Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (4 Viewers)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · 2025-06-27T17:22:44+0100

shmmeee said:
Didn’t he appoint something like three of them already?

Sadly, yes. But that's nowhere near enough control from him.

One through the Reps dragging out an Obama pick so he left office before confirmation.

One that annoyed me the most was RBG. At her age she must have known there was a chance she wouldn't survive and should have stepped down during Obama's second term, largely ensuring someone more like her would take her place. Because she didn't we're now stuck with a Rep majority (and a pretty hardline one at that) for a generation.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · 2025-06-27T17:23:39+0100

David O'Day said:
The SC would then decide, it's what it is there for.

So basically trying to get a Rep/Trump court to rule on everything.

tisza · 2025-06-27T17:26:28+0100

shmmeee said:
Yeah but I wonder what he’d get away with. So much as we found out under Johnson assumes a decent chap in charge who will have honour. I do think the courts are more independent which is key. But generally PMs with a majority have more latitude than Presidents on paper so there’s an awful lot he could do just with the legislature.

Right but the Lords does have blocking /amendment powers. maybe it's one of the reasons Labour has appointed a load of new peers in December to give them a majority there. Also UK supreme court currently has tended to show a liberal tendency and the court is also not appointed by polticians so less likely Farage could mess with it - unless he had a huge majority and could legislate changes to its structure/purview etc

shmmeee · 2025-06-27T17:26:47+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Sadly, yes. But that's nowhere near enough control from him.

One through the Reps dragging out an Obama pick so he left office before confirmation.

One that annoyed me the most was RBG. At her age she must have known there was a chance she wouldn't survive and should have stepped down during Obama's second term, largely ensuring someone more like her would take her place. Because she didn't we're now stuck with a Rep majority (and a pretty hardline one at that) for a generation.

Something happens to centre left people when they reach a certain height all common sense goes out the window and they start getting silly ideas about fairness and tradition and whatever and get steamrollered.

tisza · 2025-06-27T17:29:23+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
So basically trying to get a Rep/Trump court to rule on everything.

That's the problem US has atm. It's a comparatively "young court" so its "political makeup" unlikely to change anytime soon. Most likely change would be for Trump to press the eldest Republican judge to quit during this Presidency so that he could appoint a new young Republican.

shmmeee · 2025-06-27T17:31:41+0100

tisza said:
Right but the Lords does have blocking /amendment powers. maybe it's one of the reasons Labour has appointed a load of new peers in December to give them a majority there. Also UK supreme court currently has tended to show a liberal tendency and the court is also not appointed by polticians so less likely Farage could mess with it - unless he had a huge majority and could legislate changes to its structure/purview etc

Im assuming at least a working majority here, the courts will just interpret the laws. I don’t think we’d end up like the states for the reasons you give, but technically the presidents powers are limited by state rights and congress and the constitution in a way the PMs aren’t. So a reforming PM willing to do similar to what Cummings and Johnson did around Brexit with a majority to get his agenda through could do an awful lot more before coming up against legal challenges. Trump can’t decide to change the constitution easily for example.

Lets hope we don’t find out but I think someone less concerned with convention and public opinion could do an awful lot.

David O'Day · 2025-06-27T17:50:44+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
So basically trying to get a Rep/Trump court to rule on everything.

yeah but over constitutional issues they don't always vote the way you think they will

that the case that brought this over birth right citizenship, it is clearly defined in the constitution that all people born (outside of some things such as to foreign diplomats) are automatically us citizens

they'll be very, very unlikely to allow trump to stop that right

David O'Day · 2025-06-27T17:52:03+0100

tisza said:
That's the problem US has atm. It's a comparatively "young court" so its "political makeup" unlikely to change anytime soon. Most likely change would be for Trump to press the eldest Republican judge to quit during this Presidency so that he could appoint a new young Republican.

interestingly there's not an actual "fixed" amount of SC judges so you may as they get younger see the amount change with every new part in power

tisza · 2025-06-27T18:08:56+0100

David O'Day said:
interestingly there's not an actual "fixed" amount of SC judges so you may as they get younger see the amount change with every new part in power

Democrats did think about trying to legislate an increase in the size of the Court to address the current imbalance but there's always going to be an odd number of justices so one party will "dominate" either way. Neither party can take the high ground on the SC balance when so many other judges are political appointees. Obviously the President nominates candidates but the Senate has to confirm them. Then again AOC probably didn't the left many favours when she tried to get Thomas and Alito impeached. Again Democrat pushes for reform are mainly down to current structure of the Court if the balance & Presidency were reversed it would be another conversation for them.

