General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

35. Attorneys would never get to talk.

Thu Dec 26, 2019, 02:43 PM

Dec 2019

Chief Justice: The Case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Each side will have 15 minutes for argument. Counsel, you may begin.

Counsel for Petitioner: May it please the cour ---

Justice Trump: I used to be president, you know so I'm very smart, even though I didn't go to law school, but I would have been first in my class. I WAS first in the law school class even though I didn't go. You look like you didn't vote for me. I'll bet you didn't vote for me. Lots of people voted for me. Obama never was a judge. Neither was Hillary blah blah blah blah

Chief Justice: Your time's expired.

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