Trump's Judicial Nominees

[dpic73]

Here is some disturbing proof that Trump's tenure has led us to a dark place. If a judicial nominee cannot even state that Joe Biden won the election, don't mock people who claim this administration is fascist when they are afraid to state the truth for fear of the president's wrath. If you're hoping to adjucate the law, how can you be trusted if you're unable to even acknowledge reality?

 

[hopefultiger13]

Pretty apparent we've been there for a while man. The ONE thing you can't do in the Republican party is disagree with Trump. You can bet your *** that ANY Trump nominee for any position knows that you can't say Trump lost the election despite a lake of evidence of fraud and TON of evidence to the contrary. So by definition, anyone that Trump nominates is willing to leave their consious at the door. That's just the way it is... There are a BUNCH of folks at the highest levels of government that are loyal to Trump and not the constitution.

 

[dpic73]

Pretty apparent we've been there for a while man. The ONE thing you can't do in the Republican party is disagree with Trump. You can bet your *** that ANY Trump nominee for any position knows that you can't say Trump lost the election despite a lake of evidence of fraud and TON of evidence to the contrary. So by definition, anyone that Trump nominates is willing to leave their consious at the door. That's just the way it is... There are a BUNCH of folks at the highest levels of government that are loyal to Trump and not the constitution.

Tis true but just don't mock us when we tell you this president is an authoritarian when you aren't even allowed to tell the truth if you expect to be confirmed. This is some dark **** man that we can't allow to become normalized. These appointments need to be blocked until they show some courage because Trump doesn't own this country and he's a lame duck now. If you don't have the balls to admit what you know to be true, you don't deserve your spot on the bench.

 

[dpic73]

Ho Lee ****

 

[hopefultiger13]

Yep... The Republican party is dead and only Trumpians remain. That guy can't even answer the question... FWIW, here's the 22nd Amendment:
----------------------------
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

----------------------------

So my question on here is the usual one that I ask our Trumpians on the board? Is there ONE person here that thinks Trump CAN NOT run for a 3rd term? I'm thinking there actually MIGHT be a couple. But not many. Anyone?

 

[baltimorened]

Yep... The Republican party is dead and only Trumpians remain. That guy can't even answer the question... FWIW, here's the 22nd Amendment:
----------------------------
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

----------------------------

So my question on here is the usual one that I ask our Trumpians on the board? Is there ONE person here that thinks Trump CAN NOT run for a 3rd term? I'm thinking there actually MIGHT be a couple. But not many. Anyone?

independent here, so I might not meet your criteria, but the constitution says 2 terms....

Now having said that, from what I've seen (and read by many on this board) our courts have made decisions that have caused shaking of heads. So while I might have said "never" before, right now I think you have to take the position "never say never"

Personally, I don't think it makes a difference. Americans have already demonstrated that they can only take 4 consecutive years of Trump. He wouldn't win in 2028, IMO

 

[Aardvark86]

Yeah these are all pretty stupid responses, and not even in the realm of "can't address it given the potential for the issue to come before me in the future", which is otherwise a pretty broad out.

That said, this is in fact the way the political appointment process has worked with the administration. A close friend had his name in the ring for a political appointment to head a significant agency component. Truly brilliant guy, not a political pro, and as conservative as you could ask for on both social and economic fronts. About midway through his vetting process, he was asked how he would answer if asked during confirmation whether Biden was properly elected in 2020.

And that was the end of that.

 

[Aardvark86]

Yep... The Republican party is dead and only Trumpians remain. That guy can't even answer the question... FWIW, here's the 22nd Amendment:
----------------------------
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

----------------------------

So my question on here is the usual one that I ask our Trumpians on the board? Is there ONE person here that thinks Trump CAN NOT run for a 3rd term? I'm thinking there actually MIGHT be a couple. But not many. Anyone?

