But that proposal would not apply to any already on the court, so they can't do anything about the current nine justices. Breyer is the oldest, so it figures he would be the next one to be replaced (can you imagine the uproar if Trump got to nominate that replacement as well????).I did see where some moron in California (natchurally) has proposed term limits for SCOTUS judges.
But that proposal would not apply to any already on the court, so they can't do anything about the current nine justices. Breyer is the oldest, so it figures he would be the next one to be replaced (can you imagine the uproar if Trump got to nominate that replacement as well????).
No I will NOTLIKE it but I do absolutely LOVE IT ! 1/5th of 1/3rd of 1% of the 330 million population does not make a pandemic sucks to be you . Enjoy your new conservative SCOTUS majority smoker !This isn't news. It was a forgone conclusion when Trump announced her name.
Naturally, this was wrong--ethically and morally, though not legally. Just like the refusal to consider Merrick Garland was wrong ethically and morally, though not legally.
But right and wrong are not the concern of "law and order" cultlists.
This is what it is...another deterioration of normal civil governing by an ignorant and incompetent President and the minority he represents.
Just like 225,000 dead Americans..."it is what it is".
Enjoy your victory.
Naturally, this was wrong -- ethically and morally, though not legally.
Just like the refusal to consider Merrick Garland was wrong ethically and morally, though not legally.
Enjoy your victory.
They'll probably try to impeach the conservative justices (other than Roberts, who apparently is no such thing). I don't know if they can, but they'll probably try.But that proposal would not apply to any already on the court, so they can't do anything about the current nine justices. Breyer is the oldest, so it figures he would be the next one to be replaced (can you imagine the uproar if Trump got to nominate that replacement as well????).
Right?Man, I'm old enough to remember when John Roberts was going to overturn Roe V Wade and take SCOTUS back to the dark ages.
You mean another old white dude?Naturally, this was wrong--ethically and morally, though not legally. Just like the refusal to consider Merrick Garland was wrong ethically and morally, though not legally.
You are neither ethical nor moral, and therefore incapable of pronouncing anything ethically nor morally right or wrong.Naturally, this was wrong--ethically and morally, though not legally.