• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
I wonder if posters’ views on this would change if, instead of Mueller and Trump, we were talking about, say, a prosecutor from a southern state who indicted Abraham Lincoln for interfering with slaveowner property rights by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?
Click to expand...

What would be the alleged crime here?
 
Junebug said:
Huh, and here I thought it was only Southern rednecks who believed the Southern secession was legally effective.
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant whether the Seccession was legally effective. I imagine the President and his staff would have a good chuckle if some prosecutor in Mississippi indicted him for something that’s not even a crime. Then they would go back to waging war on Mississippi.
 
That’s debatable.

And the bar has already been lowered to the ground by Republicans.
 
Junebug said:
If the democrats aren’t going to come out strong on impeachment, they have no moral high ground from which to claim Trump’s pick should be stalled or derailed.
Click to expand...

Republicans didn’t come out for impeachment of Obama yet they claimed Garland should be stalled.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
If the democrats aren’t going to come out strong on impeachment, they have no moral high ground from which to claim Trump’s pick should be stalled or derailed.
Click to expand...

No, there was a Republican Senator 30 years ago who opined that if a President is under investigation the Senate should oppose that president’s SCOTUS nominee even if the party opposing the President is not running heavily on impeachment. Can’t think of his name, some old white guy IIRC, but it’s definitely a rule and the Republicans must accept it.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
This needs to happen. If you can’t confirm a SCOTUS nominee during an “election year”, you shouldn’t be able to confirm one when the POTUS is under multiple investigations.
Click to expand...

Especially when that nominee has radical views re the nature of executive power and the President’s party, in breaking with precedent, is preventing the Senate from looking at records that might shed light on just how radical those views are.
 
What happens when all the "norms" that have governed our country are thrown out the window with an egomaniac and his band of morally corrupt lemmings.
 
 
but I thought the obstructionist Dems were holding back all these judicial appointments
 
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top