to add 44 to the lower courts .

It sparked something akin to a constitutional crisis . Thousands of letters poured into Congressional offices . If FDR got his way ,the idea of an independent judiciary was gone forever . Few judges appointed for life would be able to ignore the popular will .Court packing would go on from one administration to another . If the Dems could do it then so could the Republicans .

It was easy to explain to the American people who saw powerful men taking totalitarian control in Europe. Roosevelt’s foes accused him of mimicking the dictators by seeking to concentrate power in the hands of one man.
Still FDR had the votes if he persisted in the effort .

The court also got spooked and began passing some New Deal initiatives .In fact it never again over ruled a New Deal law.

Suddenly there was no necessity for court packing . With each new ruling supporting FDR initiatives , support for the legislation eroded, and by the end of May Roosevelt no longer had the votes needed to enact the measure.

The defeat of the bill meant that the institutional integrity of SCOTUS had been preserved.....its size had not been manipulated for political or ideological ends. FDR’s scheme, said the Senate Judiciary Committee, was “a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”

And it never has been seriously considered again ,,,,,,,,,, until now

And it never has been seriously considered again ,,,,,,,,,, until now
And now Trump, who probably has no clue who FDR was (probably thinks it's a Subway sandwich) is packing the Court -- and will continue to do so if reelected.

Trump...is packing the CourtNo, he is not. Not the same thing. He is appointing conservative judges in the same manner that Obama appointed stupid..er, liberal judges. Court packing is a different issue.

No, he is not. Not the same thing. He is appointing conservative judges in the same manner that Obama appointed stupid..er, liberal judges. Court packing is a different issue.
THREE conservative judges (especially the third one who was shoved in at the last minute) during his term as president -- with the plan of adding more during his hoped-for next term -- is not packing the court?

No, it's not. Packing the court refers to going beyond nine judges. Not you can agree or disagree with putting in justices who actually believe in the Constitution and the rule of law if you want to, but it is not "packing the court" in the sense that we have been discussing Biden's plan. That's the plan the everyone knows he has but he is too cowardly to announce.

No, it's not. Packing the court refers to going beyond nine judges.
Now I KNOW you don't carefully read what I post!

A great Huha, out of fear, fear that some law will be found unconstitutional, pity the court couldn't examine the constitution and chuck out everything that is redundant

it is not packing the court when he is nominating a replacement to fill a vacancy.




pity the court couldn't examine the constitution and chuck out everything that is redundant there are 2 methods written into the Constitution to amend it . Only one is used even though a better method is available

I don't read what you say carefully? Well, here it is.


THREE conservative judges (especially the third one who was shoved in at the last minute) during his term as president -- with the plan of adding more during his hoped-for next term -- is not packing the court?He replaced three justices. He has announced absolutely nothing about adding numbers to the court. So yeah, if you meant something other than he has replaced three justices and he would like to replace three more if he is reelected with the total number remaining at nine, then I don't see how you got there.

Back to the thread, you can't destroy something that is self destructing, you just have to sit on the fence and watch the race to the bottom

Back to the thread, you can't destroy something that is self destructing the experiment of people self governing has not traditionally lasted long. America has had a 200+ plus year run of it and it remains to be seen if it is self destructing or not . That is not a foregone conclusion even though some may argue that we have been in a perpetual state of civil war since the founding .

Let's see . Iceland has the longest running Parliament .But it is still a kingdom . Rome's republic lasted about 250 years . The US is approaching that time frame.

Covid, covid, covid! It's everywhere and growing. We need a doctor not a dufus.

WE DON'T Need


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/ba/41/d8ba416c5c310f8637d7cd00e9f3a2c9.jpg

the experiment of people self governing has not traditionally lasted long. America has had a 200+ plus year run of it and it remains to be seen if it is self destructing or not . That is not a foregone conclusion even though some may argue that we have been in a perpetual state of civil war since the founding .

Let's see . Iceland has the longest running Parliament .But it is still a kingdom . Rome's republic lasted about 250 years . The US is approaching that time frame.

You are self destructing in the sense that you have reached the end of the republic phase and are transitioning to the empire. Rome lasted about 800 years from founding to being overrun by barbarians, the eastern empire about another thousand years, so Rome had a long run and maybe you will too but not divided as you are

Rome lasted about 800 years from founding to being overrun by barbarians, the eastern empire about another thousand years, so Rome had a long run and maybe you will too but not divided as you are Rome was a republic for 250 years give or take a few. It is not a forgone conclusion that republics need fail just because they have in the past. The framers gave us means to amend for just that reason.

This ain't the ancient world and we have hopefully evolved somewhat from those limitations of knowledge and ability.

This ain't the ancient world and we have hopefully evolved somewhat from those limitations of knowledge and ability.

Evolved? In what way have you evolved? you send your legions across the world, you dominate other nations

you dominate other nationsYou mean like Israel, or Germany, or France, or Italy, or Poland, or S. Korea, or Japan, or Norway, or Kuwait, or Finland? I think citizens of relatively small countries tend to forget what this country has done. Nearly every other superpower existed to aggrandize itself at the expense of other nations. With all our internal faults, our foreign policy has predominately been to help other countries avoid tyranny.

Evolved? In what way have you evolved? you send your legions across the world, you dominate other nations

Name one nation we dominate and are uninvited and unwelcome.

Name one nation we dominate and are uninvited and unwelcome.Always nice when we agree, Tal.

You mean like Israel, or Germany, or France, or Italy, or Poland, or S. Korea, or Japan, or Norway, or Kuwait, or Finland? I think citizens of relatively small countries tend to forget what this country has done. Nearly every other superpower existed to aggrandize itself at the expense of other nations. With all our internal faults, our foreign policy has predominately been to help other countries avoid tyranny.


That is almost laughable, your foreign policy has always been to advance your own interests, you have not done anything that did not. Your idea of manifest destiny sees you ruling the world. You are only worried about tyranny when it is directed at you. You fought Japan because they attacked you and you support them now because it suits you to have bases there. You fought Germany because they attacked you, and you support them now because it suits you to have bases there. As to Israel, you support them because it suits you. It is all politics and I doubt the ordinary american has any say in it, you are brainwashed from the cradle to the grave with a modern version of bread and circuses

If not for the U.S., all of Europe would be under either Nazi or Soviet control. We defeated Japan, and then rebuilt Japan by spending billions of dollars there. Breakup of the U.S.S.R.? You can thank us. Freedom of nations in the Pacific? Freedom for nations in Eastern Europe? You can thank us. I know from past experience that you can't get it, so it's yet another reason I want to see us pull back from most of our commitments to thankless nations unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves as long as they can live under our umbrella. I'm all for getting out, and people like you just reinforce that belief.

Still haven't answered Tal's very good question. "Name one nation we dominate and are uninvited and unwelcome."

Nice anti American rhetorical rant Clete, laughable if you weren't always right next to us. I don't get into the paying us homage gratitude stuff, and certainly it's in our interest to have safe and secure trading and co-operations among other nations and yours too, but please give me a break on this invading empire stuff. That's crap and you know it. If you prefer to sit the situation out feel free to do so.

If not for the U.S., all of Europe would be under either Nazi or Soviet control. We defeated Japan, and then rebuilt Japan by spending billions of dollars there. Breakup of the U.S.S.R.? You can thank us. Freedom of nations in the Pacific? Freedom for nations in Eastern Europe? You can thank us. I know from past experience that you can't get it, so it's yet another reason I want to see us pull back from most of our commitments to thankless nations unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves as long as they can live under our umbrella. I'm all for getting out, and people like you just reinforce that belief.

Still haven't answered Tal's very good question. "Name one nation we dominate and are uninvited and unwelcome."

Big pat on the back there jl but don't break your arm doing it. I doubt you are as welcome in Japan as you think you are. You so called umbrella enables you to dominate trade and sanction anyone who doesn't dance to your call. Freedom in Eastern Europe, those nations are a shadow of what they once were, rust belts just like your own. You speak of past experience but what about present experience, anyone not in the greater american prosperity zone is sanctioned, and even those who are don't prosper as well as you might think

, your foreign policy has always been to advance your own interests,you have not done anything that did not.
duhh and so has Aussies . In whose planet do nations conduct foreign policy against their self interest ? Even when acting in cooperation with other nations ,self interest must be the first consideration . To your point Clete ;alliances are temporary ,self interest is permanent .

Good perspective Tom. Wonder if those Aussies do stuff for anybody that's NOT in their self interest? I'm all ears.

Yes we are doing less of it these days, AU warships have been withdrawn from the Gulf