politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You obviously have no problem insisting you know more than me, but are you going to say you know more about it than Yale?
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment
Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean no one else does.
Unfortunately Congress adopting statutes to hold hearings on bad behavior still requires the cooperation of Congress according to "Yale".
And unfortunately being appointed by Trump does not immediately constitute "bad behavior". I prefer not your plan.
Before I keep going (because honestly I'm losing faith I can explain this in a way you'll understand) do you agree that you were wrong?
If you can't do that, then there's no point in me putting more effort into helping.
I stated the current process for removal. So no, I don't agree that the idea of passing a law through Congress so that Congress can make it easier for Biden to remove federal judges in any way whatsoever works around the issue of needing to control House seats before any progress toward these goals can be made.
You can ignore me if you think that is unreasonable.
You’re not able to explain this in a way that any rational and sensible human can understand. Hence the consistent downvotes.
To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment. You would have to take an untested claim to court, prove it, then still to apply that process to remove judges case by case after. Unfortunately, it's not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it's up to the "supreme" Court. I just can't see us convincing 6 of those justices to accept consequences for their and their party's actions. This would be a hell of a legal long shot.
And on 1/5/20, to my knowledge no sitting president had organized a coup to keep power...
The difference is this would be legal.
Add 6 justices, that goes to SC and they rule expanding the SC is fine and has happened before.
Kick out the lower judges, if it goes to the SC, that's fine. Because we've already taken back the majority.
I know you're arguing against fixing stuff, but your arguent basically boils down to:
I agree.
Where we disagree is I want to fix everything, so it's all fixed.
And you think we should fix...
Nothing?
There's no difference with a broken court and we can't fix that with our current Congress.
What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I'm not even the person you were first talking to.
We dont need congress to expand the SC court...
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/
Just like Obama didn't need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there's nothing saying they have to.
So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.
Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating...
Which is why I'm probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.
If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing....
I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What's weird is after I block one of them, it's common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren't getting any other new replies.
Could it be a giant coincidence?
Sure but I just don't think it's likely.
Literally all four of those options require legislation to move through the halls of Congress. Did you even read that source?