3 ms·

Official act isn't defined, so it doesn't say that. Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to

Official act isn't defined, so it doesn't say that. Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over.

lenerdenator 2y ago
> Official act isn't defined, so it doesn't say that. It is and isn't, which is the problem. > Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over. They more or less do appoint. There's never going to be a judge voted on that doesn't push a President's viewpoint, particularly not in the last thirty years. If a system doesn't take into consideration this particular contingency, it wasn't a very good system, was it?
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Tell that to Merrick Garland. You are confusing necessary and sufficient.
skhunted 2y ago
So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. That’s essentially what happened with Kavanaugh, Amy, and Neil minus the judge being a crook part. Well, Kavanaugh is a rapist so for him the crook part applies. The really bad stuff is happening. You just are not aware of it.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  The point: if those things happen, this decision matters not. If you think all those things are in place, this really is the least of your worries.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    This is part of the foundation that will make doing bad things the new plolitcal norm.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      If the president is a crook and the senate is full of crooks, that's the foundation. This is a minor fixture.
      - skhunted 2y ago
        Judicial complicity is not a minor thing.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Sure, but this is just a single decision, and who are the judges supposed to be complicit with? The current president? The last one? The next one? A specific party?
        skhunted 2y ago
        Complicit in the sense of helping to set the stage for future abuses. Not complicit in the sense of conspiring. SCOTUS has made quite a few bad decisions which set the foundation that I speak of.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        The ruling certainly sets the stage for something. It's almost like they didn't want to actually rule, but rather set up a framework for making future rulings. I can't say I disagree with the approach.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Official act isn't defined, so it doesn't say that. It is and isn't, which is the problem. > Your last paragraph is closer to accurate, except a president doesn't just "appoint" a judge. They have to be voted in by the senate. So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. But if the president is a crook and the majority of the senate are crooks, it's already all over. They more or less do appoint. There's never going to be a judge voted on that doesn't push a President's viewpoint, particularly not in the last thirty years. If a system doesn't take into consideration this particular contingency, it wasn't a very good system, was it?

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
Tell that to Merrick Garland. You are confusing necessary and sufficient.

skhunted 2y ago

So, if the president is a crook and nominates a crook and the senate is full of crooks and vote yes to have said crook become a judge, then yes really bad stuff can happen. That’s essentially what happened with Kavanaugh, Amy, and Neil minus the judge being a crook part. Well, Kavanaugh is a rapist so for him the crook part applies. The really bad stuff is happening. You just are not aware of it.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
The point: if those things happen, this decision matters not. If you think all those things are in place, this really is the least of your worries.
- skhunted 2y ago
  This is part of the foundation that will make doing bad things the new plolitcal norm.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    If the president is a crook and the senate is full of crooks, that's the foundation. This is a minor fixture.
    - skhunted 2y ago
      Judicial complicity is not a minor thing.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Sure, but this is just a single decision, and who are the judges supposed to be complicit with? The current president? The last one? The next one? A specific party?
        skhunted 2y ago
        Complicit in the sense of helping to set the stage for future abuses. Not complicit in the sense of conspiring. SCOTUS has made quite a few bad decisions which set the foundation that I speak of.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        The ruling certainly sets the stage for something. It's almost like they didn't want to actually rule, but rather set up a framework for making future rulings. I can't say I disagree with the approach.