Supreme Court of the United States

Status
Not open for further replies.
But US is quite narcissistic about its political heritage, they would not let foreign inferior instructing them how to do legal stuff, maybe they will only accept foreign-born naturalized citizens.

You criticize the US for this, but I challenge you to name one government that appoints non-citizens to some of its highest government positions. This post makes me realize people will criticize the US for literally everything, even if it's something that every other nation does as well.

What the Democrats should do is announce as a block that Mitch McConnell has required them to filibuster any Republican nominee.

You do realize that will only aid Republican efforts to do away with the filibuster altogether and allow them to turn the tables on the Democrats by painting them as the obstructionists this time around, right?
 
In two years lots of Democrats will face an election. Saw a #, 28? and only 8 Republicans. So we will see how those filibusters go with the people. It will also be a test on whether the folks like the way Trump is doing his job.
 
In two years lots of Democrats will face an election. Saw a #, 28? and only 8 Republicans. So we will see how those filibusters go with the people. It will also be a test on whether the folks like the way Trump is doing his job.

Exactly. If the Democrats what to hold onto any kind of power in the government, it would behoove them to remain relatively silent for the next two years and not put up too much resistance to what the Republicans try to do. It may suck, but if the Democrats are interested in winning the long game, then they are going to have to accept this short-term loss, bite the bullet, and cooperate with the Republicans.
 
You criticize the US for this, but I challenge you to name one government that appoints non-citizens to some of its highest government positions. This post makes me realize people will criticize the US for literally everything, even if it's something that every other nation does as well.
plarq was facetiously replying to Zelig, but picking up an important point about American jurisprudence which is rightly and roundly criticised around the world - the complete aversion to any sort of comparative law, out of some weird sense of American legal exceptionalism, despite the common law foundations of American law. The US is known for its insularity in this regard, and criticised for it whilst other countries are not, because the extent to which the US explicitly refuses to look abroad is quite unique.
 
You criticize the US for this, but I challenge you to name one government that appoints non-citizens to some of its highest government positions.

United Kingdom

Mark Carney (Canadian) was appointed to be the current governor of the Bank of England.
 
Appointing foreign judges is also not really that uncommon. Australian judges tend to make up a fair proportion of the courts of Pacific island nations (the High Court of Australia is also the final court of appeal for Nauru; the Privy Council remains the final court of appeal for a number of common law jurisdictions). The Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal is staffed largely by retired judges from other common law jurisdictions, including e.g. Lord Hoffmann and the former Australian Chief Justice Murray Gleeson. Foreign appointments are similarly made in many other developing courts throughout the world. Of course, the reason for that is largely because there isn't a sufficient domestic legal profession from which to draw all judges, but with the exception of Hong Kong they're countries which are sovereign equals to the US. It's entirely conceivable that foreigners might be appointed to governmental positions, particularly those which are non-political.
 
You do realize that will only aid Republican efforts to do away with the filibuster altogether and allow them to turn the tables on the Democrats by painting them as the obstructionists this time around, right?

How exactly do you propose that the Republicans "do away with" the filibuster?

Personally, I agree that the Democrats should block any appointment. They represent the majority of the people who would be subject to the results.

Unless, of course, Trump pounds the idea of compromise through Mitch McConnell's thick skull and nominates someone appropriate.
 
If I were the Democrats, I would use the confirmation hearings to highlight the more "liberal' decisions the nominee made. Most people do not understand how the appellate process works and it would stir up the firebreathers to find out that the nominee signed onto the decisions that could be perceived soft on crime or soft on immigrants.
 
If I were the Democrats, I would use the confirmation hearings to highlight the more "liberal' decisions the nominee made. Most people do not understand how the appellate process works and it would stir up the firebreathers to find out that the nominee signed onto the decisions that could be perceived soft on crime or soft on immigrants.

"...or soft on illegal immigrants."

ftfy. It's so convenient in the media, the railing that republicans are against immigration. No one's against immigration. Republicans seem to have a greater issue with illegal immigrants than Democrats seem to have. I have no clue why anyone is soft on illegal immigration. We let in tens of thousands every year, and programs for situations like political refuge make exceptions for thousands more. How is it, in any way, healthy to have hundreds of more thousands a year which are in no way vetted for things like, oh I dunno, violent fugitive status, or physical wellness, and who's going to patrol around making sure all these people aren't being victimized? Who the heck pays for all this? Someone needs to, or we need to take a hard line against illegal immigration.
 
Don't give me the Republicans are not soft on illegal immigration. The Bush administration hardly did anything to go after employers of illegal immigrants. Reagan gave us amnesty. Obama had a record number of deportations, thanks in good part to 8 years of softness by the prior administration.
 
So you are complaining that Obama has been more successful at border apprehensions?

No, I'm stating that the method of arriving at statistics in this case has been affected by terminology and your statement that "Obama's administration is tougher on illegal immigration than others" is intentionally a skewed composite by this process.

Why do you make me spell things out? Are you not getting it, or do you think you could make casual observers side with you, relying on their ignorance to play a big game, or are you just testing me, or ... ?
 
Actually, the correction too your link basically admits the writer was playing games with the numbers and that it is hard to compare. By some measures, Obama was objectively ahead. Even your link states that. Nevertheless, it is kind of funny that you wanted to put illegal in front of my immigration word. There are cases that Federal judges hear that deal with legally present immigrants that may otherwise be subject to, gasp, removal. You do want bad immigrants out, legal or otherwise, don't you?
 
There are not hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants being removed. If Trump had half his way, though, those numbers would jump 300 or more percent, not some 23% by the time you included everything under the sun, which isn't a result of it "being Obama's administration", but the processes of law.

I'm not convinced you understand much from that link. I just think it's too inconvenient for you to take seriously, so it completely escapes you.
 
If I were the Democrats, I would use the confirmation hearings to highlight the more "liberal' decisions the nominee made. Most people do not understand how the appellate process works and it would stir up the firebreathers to find out that the nominee signed onto the decisions that could be perceived soft on crime or soft on immigrants.


You should take a couple years off from your practice and go to work for the Senate Judicial Committee. Make some suggestions.
 
Exactly. If the Democrats what to hold onto any kind of power in the government, it would behoove them to remain relatively silent for the next two years and not put up too much resistance to what the Republicans try to do. It may suck, but if the Democrats are interested in winning the long game, then they are going to have to accept this short-term loss, bite the bullet, and cooperate with the Republicans.

If however Trump keeps tossing his campaign promises then I see no problem with filibusters. If Trump starts thinking its all about him, then the Republicans will revolt and Democrats can start overcoming their minority. You can look at what Trump said as his version of 'the contract with America'. Its already on shaky ground if you ask me.
 
Strategically, Merrick Garland would be a brilliant choice. Rebuke the obstructionists in congress that put party ahead of governing, which enhances the power of the executive. If he got confirmation with the extremists in both parties opposed he would actually accomplish something towards breaking the decades of gridlock and restoring people's view of the federal government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom