[jlisenbe]

I would agree that justices who are no longer capable of serving properly should resign. As to spacing them out, the current SC has members appointed more than 30 years ago on it. Justices are generally appointed at the rate of three or four per decade, and that strikes me as pretty well spaced out. Certainly the configuration of the Senate has changed repeatedly over that time. The problem is not with the timing of appointments as much as with the method. It gets so embroiled in politics that we end up with people who are more concerned with ideology than with the rule of law. K. Brown is a perfect example of that. And that is a problem up and down the Federal court system. I don't know what the solution is.

[tomder55]

The problem is not with the timing of appointments as much as with the method. It gets so embroiled in politics that we end up with people who are more concerned with ideology than with the rule of law.

That is why I suggested a time period and then a reconfirmation . Then we would have a track record of them in SCOTUS to compare to what they said in confirmation

[jlisenbe]

That (reconfirmation) might be useful, but I don't think it would lessen the political side. If anything it would inflame it.

The whole purpose in having SC justices for life was to, as much as was possible, eliminate political considerations from the Court. If a justice knows that he will face opposition for voting a particular way, then he will feel pressured to "go along to get along". Imagine if two of the five justices who voted to retool Roe had been facing a confirmation hearing that year. I can imagine it would have made for an enormously difficult environment with justices having to consider more than simply the law, and that is not a good thing.

[tomder55]

The whole purpose in having SC justices for life was to, as much as was possible, eliminate political considerations from the Court.

That ship sailed when the Marshall Court decided that the Supreme Court was the SUPREME Court instead of a co-equal branch..... and Congress and Jefferson did nothing to stop it .

[jlisenbe]

What are the options for the Congress/WH?

[tomder55]

Congress can impeach justices . They also determine jurisdiction of Federal Courts.

As far as Executive Power I'll quote Andrew Jackson
“John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.”

However Jackson did not make good on his threat .

[tomder55]

One of the biggest problems we have is the firm grip liberals have on the media and in universities. Those two combined are producing an ill-informed, ignorant electorate that happily elects people like Biden and Pelosi. We need to start becoming much more engaged in those two institutions.

"The uneducated voter is the biggest threat because it allows slimy politicians to continue occupying office."

AlphaFox on Twitter: ""The uneducated voter is the biggest threat because it allows slimy politicians to continue occupying office." Former Los Angeles sheriff Alex Vilanueva shares his thoughts on the reasons behind homelessness in LA. https://t.co/CzNg2OtbrO" / Twitter


Former Sheriff Explains Los Angeles’s ‘Deputy Gangs’ | Alex Villanueva (theepochtimes.com)

[tomder55]

AOC with term limits would have a choice to throw her hat in the ring for some other elected position or more likely become another celebrity talking head

.

OR maybe a celebrity /community organizer

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Joins SAG-AFTRA & WGA Picket Lines | THR News - YouTube

[tomder55]

The Lords are more like the Senate,

Indeed they are

The House of Lords is a menace to democracy, no matter who sits in it.

The real problem with Boris Johnson’s new peers - spiked (spiked-online.com)

‘a shameful list of bootlickers, bimbos and tropical-island holiday facilitators, who between them can be proud to have pushed trust in politics to an extreme low during their tenures and offered very little in return to the British people’.

The Senate is the result of a compromise during the Constitutional Convention .More than one person has called for it to be abolished.

The Schmuckster has been in the Senate for 24 years and will be reelected until he is boots up . Yertle the Turtle has been in office for 38 years. Both are over the hill menaces who have way too much power.

[tomder55]

If the Feds can prove obstruction charges as the new indictment of his property manager suggests ;then they got Trump .It is the same as in Watergate . The obstruction is the crime. They would not even have to deal with the sensitivity of the docs ;or which docs he was entitled to keep . If the prosecution can show that Trump deliberately hid the documents, deliberately defied federal subpoenas ;attempted to destroy evidence, that would amount to obstruction, regardless of the doc issues.

The indictment alleges that, after Trump’s lawyers learned that the DOJ would seek the surveillance footage, Trump spoke to two employees: his valet, Walt Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, the head of maintenance at Mar-a-Lago. These two employees then instructed a third Trump employee to delete the security footage — although it is not clear if the video was actually deleted. The indictment refers to an “attempt” to destroy security footage.

The biggest revelations from the superseding indictment against Trump - Vox

[jlisenbe]

It would seem that Trump's arrogance has caught up with him. If he did indeed attempt to destroy evidence, then he should be prosecuted.

[tomder55]

posting WSJ editorial in entirety .

Does Donald Trump not understand the greatest truism in politics—i.e., that it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup? That screams from the page while reading Thursday’s superseding indictment of Mr. Trump, who now stands accused of trying to delete incriminating Mar-a-Lago security video.
Special counsel Jack Smith charged Mr. Trump last month with unlawfully retaining national-security information, as well as concealing classified files at his Florida club. According to this week’s indictment, the feds subpoenaed Mar-a-Lago’s surveillance footage on June 24, 2022. Within hours, Mr. Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, was planning to fly to the club, while texting its IT director to ask if he was available.


On Saturday, June 25, Mr. Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, a club property manager, “went to the security guard booth where surveillance video is displayed on monitors, walked with a flashlight through the tunnel where the Storage Room was located, and observed and pointed out surveillance cameras.” On Monday morning, Mr. De Oliveira found the IT director, took him “to a small room known as an ‘audio closet,’” and asked him how long the club’s server kept footage. He then said “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” the indictment says.
Mr. Trump is entitled to a defense and presumption of innocence, but this is a damaging allegation. Will the Mar-a-Lago IT director take the stand? Prosecutors are presumably telling Messrs. Nauta and De Oliveira, who also face criminal counts, that it would be in their best interests to cooperate and testify to what “the boss” told them.
If Mr. Trump sought to destroy evidence, it undercuts his defense on the document charges. He contends that the Presidential Records Act gives him the right to retain documents from his time in office. But if Mr. Trump believed that, he would have played it straight. If the indictment is right that he hid the files from his own lawyers and tried to wipe the security video to stop anybody from finding out, then he didn’t buy his own defense.

Prudential questions about the wisdom of this prosecution remain. Mr. Trump appears to have kept the files out of pigheadedness, not because he wanted to do something nefarious like sell them to an adversary. The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago to recover the documents.
The episode reflects poorly on Mr. Trump. But is this conduct that truly gives President Biden no choice except to ask a jury to jail his leading political opponent in next year’s election? At least Watergate involved a burglary.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has set a precedent that further entangles law enforcement with presidential politics. Meanwhile, Mr. Garland’s department cut a dubious plea deal for President Biden’s son Hunter, and IRS agents have testified under oath about political interference with their investigation. Republicans who complain about two standards of justice have a point. Democrats want to use multiple prosecutions to help Mr. Trump win the GOP nomination while diminishing him for a rematch with Mr. Biden.
Yet Republicans should also be angry at Mr. Trump, who is again the architect of his own destruction. He led the GOP to defeats, many of them driven by his personal grievances, in 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Add his Covid performance, the Jan. 6 riot, a $5 million civil jury verdict for sexual abuse, plus now a truly stupid alleged Mar-a-Lago coverup.
Yet Mr. Trump still expects the GOP will save him from his own recklessness by nominating him for the White House a third time. He wants Republican voters, as he does Messrs. Nauta and De Oliveira, to take the fall with him.
Good luck if they do. The best revenge for Mr. Trump’s supporters would be to nominate a Republican who can beat Mr. Biden. That’s the way to restore apolitical justice.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Trump Is Charged With a Coverup - WSJ

[jlisenbe]

That's all fair enough, but it's aggravating that Trump could potentially be tried and convicted for an offense identical to what HC got away with.

[tomder55]

yes it is . I thought she too should have been held accountable.


Maybe the Repubs should do what is necessary to win the Presidency. Having Trump as the standard bearer will not get it done. Repubs ran in 18-20-22 on Trump's grievances and lost . (the 22 House win should've been a landslide not a squeaker ;and they did not win the Senate because of running Trump endorsed candidates )