U.S Election 2020

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

If it’s not Constitutional Chris, no precedent can persist. Roe vs Wade, could be overturned in a Supreme Conservative led Court. The court cannot invent laws, that’s the job of the legislature. Republicans have tried to legislate and have passed legislation, only for it to be vetoed by then President Bill Clinton.

What McConnell said in 2016 wasn’t a legal ruling or precedent. It’s just he was Senate Majority leader and he wasn’t going to allow a Democrat President get his Nomination confirmed, in an election year where a Republican president could win and get his nomination in, there is nothing unjust about this. It’s called party affiliation. If Democrats want to appoint justices they have to win elections and be in control of the Senate.

The issue of abortion is a highly emotive and separate topic.

Originally Posted by Mick

If it’s not Constitutional Chris, no precedent can persist. Roe vs Wade, could be overturned in a Supreme Conservative led Court. The court cannot invent laws, that’s the job of the legislature. Republicans have tried to legislate and have passed legislation, only for it to be vetoed by then President Bill Clinton.

What McConnell said in 2016 wasn’t a legal ruling or precedent. It’s just he was Senate Majority leader and he wasn’t going to allow a Democrat President get his Nomination confirmed, in an election year where a Republican president could win and get his nomination in, there is nothing unjust about this. It’s called party affiliation. If Democrats want to appoint justices they have to win elections and be in control of the Senate.

The issue of abortion is a highly emotive and separate topic.

I’m basically agreeing with you. . The abortion issue is relevant here only to the extent that it illustrates the operation of legal, constitutional precedent in the US system.

That’s why I was chewing over what we call convention, because that’s the concept that I think they’re actually appealing to as we would understand it. The principle of Precedent does apply in the USA as it does here, and is not absolute in the USA or the U.K.; the difference is that Parliament in the U.K. can always legislate to overturn a precedent even if it’s set by a ruling of our Supreme Court because the UK’s Supreme Court is not a constitutional court, but is really just the final court of appeal. In the USA, however, if the constitution needs to be interpreted, their Supreme Court performs that function and once it has ruled, then that is the interpretation that stands, unless it is modified in future by the Supreme Court again, or in the highly unlikely event of a constitutional amendment being passed by the appropriate supermajority in both legislative houses.

I don’t know the US system well enough to know how persuasive past political decisions are in creating convention (or precedent as they call it). I suspect that it is not as strong as the Democrats are making out, and that this is all part of the heat and noise of the election campaign rather than a genuine democratic outrage.

[pip08456]

Sen. Lindsey Graham said in 2018 that the Senate would wait until the next election to vote on a Supreme Court pick should a seat become vacant during the last year of President Donald Trump's term.

The remarks by the South Carolina Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman resonated Friday in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, less than two months before the presidential election. Ginsburg died at the age of 87 from pancreatic cancer.

Link

Originally Posted by pip08456

Link

He has since walked back on this.

The way Democrat’s have behaved in this last few years, they have let their Trump hatred lose their minds, veer to the far left. Allowed rioters to destroy some of their own districts by lawlessness, look at the crime rate in New York, it has absolutely soared under Democrat rule, other areas under their governances refusing federal assistance to curb the rioting and arsonists.

Do I think for one minute if circumstances would be in reverse that Democrats would leave a S.C. seat open. I highly doubt it.

[1andrew1]

If Trump was half confident of winning the election the he'd happily wait until November before installing a Republican judge. However, he's shrewd enough to know the game is up and so is trying to make mischief for the Biden administration.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If Trump was half confident of winning the election the he'd happily wait until November before installing a Republican judge. However, he's shrewd enough to know the game is up and so is trying to make mischief for the Biden administration.

Utter rubbish. Yet more examples of you not being well informed.

It’s not just presidential elections in November. There are Congressional and Senate races in play too. Trump could still win, and frankly given the forgetfulness of sleepy creepy Joe Biden, I think Trump will win, but he could still lose the Senate so his pick won’t get Senate confirmation.

You would think the best scenario is the nominee isn't confirmed before the election as a way to drive turn out. Trump can say 'vote for me and you'll get another right-wing justice, abortion might go'.

Obviously even if that goes wrong and the Democrats take both the Senate and the White House they'll just confirm the justice in the lame duck session.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

You would think the best scenario is the nominee isn't confirmed before the election as a way to drive turn out. Trump can say 'vote for me and you'll get another right-wing justice, abortion might go'.

Obviously even if that goes wrong and the Democrats take both the Senate and the White House they'll just confirm the justice in the lame duck session.

Agreed.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If Trump was half confident of winning the election the he'd happily wait until November before installing a Republican judge. However, he's shrewd enough to know the game is up and so is trying to make mischief for the Biden administration.

You are underestimating Donald Trump's prospects of success against a near-dementia-afflcted John Biden.

Mitt Romney has said he is up for Nominee confirmation before election which means the Republicans have 50 (+1 with Mike Pence's vote) votes vs Democratic 48.

Republican Senator and leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsay Graham, has said because of the pathetic Democrat shenanigans during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, he had said in a statement that he could allow the nominee to go straight to confirmation hearings. Normally a nominee goes before Senate Judiciary hearings before the vote for confirmation.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are underestimating Donald Trump's prospects of success against a near-dementia-afflcted John Biden.

At least he can say his own name...

(Prump...).

[Pierre]

I’ve said it earlier. From what I’ve seen Biden is not mentally there. I don’t see how he gets past the presidential debates.

It’s going to be very interesting as i can’t see the Democrats letting him go up up Against Trump.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’ve said it earlier. From what I’ve seen Biden is not mentally there. I don’t see how he gets past the presidential debates.

It’s going to be very interesting as i can’t see the Democrats letting him go up up Against Trump.

Can you give a link or two about Biden's mentally not being there?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Can you give a link or two about Biden's mentally not being there?

https://www.google.com/search?q=joe+...w=1680&bih=939

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Can you give a link or two about Biden's mentally not being there?

I'm sure Biden's presentations have not all been flawless but interesting to see non-Trump view.

There’s just one problem: None of these videos are what they seem, and some of the events depicted didn’t happened at all.

https://theconversation.com/faked-vi...-health-145975

Dr. Kevin O’Connor of The George Washington University released a three-page medical summary of Biden's health on Tuesday at the request of his patient, in which he described Biden as a “healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency to include those as Chief Executive, Head of State and Commander in Chief.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...456#blogHeader