General Discussion

Amishman

(5,929 posts)

16. I'm focused on the real problem

Thu Dec 26, 2019, 11:54 AM

Dec 2019

A few unqualified idiots in positions of power is far less dangerous than a large number intelligent malicious individuals in the same. We would be fortunate if he appointed more incompetents to prominent positions, because that is better than the types he is mostly appointing.

You might find it comforting to discount Trump's appointees as fools who are in over their head, but the reality is much much worse. And there is no easy fix. This is one symptom of an irreconcilable cultural divide that is splitting this country. Others as well, as the Brexit debacle and other schisms in Europe can attest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can a sitting POTUS appoint themselves to the SCOTUS?? [View all] Amimnoch Dec 2019 OP

No. lark Dec 2019 #1

If he did, the GOP Senate would try to confirm him. nt tblue37 Dec 2019 #2

Not a chance onenote Dec 2019 #20

The first democratic appointee to the US Supreme Court should be Hillary Rodham Clinton not_the_one Dec 2019 #65

Also a dumb idea. onenote Dec 2019 #66

If we got a democratic President in the bargain, let them. Blue_true Dec 2019 #53

A sitting president no, A standing president could. pwb Dec 2019 #3

Many of the judges confirmed this year aren't anything close to being smart StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #4

They do have Law degrees. pwb Dec 2019 #6

Interestingly, they do not need any professional degree or education according to the constitution. CincyDem Dec 2019 #7

Most of them are smart and knowledgeable, they just have anachronistic principles Amishman Dec 2019 #11

No. Some of them are really dumb, with no experience or understanding of the law StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #12

Nine of well over a hundred Amishman Dec 2019 #14

Nine utterly unqualified judges is nine too many StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #15

I'm focused on the real problem Amishman Dec 2019 #16

They are ALL "real problems." You focus on your priorities. I focus on mine. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #18

"Even the pukes like smart judges---" That's just not true. They like obedient judges. nt Atticus Dec 2019 #5

They like smart judges? Uhmm no they dont. Joe941 Dec 2019 #8

HA HA! no. Maru Kitteh Dec 2019 #10

A sitting President yes Recursion Dec 2019 #22

Yes but he would have to resign to take the position. NYC Liberal Dec 2019 #9

Nope Recursion Dec 2019 #24

You know what bluestarone Dec 2019 #13

No they wouldn't. See post 20 onenote Dec 2019 #23

There is one other element to this scenario that hasn't been addressed. rsdsharp Dec 2019 #17

Brother in law may have had a bit too much egg nog? onenote Dec 2019 #19

There is no actual rule that requires a vacancy. hughee99 Dec 2019 #25

Huh? onenote Dec 2019 #28

It's set by the Judiciary Act of 1869, though there does not seem to be hughee99 Dec 2019 #31

I'm quite confident the Supreme Court would not find in favor of a president unilaterally increasing onenote Dec 2019 #36

Since all nominees would need to get senate approval anyway hughee99 Dec 2019 #47

Precedent predates FDR onenote Dec 2019 #48

Let's say 2 years from now, Clarence Thomas gets incapacitated, hughee99 Dec 2019 #51

Yes, people here would be screaming for his replacement. And a Dem. president would not replace him onenote Dec 2019 #52

If we had the Senate, I don't think there's any way a Dem President hughee99 Dec 2019 #54

And I think there is every way a Democratic president would refrain onenote Dec 2019 #55

I don't believe that for a second. hughee99 Dec 2019 #56

So why aren't Trump and the Republicans naming more Supreme Court Justices? onenote Dec 2019 #57

They've floated the idea already. hughee99 Dec 2019 #58

Why is it a hassle? onenote Dec 2019 #59

You actually read what I wrote, right? hughee99 Dec 2019 #60

That doesn't explain why the Republicans aren't trying this idea onenote Dec 2019 #61

The link explains that Trump doesn't want to expand the court. hughee99 Dec 2019 #62

He doesn't want to expand the court because it would require legislation that would be filibustered onenote Dec 2019 #63

As I said, even if you win that case, you'd still have to go through hughee99 Dec 2019 #64

Yes Recursion Dec 2019 #21

Where is the "co-equal" part of this? Hearthrob Dec 2019 #38

Puh-leeze onenote Dec 2019 #45

So sorry, but my plan is limited. Thank you for the Hearthrob Dec 2019 #49

William Howard Taft wanted to be a SCOTUS more than President. no_hypocrisy Dec 2019 #26

And Taft had judicial experience Retrograde Dec 2019 #33

He'd have to be confirmed by the Senate, The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #27

+1 (and the fact that he'd be 74) onenote Dec 2019 #29

Not a job Trump would want, but no, I think. MineralMan Dec 2019 #30

Oral arguments would be phenomenal. dalton99a Dec 2019 #32

Attorneys would never get to talk. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #35

Justice Trump: "Be quiet. Ssh! Be quiet! I am not finished!" dalton99a Dec 2019 #39

"Gettim outta here!" StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #43

He could try to install a family member duforsure Dec 2019 #34

He could try to "install" a hedgehog or a pony onenote Dec 2019 #37

He's much more dangerous out of office. Hearthrob Dec 2019 #40

I don't see it that way. pwb Dec 2019 #41

"evil geniuses"? You're kidding, right? onenote Dec 2019 #44

Even if he could he would have to work marlakay Dec 2019 #42

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't one need a law degree at the very least to serve as a smirkymonkey Dec 2019 #46

As a matter of law, it's not required. But as a practical matter, it is. onenote Dec 2019 #50