Sky Blue Pete · 2025-06-27T18:09:39+0100

David O'Day said:
The courts can still block state wide or so it seems to read

The actual case at hand over birth right citizenship is actually likely to be struck down by the SC anyway as it is clearly against the constitution and so my so even they can't fudge it,

They’ll just rewrite it

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · 2025-06-27T18:10:08+0100

David O'Day said:
yeah but over constitutional issues they don't always vote the way you think they will

that the case that brought this over birth right citizenship, it is clearly defined in the constitution that all people born (outside of some things such as to foreign diplomats) are automatically us citizens

they'll be very, very unlikely to allow trump to stop that right

Hence why I wonder if he may try to gain even more control over the court in some way or another for judges who will just toe his line.

shmmeee · 2025-06-27T18:33:03+0100

Got to love The Onion

Supreme Court Rules 6-3 To Open Evil Tomb Of Batibat

WASHINGTON—Despite polls that show the American public overwhelmingly supports keeping the ancient burial chamber sealed, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to pry open the evil tomb of Batibat, a vengeful spirit who haunts the dream space of her victims and suffocates them in their sleep. The...

theonion.com

Captain Dart · 2025-06-27T18:35:21+0100

tisza said:
Americans are tied by having a written constitution and that it (and many key amendments) were written for another time. This obsessive adherence to documents from another time is absurd - much like the various religions that want firm adherence to things written often over a thousand years ago. Gun rights argumment is that the Constitution couldnever have envisioned the weapons now available to citizens, immigration arguments are that the Constitution could never have envisoned the huge numbers of people involved (population was only a shade under 4 million when it was written).
Farage would probably have to get UK out of ECHR & abolish the HouseofLords before he could inflict too much damage. Then the "beauty" of not having a written constitution is that subsequent Govts could unravel much of any damage Farage might try to inflicton on democracy.

The US Constitution is a masterful and concise document, far superior to most of the self contradictary bills passed these days. Of course there are some issues, here is a doozy for your delectation.

David O'Day · 2025-06-27T18:37:00+0100

Sky Blue Pete said:
They’ll just rewrite it

they can't, not without either a constitutional convention or over 2/3s of states and legislators agreeing

to change anything they would need democrat backing

David O'Day · 2025-06-27T18:39:55+0100

tisza said:
Democrats did think about trying to legislate an increase in the size of the Court to address the current imbalance but there's always going to be an odd number of justices so one party will "dominate" either way. Neither party can take the high ground on the SC balance when so many other judges are political appointees. Obviously the President nominates candidates but the Senate has to confirm them. Then again AOC probably didn't the left many favours when she tried to get Thomas and Alito impeached. Again Democrat pushes for reform are mainly down to current structure of the Court if the balance & Presidency were reversed it would be another conversation for them.

it's going to happen, this court has basically cheapened itself that much

be interesting to see what trump tries to do as well because the oldest judges now are right wing

David O'Day · 2025-06-27T18:47:08+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Hence why I wonder if he may try to gain even more control over the court in some way or another for judges who will just toe his line.

nah, I see it happening

The issue with conservative judges is they see the constitution as set in stone. It's actually the liberal judges that have historically been the ones to "bend" the constitution to suit their needs.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-06-27T19:18:29+0100

David O'Day said:
nah, I see it happening

The issue with conservative judges is they see the constitution as set in stone. It's actually the liberal judges that have historically been the ones to "bend" the constitution to suit their needs.

Well it’s set in stone until the same court rules that the president is above the law.

David O'Day · 2025-06-27T19:25:31+0100

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Well it’s set in stone until the same court rules that the president is above the law.

And as I said Liberal judges are the ones who will do that when related to constitution as written.

All their verdicts are available online if you'd like to see.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-06-27T19:30:57+0100

David O'Day said:
And as I said Liberal judges are the ones who will do that when related to constitution as written.

All their verdicts are available online if you'd like to see.

In hindsight the decision of Democratic presidents to appoint older judges to the role really didn’t help.

Brighton Sky Blue · 2025-06-27T20:28:39+0100

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Hence why I wonder if he may try to gain even more control over the court in some way or another for judges who will just toe his line.

People still arguing that he isn’t a fascist pig can’t be taken seriously at this point. Crippling the power of the courts to stop him is another clear example

Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (4 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency