Breaking: Democrats Push Sotomayor to Resign From Supreme Court!

TIL that holding people accountable for their actions = weaponizing the justice system.

 

Fool's errand...
Soto resigning would be imbecilic...

 

I suggested that it may (MAY) not be legal if only because no one -- NOBODY -- has ever seriously suggested doing anything as slime-bag LOUSY as this to a seat on the Supreme Court before! BUT, I am becoming persuaded that even if it is found to be a legal maneuver, it may not be a very smart thing to do. Why not?

Here's an excerpt from an article at every liberal's 'font-of-truth', MSN:

"She (meaning Sotomayor) can sort of resign conditionally on someone being appointed to replace her," a Democratic senator told Politico Playbook. "But she can’t resign conditioned on a specific person. What happens if she resigns and the nominee to replace her isn’t confirmed, and the next president fills the vacancy?" Ooh... that would be like Democrats pulling the pin on a hand grenade in their own foxhole!

Link: Justice Sonia Sotomayor faces pressure to retire ahead of Trump taking office: reports

Afterthought: On April 3, 2024, I opened a thread in the Forum entitled, "Former MSNBC host calls on Justice Sotomayor to step down from SCOTUS". If Democrats had followed the logical, perfectly legal course outlined in that thread, they might very well have avoided the catastrophic broadside that hit them three days ago. Instead, they've stepped in **** and tracked it all over their own house....

 

Last April, it would have been GENIUS for Sotomayor to resign, but today, you're right. As we have seen, whoever it was that brain-farted the idea of installing Kammy and "Elmer Fudd" Walz on the 'Crat ticket was the real imbecile!

 

Meh, who cares. Supreme court has long been and will long continue to suck and make foolish decisions. They really couldn't do much worse. One more liberal justice wouldn't change it. More conservative justices wouldn't change it.

Republicans permanently lost the right to call foul after what they did with Garland, though.

 

Uh-huh, we've already chopped our way through THAT jungle of logic -- but NONE of the other attempts by one party was ever begun mere days after that party had just LOST THE ELECTION!

The takeaway: you can do damned near anything you want BEFORE an election, but three days AFTER an election, nobody but the lowest scum imaginable would try to pull something like what Democrats are trying to get away with now!

 

I think this would only bother republicans, Trump supporters. The democrats all for it, independents probably giving it a shrug, no big deal. Independents dislike both major parties and are tied of all their partisan shenanigans. But both have pulled off all sorts of partisan shenanigans, this would be just another. Washington at its partisan glory.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Refusing to submit to a confirmation vote in the Senate a properly selected justice to replace one who died A YEAR before the elections... is the slimiest thing ANY party has ever done. Even the fact that Republicans did exactly THE OPPOSITE the next time there was a vacancy is less slimy than that (and it WAS pretty slimy)

This and the fact you can't substantiate your claim that it "MAY" be legal make it clear to me that you are writing without thinking.

 

Democrats wanted Biden to pack the court. Are you still good with that even though they'd be Trump's picks?

 

It was the latter, not thebformer and Americans have held the left accountable for supporting it this year.

 

You deflect away from the central point of importance in this, Golem: what occurs BEFORE an election, and what occurs AFTER the election! Re-read my Post #37: "...you can do damned near anything you want BEFORE an election, but three days AFTER an election, nobody but the lowest scum imaginable would try to pull something like what Democrats are trying to get away with now!"

BOTH political parties do what is politically expedient... because BOTH parties will do whatever they can get away with -- so long as it is legal and at least marginally ethical. I'm not a lawyer, Golem, and that's why I has asked (ASKED) whether or not it would be legal (and, parenthetically, "ethical") for Democrats to force Justice Sotomayor to leave so that Biden and Schumer can cram-in a new, 'younger-and-healthier' liberal Supreme Court Justice -- before both of them lose the power to pull this off!

But by trying to pull this kind of crap, Democrats spit in the face of the clearly expressed "Will of the People" -- much as FDR tried to do when he attempted to 'pack the court' with liberal stooge judges back in 1937! Frankie failed in his attempt, but if he could have gotten enough other slimebag Democrats to go along with him, then that, too, would have been "legal"!

But what makes this latest Democrat ploy even worse is that they dredge this tactic up THREE DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION! Can anything resonate more clearly with a calloused, total disregard for that same "will of the people"...?

 

Democrats can do that but good luck getting an approved leftist replacement before January! Especially given the mood of the country!

