![]() |
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
VHS? If it’s not on streaming it’s not worth watching ;)
Channeling my inner OB there. |
Re: U.S Election 2020
Betamax Matters Too :p:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
BREAKING: U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died aged 87. R.I.P
This means President Trump’s new Justice Nominee will in all likelihood get a vote on the Senate floor when there is only six weeks to go until the U.S Election. |
Re: U.S Election 2020
I assumed he would apply the same rules he did for Obama's nominee....
This is gonna be a massive fight. The Republicans and the President are perfectly entitled to nominate someone but they set their own precedient last time. I also think this would give them the majority they need to ban abortion. |
Re: U.S Election 2020
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: U.S Election 2020
America doesn’t run on precedents, we do, they have a written Constitution, we don’t. What McConnell said in 2016 is not in the Constitution. Obviously in 2016, it was Republican Senate and a Democrat President. This time it’s both a Republican controlled Senate and White House.
The other important factor is that the Supreme Court most definitely needs a full compliment of Justices in highly heated contest like Bush vs. Gore election, required Supreme Court intervention. Also, McConnell should steam ahead, the way the pathetic Democrats have behaved this last four years, the hoax investigations and the crap they threw at an honourable man in Justice Kavanaugh, they do not deserve this seat at all. |
Re: U.S Election 2020
Not entirely true. The Supreme Court’s rulings become precedent without then requiring legislation or constitutional amendment. Granted the court is interpreting the constitution in specific circumstances but their rulings can and do permanently alter the way public life is conducted. (Roe v Wade is a historic example which determined a woman’s basic right under the constitution to have an abortion). Lower courts’ rulings may set precedent or be regarded as ‘persuasive’ in subsequent cases.
I think what’s at issue here is what we in the UK would understand as convention rather than precedent. We often do stuff in government because that’s how it has been done before, and it is widely regarded as politically difficult (though not illegal) to behave differently without good cause. Giving parliament a vote on military involvement in Syria is a good example of this. Even though it was only done once, hard questions will be asked if the government moves to deploy armed forces to a foreign battlefield in future, without asking parliament first. I suspect - though I don’t know for sure - that what’s at play in the US right now is similar to our unwritten system of convention rather than the legal process we would call precedent. Trump’s opponents are pointing out that he is not behaving conventionally. It’s not a legal claim, but a political one, which in the middle of an election campaign, seems a perfectly reasonable course of action. |
Re: U.S Election 2020
I'm just concerned about all those women who could find themselves facing a further erosion of their reproductive rights if there isn't a careful choice made by whomever.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum