I assume , therefor, that when there is a vacancy in any of the courts -, be it circuit , surpreme or whatever - that it is filled by the president’s choice at the time. I have absence that the President position has been held more by the republican more than the. Democratic side
so, if the above is the case then your typical court would be slightly leaning towards the ‘republican point of view’
" that it is filled by the president’s choice at the time"
Except from that time when Obama was trying to appoint one and the Republicans blocked it because it was the last year of his term.
BS. It isn’t Unilateral. California can’t decide to kick Trump off South Carolinas ballot.
If Biden had used his executive authority to increase border security and had then been ruled against by the Supreme Court, would that judgement have swayed pro-Trump voters? Surely, Trump's supporters don't want the US government to disregard the US Constitution, do they?
It's a cult. NOTHING sways MAGA. Nothing.
Let that sink in. If they're voting for TFG, it's the ultimate 'Turkeys voting for Xmas.' In yet another random word salad the other day, TFG said he wanted the GOP to be "96% MAGA." All truths come from TFG. All Policies are dictated by TFG to sitting Congressmembers. All must swear obeisance.
So, your average GOP is MAGA. Non-MAGA GOP are to be limited to just 4% by dictate of the cult leader.
Biden isn’t in the habit of playing games with the law. That’s a Republican tactic, pass unconstitutional EOs and laws and tie up the courts with losing cases. It’s performative. SCOTUS and the law don’t support a POTUS just “closing the border,” and the Stay in Mexico policy only flew because of a pandemic and Title 42 of the Public Health Service act. That was the point of the Senate border bill, establishing the legal framework for the border to be shut when conditions call for it.
I agree with you (and the four Justices) that the ruling does seem to eliminate the idea that a federal court could trigger a section 3 disqualification and that topic need not have been addressed (regardless of outcome). I would have thought that a conviction in federal court ought to be disqualifying. (Granted, there is the argument that the law that the Federal Court was using was written by Congress, so perhaps there's a proxy argument at play. The Opinion did not go that far into the question).
I disagree with you, however, as to the practical effect in Trump's case, because of all the various charges including the Federal charges laid against him, insurrection was not one of them, so the question of alternate federal processes being disallowed (Is there a third option other than courts or Congress?) has no particular bearing on what happens in the next year.
Would Trump still have told the GOP to vote against that Bill even if it didn't include aid for Ukraine?
Absolutely.
Trump does not care about anything other than himself.
ANYTHING that improves something today, under a Biden administration is to be blocked and objected to ,for the single reason that Trump does not want Biden to have any positives to campaign on.
Trump himself said that he hoped the economy crashed before the election , again just to help him.
He would destroy anything and everything if he thought it would benefit him personally , nothing else matters.
If he actually cared about Immigration or the US in general he could have supported the bill and then (not unreasonably to be fair) have said that Bidens policies had failed that the the GOP under his direction had forced him to implement a lot of GOP plans to fix the border etc.
He would have likely gained some independent support and actually have fixed something.
Instead he just burns everything down and makes his already guaranteed voters excited.
I would say 100% yes.
He doesnt care about anything else other than winning in November
All Meta services (bar Whatsapp) are down. Is that going to impact any of the super Tuesday stuff?
Possibly, how will the AI generated images of Trump be spread now?
I'm sure those conspiracy lovin types will make up some bull about big tech getting involved via the lizard people or something
A further example that tump supporters are sexist assholes.
Nothing new there: I remember in 2016 a voxpop where a (white) woman opined that women shouldn't be president and that it was too much responsibility for them. The worst misogynists in America are often conservative women - the Aunt Lydia's if you will.
For those complaining about Biden's stance on the Gaza conflict, trump said 'You have to finish the problem'
Hounding Trump? No, just doing their legal duty. Great to see you're still defending the rapist.
"Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya...."
And he is exactly right.
Genocide is never a right answer
The reality of Biden and Gaza is, Netanyahu is like a dog with a bone and no amount of cajolling, pleading or begging from anyone would get him to stop the massacre. I am sure at this stage practically every world leader has been on the phone with him asking him to drop it.
Blaming Biden for Gaza is like blaming McDonalds for the soggy chips in Wendy's.
But its not genocide. Its a country defending itself against insurgents. Maybe you need a history lesson.
You can defend that opinion in the thread for that. The definition for genocide the Holocaust memorial museum publishes matches the description. Don’t tell me they need a history lesson too.
The proportionate response versus the disproportionate response.
So you enjoy thousands of civilians being murdered when a small group among them tries to fight back?
This is an Irish site. Maybe you should read our history a bit...
Yeah, so anyway...
I was watching this primary coverage last 40 mins .. then said what am I doing. No competition here, trump sweeps the board. Watch a movie instead.
BTW Musk met trump today about funding / donations. Nice war chest coming donalds way id say
Few drunk lads causing trouble is not equal to invading a country or bombing the twin towers or blowing up a concert and whatnot.
