• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Grey_Beard said:
It is not. Here’s a graphic for you. Although it does not jive totally with what The Constitution says. In the impeachment proceeding the House is like the Grand Jury, but not really. The Senate decides on the removal. Unlike the Grand Jury, the impeachment never goes away. A civil servant, like the President, you are impeached. That never changes. The Senate, if they vote in agreement, is not a guilty or not guilty, it is about agreement and removal. Might want to research things a bit more.

Here is a complete outline by NYT. Nothing there says anything about guilty or innocent. In this case, even tRump admitted to doing it by putting out the transcript. The Senate proceedings are about agreement and removal.

www.nytimes.com

What Is the Impeachment Process? A Step-by-Step Guide (Published 2020)

A detailed look at each stage of the process, and how the road to President Trump’s acquittal compared with those of his predecessors.notes:
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Here is another:
“Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

www.law.cornell.edu

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

f282a1e36c3a34253384bb06e8b94cc2.jpg
Click to expand...
Read the simple graphic at the bottom of your post. It says exactly what I said. Right there in black and white "only the senate can conduct impeachment trials".
 
imported_tajmahal said:
You got proof ? If not it's the same type of lie that is repeated routinely in this forum. So......... proof? Yes, i thought so.
Click to expand...
The guy openly fanaticized about fucking his own daughter. Not enough for you??? Have you ever openly fanaticized about banging any of your own children? Ok with that?

Also Trump hit on a 15 year old girl calling her a "piece of ass". You ok with that too? How many 15 year old girls have you banged in your 60s??
 
HomerJS said:
The guy openly fanaticized about fucking his own daughter. Not enough for you??? Have you ever openly fanaticized about banging any of your own children? Ok with that?

Also Trump hit on a 15 year old girl calling her a "piece of ass". You ok with that too? How many 15 year old girls have you banged in your 60s??
Click to expand...

he is a q follower, so you cannot expect too much from him.
"trump is the champion of the children..." they claim.
"he banned epstein from his properties..." well, maybe because epstein tried a move on ivanka, but ivanka belongs to her daddy only. going to epstein mansion an getting different girls is still ok though.

On Cohen's daughter, that one is fairly recent, so the repugnants cannot argue that it was "when trump was a democrat"
 
hal2kilo said:
Yea, I remember the usual airing of Republican grievances, during the sham SCOTUS nominee hearings. Pubs love to blame the state of affairs with this shit on the Bork nomination, ya know, it gives them license to due what they are doing now because Dems have been consistently attacking Republican nominees.

Click to expand...
Yes, it is kind of amazing that they thought nominating the guy who conducted the Saturday Night Massacre to the Supreme Court was just fine and really it was Democrats who were the problem.
 
Considering how this new highly conservative Trump court will harm people by reversing previously decided law, with people losing healthcare coverage, with SS marriage returning back to the discretion of the state government, and with women's rights returning back to the 1930's, with all that damage this Trump court will cause I believe court stacking is and would be a fully justified fix for creating a more balanced court. Republicans would love to demonize the subject of "stacking" just as they have done with demonizing the term "liberalism". Republicans would love for the very subject of "court stacking" to be an undesirable intolerable consideration, where as what republicans have done by jamming through Trump nominees as some perfectly normal process. Well, court stacking should be perfectly normal process as well.
 
HomerJS said:
The guy openly fanaticized about fucking his own daughter. Not enough for you??? Have you ever openly fanaticized about banging any of your own children? Ok with that?

Also Trump hit on a 15 year old girl calling her a "piece of ass". You ok with that too? How many 15 year old girls have you banged in your 60s??
Click to expand...
And your links to this ? ........links? Yes, just as i thought and just as i stated.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
You mean when they smeared and ruined Judge Bork? or when they lied and smeared Justice Thomas? or when they lied and smeared Justice Kavanaugh? or while they are still in the process of lying about and smearing Judge Amy Barrett?

That "High Road" ?
Click to expand...

You poor thing. A female Supreme Court nominee claims to be a Constitutional originalist & nobody laughs in her face. The Framers didn't even give women the right to vote, let alone sit on the SCOTUS.
 
Jhhnn said:
You poor thing. A female Supreme Court nominee claims to be a Constitutional originalist & nobody laughs in her face. The Framers didn't even give women the right to vote, let alone sit on the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
You do know that the Framers provided a system and a way for the Constitution to be changed over time ? No you apparently don't, so never mind.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
No, applying the Law and the Constitution is an "originalist" concept.

en.wikipedia.org

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
.

Perhaps you are thinking of Judicial activism ?
Perhaps you'd like to see the 5 (soon to be 6) conservative Justices become Judicial activists and go about changing the laws as they and their supporters see fit?
Click to expand...

You seem to like buzzwords and talking points but have you ever looked up the effect of such policies? You probably should.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Yes, in fact i think that President Trump is going to win re-election, that the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate and pick up seats in the House. I could certainly be wrong, but it's my opinion.
Click to expand...
You must be smoking the same bad crack Trump is. He is going to lose, and he is taking the Republican Senate down with him, which they deserve.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
No, applying the Law and the Constitution is an "originalist" concept.

en.wikipedia.org

Originalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
.

Perhaps you are thinking of Judicial activism ?
Perhaps you'd like to see the 5 (soon to be 6) conservative Justices become Judicial activists and go about changing the laws as they and their supporters see fit?
Click to expand...
Originalism is bullshit and stupid. Conservative justices are just as activist, they just cloak it under a new name.

And no, who the hell wants to have judges that purely see law through the lens of a bunch of wealthy white property owners from 240 years ago that saw everyone else as inferior in some way. Oh wait, I know who - a bunch of rich white men that want to keep it that way mostly for as long as possible and a bunch of idiots that will follow them over the cliff like the pied pipers children.
 
MrSquished said:
Originalism is bullshit and stupid. Conservative justices are just as activist, they just cloak it under a new name.

And no, who the hell wants to have judges that purely see law through the lens of a bunch of wealthy white property owners from 240 years ago that saw everyone else as inferior in some way. Oh wait, I know who - a bunch of rich white men that want to keep it that way mostly for as long as possible and a bunch of idiots that will follow them over the cliff like the pied pipers children.
Click to expand...
Slavery was originalism.

It's all an excuse to cuck everyone out to the people who already have the money and power.
 
Brown V Board was a classic case of judicial activism by liberal justices. A lot of today's Trumphumpers haven't evolved too much further since then. Originalism. It's just another right wing slogan for the feeble minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top