 

Oh, Democrats would cheerfully force Justice Sotomayor to retire without the slightest feeling of guilt, if they think they can get away with it! But, as you suggest, getting the approval of enough votes in the Senate for this low-life ploy to replace her might not be as easy as they think. And, if they fail, then they'll have lost the most dependably liberal Leftist on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, and see her replacement nominated by (Gasp! Boo! Hiss!) PRESIDENT "ADOLF" TRUMP!

."Oh, why didn't we just leave it the **** alone...!"

 

Which democrats specifically were ok with this? Or is this another one of your democrats are all evil and wrong type of posts?

 

I know what your point is, but it's utter nonsense. Some absurd idea that it's ok to do these things in this particular period of a presidency, but not in this other one. A President is elected for FOUR YEARS!!! Not ONE day less. But, in any case, the worst of ALL dirty stratagems was to hold the vote of a properly nominated justice for a year. But, more importantly, this idea that Democrats have to "wait" until Republicans do something that has never been done is harming the country. Democrats will not do it anyway. But they need to start living in the political world that Republicans created.

 

Oh, stop it with all this unctuous, elegiac 'justification/condemnation' for "situation ethics", Golem. The political world that REPUBLICANS made...? Ha! FDR's 'star pupil' was Lyndon B. Johnson -- and his political career began in earnest by really STEALING an election in Texas in 1948 that made him, first, a U. S. Senator -- and later, a vice-president, and then, sadly, the President of the United States! (And that's just one example among many on BOTH sides). Link: Box 13 scandal - Wikipedia

The takeaway? BOTH 'Pubs and 'Crats engage in shady 'expedient' strategies when they can, if it doesn't involve breaking the law, and, covering themselves in too much **** at the same time!

But the biggest differences in our viewpoints boils back down to these: whereas you have no problem whatever with a political party using questionable tactics in the pursuit of 'expediency', (and neither do I as long as they are, strictly speaking, legal) -- you, however, make no distinction about the circumstances and timing involved in those 'expedient' political maneuverings on ethical grounds!

Where I draw a hard, deep line is one like we see today -- when THREE DAYS AFTER AN ELECTION which indisputably declared the "will of the people", Democrats choose to spit in our faces and try to subvert the whole process and everything it stands for. If the situation were reversed, I would chastise Republicans every bit as much if they tried to do the same thing -- and I'm not just saying that because I am, and remain, an 'unaffiliated Independent'!

 

I hope Trump gets 3 picks and replaces 2 more liberal activists with real Judges worthy of the position.

 

Sounds good, the libs can replace her and Trump can take the Democrats idea and increase the court to 12 and stack it.

See I knew we could all get along

 

Yea, how come the far left is suddenly really quiet about packing the SCOTUS. lol

 

same with abolishing the electoral college

 

The SCOTUS had been mostly liberal, on-and-off, since the 1950's, but it was reliably fair and rooted in the Constitution -- UNTIL Obama brought in two new Justices that, by all rights, never should have even been confirmed:

1. Sonia Sotomayor was on the National Council of the radical Latino org, La Raza, for six years, according to her Senate questionnaire. Her nomination was also loudly celebrated by another radical Latino organization, LULAC, known of its own various anti-American positions and actions for decades!

2. Elena Kagan served as the solicitor general of the United States during the time that the ACA ("Obamacare") was furiously debated in Congress, discussed in town halls across the country, and eventually enacted.

She should never have been considered for a seat on the SCOTUS because a federal statute requires that any “justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Federal law also requires that a judge recuse herself if the judge previously served in governmental employment “and in that capacity participated as a … counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

Nevertheless, the Obama regime was successful in getting both of these people onto the Supreme Court.

3. Lastly, when liberal Justice Stephen Breyer retired, President Joe Biden stated flatly that he would not (NOT) even consider anyone but someone who was BLACK, and, FEMALE... period! So, Biden's handlers quickly settled for Ketanji Jackson! Selecting a new Justice on the highest court in the land should be based on MUCH better baseline criteria than a person's skin color and sexual identity! Should Katanji Jackson have even been nominated? WHO KNOWS?! No one but black women were even allowed to be considered! And, yes, this is a BULLSHIT way to do anything!

And now the poor Democrats are upset and fearful about the idea of Republicans finding more new Justices to the Supreme Court because they are unlikely to resemble the three listed above? Well... too ****ing bad!

 

Nah, it absolutely was, and the election results don't change that reality.

 

Democrats want to elect far left wing activists
Republicans want to elect Constitutonal Judges

The difference is insane and if the far elft gets their way, they will turn the US into a fascist state.

 

Kamala Harris will be their choice. Democrats want to creat chaos within the Supreme Court.

 

Not seeing this reported anywhere other than the extreme right site News**x.
Just another circle jerk for MAGA.