President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Originally Posted by Damien

CEO of Harley Davidson:

https://twitter.com/ironstowe/status...20919524564992

This may not have actually been said by the Harley CEO...

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I knew that I was correct on the issue and I stand by it - religious freedom wins the day and the media opinions that ruled it a "narrow" opinion were wrong, plain and simple. It was not narrow in scope and it was not narrow in majority. The ruling stands, sets precedent an the media got it wrong plain and simple.

Does this include all religions, or only Christianity, and if only Christianity, which section?

Tbh the quote was from Twitter so could well be bogus

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

A seat on the Supreme Court has opened up: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8420186.html

And it was a Democrat appointment so the court is about to swing to the right.

Although last time a seat opened up the Republican senate thought a year and a half until the election was held was too close to appoint a new justice. So presumably with the mid-terms just a half a year away they'll wait until then.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Looks like Trump will get the votes he needs on the court for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. Depending on whose chosen. Given it's an election year there might be pressure on Republicans in moderate districts to select a judge that backs the right to choose.

[Chloé Palmas]

Wooooooo!!!!


Moderate my ass...time to finally get rid of Roe! Wow this is outstanding...amd given that it is an election year then perhaps we should wait, until like after November when the GOP has a larger majority in the Senate?

God bless Harry Reid for breaking the filibuster!!!

This is the greatest day of the Trump Presidency!!! May God love us all, Roe will finally fall.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

Tbh the quote was from Twitter so could well be bogus

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

A seat on the Supreme Court has opened up: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8420186.html

And it was a Democrat appointment so the court is about to swing to the right.

Although last time a seat opened up the Republican senate thought a year and a half until the election was held was too close to appoint a new justice. So presumably with the mid-terms just a half a year away they'll wait until then.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Looks like Trump will get the votes he needs on the court for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. Depending on whose chosen. Given it's an election year there might be pressure on Republicans in moderate districts to select a judge that backs the right to choose.

Has it always been the case that the Supreme Court can be manipulated by the Executive via political appointees? If so, what is the rationale of the Founding Fathers in coupling the Judiciary to the Executive?

Originally Posted by ianch99

Has it always been the case that the Supreme Court can be manipulated by the Executive via political appointees? If so, what is the rationale of the Founding Fathers in coupling the Judiciary to the Executive?

This is probably a really complicated topic which serious academics study and debate. I can't really tell you.

Obviously the court is independent but the manipulation only occurs on appointment.

I guess the reason the President chooses is who else would? The President as at least accountable to both congress and the people. It allows the court to be independent without being entirely separate.

I think the whole justice system is nuts in America anyway. Far too much politics in the appointment of judges, I think some lower courts even have them elected which is madness. It seems to be a nation created by and for lawyers.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Does this include all religions, or only Christianity, and if only Christianity, which section?

Oh absolutely all recognized religions...I mean you could hardly expect a Muslim or Jew to give service to a butcher selling pork, could you? Muslims do not drink as per their instructions from God ; if a wedding goes ahead and a couple ask for liquor I think a Muslim caterer is well within his or her rights, to say no. No?

No Muslim should be obliged to bake a cake or provide flowers for a gay wedding either, I might add.

(Damien I will reply to your message tonight btw - still on cloud 9 from the Kennedy retirement / won't meddle with Ianch99's question either as I am likely not objective right now).

To all the other questions in the thread I will answer later - for now it is time to go pop a crate of two of Bubbly.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Oh absolutely all recognized religions...I mean you could hardly expect a Muslim or Jew to give service to a butcher selling pork, could you? Muslims do not drink as per their instructions from God ; if a wedding goes ahead and a couple ask for liquor I think a Muslim caterer is well within his or her rights, to say no. No?

A Muslim can choose not to sell liquor at their restaurant. That's different to refusing to serve someone. Just as I cannot imagine there are many Muslims and Jews in the business of selling pork. I would expect a Muslim to give a service they did provide, say selling cars, to someone who was gay though.

The bakers didn't force someone who didn't sell cakes to sell them a cake. They asked for someone who was selling customised cakes to make them a customised cake.

(Damien I will reply to your message tonight btw - still on cloud 9 from the Kennedy retirement / won't meddle with Ianch99's question either as I am likely not objective right now).

I don't really mind that much.

The Harley Davidson CEO quote posted earlier is bogus, if that was genuine it would be all over MSM.

It’s up to the President as per the Constitution, to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices, they still have to be confirmed via the Senate. A president can appoint as many justices as he needs to, all 9 justices if they retired or died, the President can appoint all 9 and they have no term limits either. Justice Kennedy who is retiring, he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed in 1988. A 30 year tenure.

Originally Posted by Mick

It’s up to the President as per the Constitution, to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices, they still have to be confirmed via the Senate. A president can appoint as many justices as he needs to, all 9 justices if they retired or died, the President can appoint all 9 and they have no term limits either. Justice Kennedy who is retiring, he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed in 1988. A 30 year tenure.

Yeah but he was asking why the President is given that right. I am not clear what the founders had in mind other than my assumption that someone has to pick them.

The Legislative Branch, can’t both nominate and confirm a SCOTUS Justice, with absolutely no input from the Executive Branch, that breaks checks and balances of each other and SCOTUS itself cannot do same, for same reason.

Justice Kennedy may have been nominated by Republican President, but he routinely sided with the Liberal Justices. Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated last year also sided with a recent ruling that did not favour Trump.

That said, Trump being able to pick another Justice is a win win for him in that he can shape the Judiciary for decades to come, he has already picked and got confirmed many District court judges.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

That said, Trump being able to pick another Justice is a win win for him in that he can shape the Judiciary for decades to come, he has already picked and got confirmed many District court judges.

I guess this is the thing that puzzles me. There seems no limit to the number of Judges the President can nominate so Trump is gets 2 in 2 years!

Having a Supreme Court making decisions that can be skewed by political allegiances seems a mistake from the Founding fathers. There are many countries where the SC is appointed with little or no interference from the Executive.

[Chloé Palmas]

Well, he can only nominate them once the positions become vacant. Technically he could create new circuits in order to pack the court but that gets both controversial and complicated to explain and implement, too. FDR tried it and they subsequently even imposed term limits on the Presidency.

As for the latter it kind of goes back to a point that Damien and I were making about the ability to render a decision irrespective of political influence ; it should not stop you from impartially interpreting the law / upholding the constitution. Of course it does sometimes arise to the level of which there are conflicts of interest and when ethics arise you trust the justices to recuse wherever relevant.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

As for the latter it kind of goes back to a point that Damien and I were making about the ability to render a decision irrespective of political influence ; it should not stop you from impartially interpreting the law / upholding the constitution. Of course it does sometimes arise to the level of which there are conflicts of interest and when ethics arise you trust the justices to recuse wherever relevant.

Totally agree but you see this logic inexorably leads to the position that, if you expect the appointees to "impartially interpreting the law" as you put, it then negates the reason for the political appointment in the first place.

Either accept that the political appointed SC members will, by definition, side with the party that appointed them or you support a process that is decoupled as far as practical from the influence of the Executive.

It's such a shame, as you get older, when your memory goes, and you can’t remember what you tweeted 3 days before...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's such a shame, as you get older, when your memory goes, and you can’t remember what you tweeted 3 days before...

Could it be that Trump posted the first and his social media team the second one? Does not excuse but may explain the situation.