BTW, the only Remotely plausible theory (emphasis on remote) I've ever been able to come up with under the amendment language (and without looking at whatever else statutes might say) is sort of a variation on the Putin-Medvedev gambit, to wit:

Trump completes his second term.
Vance (or some other R) runs and is elected.
VP of Vance resigns.
Vance appoints Trump.
Vance resigns.
Trump succeeds Vance, as he has not been "elected".
Trump appoints Vance VP.

Sleep well, ladies.

 

[Moogy]

Here is some disturbing proof that Trump's tenure has led us to a dark place. If a judicial nominee cannot even state that Joe Biden won the election, don't mock people who claim this administration is fascist when they are afraid to state the truth for fear of the president's wrath. If you're hoping to adjucate the law, how can you be trusted if you're unable to even acknowledge reality?

To most of the sane world, this isn't news at all. He's been a fascist wannabe dictator all along. The evidence now is disturbingly overwhelming that he's actually feeling empowered to act as if he is such, and is, in fact, doing so. That said, it's still good to highlight this manifesting itself. The Supreme Court itself has long been compromised, so lower judges stand no chance. The power grabs, the open and extensive grifting, the complete disregard for not only decorum, but the rule of law, at its most controlling (formerly so), the demands of fealty uber alles, the demands for expressions of reverence, the belittling and deconstructing of any other governmental powers and democratic processes that don't bend the knee or that stand in his way. This was him all along ... this isn't some new development.

On a smaller scale, I've already relayed the story of, during Trump's 1st Reich, my wife being in consideration for a federal bankruptcy judgeship. She was hesitant to apply for consideration at first, but was convinced by pretty much everyone that she would easily be the most qualified and should be a shoo-in, as the partisanship involved in some roles shouldn't factor into this appointment as much. Inevitably someone far less qualified received the spot on the bench, because they were a MAGAt. I'm sure the pressure to bend the knee is exponentially more intense now that the Mad King has gotten even more unstable, power hungry and vindicative.

Meanwhile, 250th Celebration passports will have Kim Jong Trump's image on them, as he celebrates himself as much/more so than the country itself.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Yeah these are all pretty stupid responses, and not even in the realm of "can't address it given the potential for the issue to come before me in the future", which is otherwise a pretty broad out.

That said, this is in fact the way the political appointment process has worked with the administration. A close friend had his name in the ring for a political appointment to head a significant agency component. Truly brilliant guy, not a political pro, and as conservative as you could ask for on both social and economic fronts. About midway through his vetting process, he was asked how he would answer if asked during confirmation whether Biden was properly elected in 2020.

And that was the end of that.

Disappointing, but hardly shocking.

 

[LafayetteBear]

BTW, the only Remotely plausible theory (emphasis on remote) I've ever been able to come up with under the amendment language (and without looking at whatever else statutes might say) is sort of a variation on the Putin-Medvedev gambit, to wit:

Trump completes his second term.
Vance (or some other R) runs and is elected.
VP of Vance resigns.
Vance appoints Trump.
Vance resigns.
Trump succeeds Vance, as he has not been "elected".
Trump appoints Vance VP.

Sleep well, ladies.

LOL, talk about chicanery. The problem there is that Vance, like any other politician, has a pretty big ego himself. (OK, everyone's ego pales in comparison to Cheeto's, but they are nonetheless big.) Think Vance would resign from the top job to accommodate anyone, even Cheeto. I'm betting he wouldn't.

 

[Moogy]

BTW, the only Remotely plausible theory (emphasis on remote) I've ever been able to come up with under the amendment language (and without looking at whatever else statutes might say) is sort of a variation on the Putin-Medvedev gambit, to wit:

Trump completes his second term.
Vance (or some other R) runs and is elected.
VP of Vance resigns.
Vance appoints Trump.
Vance resigns.
Trump succeeds Vance, as he has not been "elected".
Trump appoints Vance VP.

Sleep well, ladies.

The 12th Amendment states very plainly that no one ineligible to be President shall be Vice-President, so this is ... by the clear language of the Constitution ... not possible.

Now that, of course, doesn't mean it won't happen. Because the Constitution is whatever a yacht ride to Indonesia says it is in today's world ... but, if the Constitution still had any actual power, your theory is wholly implausible.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Because the Constitution is whatever a yacht ride to Indonesia says it is in today's world ...

Great line. Depressing to ponder, but nonetheless accurate. The breezy nonchalance with which Alito and Thomas accepted those trips and gifts is really something to behold, and remember. I have a strong feeling it will have a lasting effect on their legacy.

 

[dpic73]

To most of the sane world, this isn't news at all. He's been a fascist wannabe dictator all along. The evidence now is disturbingly overwhelming that he's actually feeling empowered to act as if he is such, and is, in fact, doing so. That said, it's still good to highlight this manifesting itself. The Supreme Court itself has long been compromised, so lower judges stand no chance. The power grabs, the open and extensive grifting, the complete disregard for not only decorum, but the rule of law, at its most controlling (formerly so), the demands of fealty uber alles, the demands for expressions of reverence, the belittling and deconstructing of any other governmental powers and democratic processes that don't bend the knee or that stand in his way. This was him all along ... this isn't some new development.

On a smaller scale, I've already relayed the story of, during Trump's 1st Reich, my wife being in consideration for a federal bankruptcy judgeship. She was hesitant to apply for consideration at first, but was convinced by pretty much everyone that she would easily be the most qualified and should be a shoo-in, as the partisanship involved in some roles shouldn't factor into this appointment as much. Inevitably someone far less qualified received the spot on the bench, because they were a MAGAt. I'm sure the pressure to bend the knee is exponentially more intense now that the Mad King has gotten even more unstable, power hungry and vindicative.

Meanwhile, 250th Celebration passports will have Kim Jong Trump's image on them, as he celebrates himself as much/more so than the country itself.

I'm not suggesting it's a new thing, just that it's a shocking reminder that it's still a thing. It's hard to wrap your head around all of the nominees being unwilling to state an undisputable fact in front of Congress and on national tv. Trump is a lame duck now and historically unpopular - would their nomination really fail if they stated the truth about the election or a theoretical third term? All they need is a simple majority so surely they could still get 51 votes, right?

 

[TequilasForLoss]

250th Celebration passports will have Kim Jong Trump's image on them, as he celebrates himself as much/ more so than the country itself.

fxd

 

[Aardvark86]

LOL, talk about chicanery. The problem there is that Vance, like any other politician, has a pretty big ego himself. (OK, everyone's ego pales in comparison to Cheeto's, but they are nonetheless big.) Think Vance would resign from the top job to accommodate anyone, even Cheeto. I'm betting he wouldn't.

Well like, duh.

 

[Aardvark86]

The 12th Amendment states very plainly that no one ineligible to be President shall be Vice-President, so this is ... by the clear language of the Constitution ... not possible.

Now that, of course, doesn't mean it won't happen. Because the Constitution is whatever a yacht ride to Indonesia says it is in today's world ... but, if the Constitution still had any actual power, your theory is wholly implausible.

Which of course is why I referenced the 22d, but you do you.

 

[Moogy]

Which of course is why I referenced the 22d, but you do you.

You claimed your plan was only potentially limited by any statutory concerns you hadn't investigated - a statement which necessarily presumes no other portions of the Constitution are instructive, limiting or conflicting. You done messed up Aye Aye dvark86.

 

[baltimorened]

I'm not suggesting it's a new thing, just that it's a shocking reminder that it's still a thing. It's hard to wrap your head around all of the nominees being unwilling to state an undisputable fact in front of Congress and on national tv. Trump is a lame duck now and historically unpopular - would their nomination really fail if they stated the truth about the election or a theoretical third term? All they need is a simple majority so surely they could still get 51 votes, right?

the confirmation process has always been political, but the gotcha questions have changed. It used to be all about abortion, and now that has shifted to who won the 2020 election or what's the definition of a woman.

Personally, I don't understand the logic behind the "who won the 2020 election?" question. It's 2026, Biden was certified, inaugurated, and led the government for four years. Is someone concerned that somehow Trump is going to turn back the clock to 2020 and become president? 2021 to 2024 is done, Biden was president. get over it.

 

[FLaw47]

the confirmation process has always been political, but the gotcha questions have changed. It used to be all about abortion, and now that has shifted to who won the 2020 election or what's the definition of a woman.

Personally, I don't understand the logic behind the "who won the 2020 election?" question. It's 2026, Biden was certified, inaugurated, and led the government for four years. Is someone concerned that somehow Trump is going to turn back the clock to 2020 and become president? 2021 to 2024 is done, Biden was president. get over it.

It's just an integrity check that these guys just keep failing.

 

[dpic73]

the confirmation process has always been political, but the gotcha questions have changed. It used to be all about abortion, and now that has shifted to who won the 2020 election or what's the definition of a woman.

Personally, I don't understand the logic behind the "who won the 2020 election?" question. It's 2026, Biden was certified, inaugurated, and led the government for four years. Is someone concerned that somehow Trump is going to turn back the clock to 2020 and become president? 2021 to 2024 is done, Biden was president. get over it.

C'mon, you have to know better Ned. It's a question about courage and independence. If they are too afraid to admit that Joe won, can we really trust them?

 

[PapaGanoush]

You people are nuts. Paranoid lunatics.

 

[dpic73]

You people are nuts. Paranoid lunatics.

Explain yourself. How is shining a light on judicial nominees being afraid to tell the truth paranoia? Lunacy is being afraid to ackowledge reality because a demented sociopath might not like it. The fact that you think that's no big deal, says more about how you yourself have been corrupted by disinformation than anything else.

 

[baltimorened]

C'mon, you have to know better Ned. It's a question about courage and independence. If they are too afraid to admit that Joe won, can we really trust them?

but what if Joe didn't win? He served as president for 4 years...do you want to go back to 2020.

I understand what you're saying, I just think it's moot. How did Joe Biden serve as president for 4 years if he didn't win?

 

[fskillet]

but what if Joe didn't win? He served as president for 4 years...do you want to go back to 2020.

I understand what you're saying, I just think it's moot. How did Joe Biden serve as president for 4 years if he didn't win?

2020 was the Trump presidency. 2021 was Joe’s first year

 

[dpic73]

but what if Joe didn't win? He served as president for 4 years...do you want to go back to 2020.

I understand what you're saying, I just think it's moot. How did Joe Biden serve as president for 4 years if he didn't win?

YOU think it's moot because it's an embarrassing reminder of what your vote has done to corrupt our judicial system - but people who care about character in a judicial nominee thinks it's revealing. If he won and served for four years, it should be easy to just say the magic word YES. This should not be hard.

 

[baltimorened]

2020 was the Trump presidency. 2021 was Joe’s first year

the election was 2020

 

[baltimorened]

YOU think it's moot because it's an embarrassing reminder of what your vote has done to corrupt our judicial system - but people who care about character in a judicial nominee thinks it's revealing. If he won and served for four years, it should be easy to just say the magic word YES. This should not be hard.

I don't disagree....I just don't see the point. Do we expect or anticipate any of those in the video are going to invalidate the election from the bench?

I understand it's important to you...pls understand it's not important to me. Biden was president...

 

[fskillet]

the election was 2020

I thought you were inferring a desire to go back to Biden’s first year. My apologies if that wasn’t your intent

 

[baltimorened]

I thought you were inferring a desire to go back to Biden’s first year. My apologies if that wasn’t your intent

no, no problem...we're all talking about the same thing- the Biden election.

 

[dpic73]

I don't disagree....I just don't see the point. Do we expect or anticipate any of those in the video are going to invalidate the election from the bench?

I understand it's important to you...pls understand it's not important to me. Biden was president...

The point is to see if the nominees are willing to affirm a statement of fact. Do we really want judges to be afraid of ruling in a way that might upset Trump or do we want them to be fully independent? That should matter to you and me.

 

[LafayetteBear]

YOU think it's moot because it's an embarrassing reminder of what your vote has done to corrupt our judicial system - but people who care about character in a judicial nominee thinks it's revealing. If he won and served for four years, it should be easy to just say the magic word YES. This should not be hard.

Anyone who gaslights for Trump is gonna have difficulty with that question. And anyone who has difficulty with that question gaslights for Trump.

 

[baltimorened]

Anyone who gaslights for Trump is gonna have difficulty with that question. And anyone who has difficulty with that question gaslights for Trump.

you guys get upset over the craziest things..all this time I thought it was Biden in the white house from 2021-2024. Now you tell me that's an issue....crazy

 

[yoshi121374]

you guys get upset over the craziest things..all this time I thought it was Biden in the white house from 2021-2024. Now you tell me that's an issue....crazy

Come on Ned, surely you can see that having a judge who is apparently unwilling to say anything that upsets the president is a problem? We need our judges to be apolitical.

If a judge was asked if murder is wrong, and he said it depended on what the president said you'd be concerned ....

 

[baltimorened]

Come on Ned, surely you can see that having a judge who is apparently unwilling to say anything that upsets the president is a problem? We need our judges to be apolitical.

If a judge was asked if murder is wrong, and he said it depended on what the president said you'd be concerned ....

I can see judges, representatives, cabinet members, members of personal staff, assistant managers at Macy's, etc being unwilling to contradict their bosses. But you use the word "apparently" which leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe, you think these candidates might believe what they're saying...and they said that Biden was certified...would they have said that if Trump had indeed won?

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Biden was president from 2021-2024. Is there any doubt? Not in my mind and not in the minds of all those, like bear, who seem so hung up over this. So who cares what trump says? I don't. We're in 2026. January 20, 2020 is 6 years behind us....and someone is concerned if Biden won or not? Did he lose? Doesn't seem so to me.

Aren't there bigger problems with the country right now other than questioning whether or not the guy who clearly was president from 2021-2024 was president. Heck even those who are so hyped over this refer to Joe as "president Biden".

As I said, not an issue for me and making this a major debate is crazy.

Just so everyone is aware...Biden was President of the United States, he obviously won the election or he wouldn't have been President. Seems logical to me, can't understand why this is even a debate.

 

[yoshi121374]

I can see judges, representatives, cabinet members, members of personal staff, assistant managers at Macy's, etc being unwilling to contradict their bosses. But you use the word "apparently" which leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe, you think these candidates might believe what they're saying...and they said that Biden was certified...would they have said that if Trump had indeed won?

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Biden was president from 2021-2024. Is there any doubt? Not in my mind and not in the minds of all those, like bear, who seem so hung up over this. So who cares what trump says? I don't. We're in 2026. January 20, 2020 is 6 years behind us....and someone is concerned if Biden won or not? Did he lose? Doesn't seem so to me.

Aren't there bigger problems with the country right now other than questioning whether or not the guy who clearly was president from 2021-2024 was president. Heck even those who are so hyped over this refer to Joe as "president Biden".

As I said, not an issue for me and making this a major debate is crazy.

Just so everyone is aware...Biden was President of the United States, he obviously won the election or he wouldn't have been President. Seems logical to me, can't understand why this is even a debate.

Totally agree with everything that you said. Weird that a judicial nominee wasn't willing to say the same thing.

 

[baltimorened]

Totally agree with everything that you said. Weird that a judicial nominee wasn't willing to say the same thing.

yes it is...both sides are playing games. Democrats asking the questions already know the answer - of course Biden won.

Judicial nominees also know the answer - of course Biden won.

That's why I can't understand the angst of bear and dpic.....

But' we - or at least I - have beat this dead horse enough. Maybe we should move on to Trump's cognitive test

 

[dpic73]

yes it is...both sides are playing games. Democrats asking the questions already know the answer - of course Biden won.

Judicial nominees also know the answer - of course Biden won.

That's why I can't understand the angst of bear and dpic.....

But' we - or at least I - have beat this dead horse enough. Maybe we should move on to Trump's cognitive test

The angst is because even though you know that Biden won the election, Trump still doesn't, or pretends not to know. In fact, he's still talking about it today. Just last week he said in one of his press gaggles that the only thing Democrats are good at is cheating.

And because he says it, many of his supporters believe it and it's being used now to do things like illegally confiscate the ballots in Georgia. The lie is also being used to push the SAVE Act, demanding that states turn over their voter rolls, two executive actions to rewrite election rules and intimidate and threaten election workers with five year prison sentences if they accidentally accept a non-approved document.

None of Trump's 37 second term judicial nominees were willing to affirmatively say that Biden won the election for fear of having their nominations pulled - they won't even admit that Biden won the popular vote.

This is a huge concern because you're not likely to get the best candidates if they are willing to go along with the workshopped talking points they were given. It's also worrisome that by placing these people in lifetime judgeships, it could tilt future election-related rulings in ways that favor an outcome that Trump desires, instead of fair, non-political decisions.

So this is not nothing as much as you want it to be.

 

[baltimorened]

The angst is because even though you know that Biden won the election, Trump still doesn't, or pretends not to know. In fact, he's still talking about it today. Just last week he said in one of his press gaggles that the only thing Democrats are good at is cheating.

And because he says it, many of his supporters believe it and it's being used now to do things like illegally confiscate the ballots in Georgia. The lie is also being used to push the SAVE Act, demanding that states turn over their voter rolls, two executive actions to rewrite election rules and intimidate and threaten election workers with five year prison sentences if they accidentally accept a non-approved document.

None of Trump's 37 second term judicial nominees were willing to affirmatively say that Biden won the election for fear of having their nominations pulled - they won't even admit that Biden won the popular vote.

This is a huge concern because you're not likely to get the best candidates if they are willing to go along with the workshopped talking points they were given. It's also worrisome that by placing these people in lifetime judgeships, it could tilt future election-related rulings in ways that favor an outcome that Trump desires, instead of fair, non-political decisions.

So this is not nothing as much as you want it to be.

and you think all these things go away if a judicial candidate says that Biden won the election? I just don't see it....I'm not defending Trump saying what he wants....I don't care what he says about 2020. And, I don't care what his supporters say. Folks make major statements on here about the number of trump supporters falling off the wagon. But now we're worried about trump supporters? Joe Biden was president, obviously he won....

Most of the time you totally discount what Trump says. In this instance what he says is driving your thoughts.

I still respect what you say and believe, and obviously this is important to you. I just don't see Trump's comments having any impact. I think we all want our elections to be secure and fair. So if trump's comments have the effect of making that happen, then we're all going to benefit. It seems as if members of both party - for different reasons - are paying more attention to the issue. And that has to be good.

 

[dpic73]

and you think all these things go away if a judicial candidate says that Biden won the election? I just don't see it....I'm not defending Trump saying what he wants....I don't care what he says about 2020. And, I don't care what his supporters say. Folks make major statements on here about the number of trump supporters falling off the wagon. But now we're worried about trump supporters? Joe Biden was president, obviously he won....

Most of the time you totally discount what Trump says. In this instance what he says is driving your thoughts.

I still respect what you say and believe, and obviously this is important to you. I just don't see Trump's comments having any impact. I think we all want our elections to be secure and fair. So if trump's comments have the effect of making that happen, then we're all going to benefit. It seems as if members of both party - for different reasons - are paying more attention to the issue. And that has to be good.

Sigh

I think we would see much better nominees if the ones with integrity were eligible but they aren't if they state a fact - that should matter to you.

Listen, no need to go round and round with this because you're intent on dismissing it so we aren't going to meet in the middle.