[Rapperson]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump ... 00584.html

#Steps back and sits in the corner#

[Suntzu]

Can't fire a federal judge just reassign him to Bum Phuc Eygpt.

[stephen50right]

Federal judges basically receive a lifetime appointment. That worked okay in the olden days because life expectancy was considerably lower than it is today. Also most people back then were of sound mind when usually a disease would cause their death...a number of those diseases are completely curable today.

Now with all the cures and treatment for disease today, plus other factors for longevity of life, people are living much longer. The problem is the mind diminishes at an older age with short term memory loss and even dementia in some folks. That's no problem for someone retired and their children or assisted living can help them. But really...should Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is 84 years old, and obviously not of sound mind any longer, be sitting on the Supreme Court? Of course not.

I think federal judges should have a term limit of 12 years. Any circuit court shouldn't be disbanded for political reasons, just change the term limits and that will overall make the federal judicial system work better.

[blackjack21]

Or Justice Kennedy. He's clearly guided more by his emotions than his capacity for reason... Yes, we do need to limit judicial terms.

[Rapperson]

What do you do when a court has become subverted and routinely exceeds its authority to hold the government for ransom?

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you do when a court has become subverted and routinely exceeds its authority to hold the government for ransom?

Did that happen?

[Zagadka]

Just what I've always wanted, a president who is brave enough to dismantle courts who disagree with him! Because screw checks and balances.

Because they know that's like, semi-automatic

I think you mean "autonomous" there, Trump.

[Rapperson]

Just what I've always wanted, a president who is brave enough to dismantle courts who disagree with him! Because screw checks and balances.


I think you mean "autonomous" there, Trump.

Doesn't that have to work both ways?

[Zagadka]

The 9th Circuit has proposed removing Trump from the presidency?

Courts do not make policy, they interpret its legality. That is their role in the checks and balances.

[Citizen J]

Let me set ethics aside for a moment.
Now that I'm purely rational, unfettered by morality this is what I think.

1. The Republican Congress should use the nuclear option to completely disable the filibuster.
2. then they should impeach every liberal federal judge. Historically, the bar for impeachment is pretty low. And Congress ultimately decides what an impeachable offense is. Impeachment could be as simple as a quick viva voce after 5 minutes of debate.
3. Any judge who objects can be impeached within hours of his objection.
(Note there are hundreds subject to congressional impeachment, and thousands subject to replacement by confirmed judges)
4. Replace every impeached judge with young conservative ideologues loyal to the GOP.

With that accomplished, states would be free to write any laws that disenfranchise Democrats/liberals/minorities all they want. All lawsuits would eventually hit a Republican controlled court where Republicans are certain to win regardless of merit. The Democrats would not win on the federal level again for decades - possibly even longer.

And note that everything I wrote is perfectly constitutional. It can be done within the current legal framework and legal precedent. And any protest can be viewed as anti-American, anti-establishment and treasonous. If any protest turns violent, then liberals can be portrayed as violent traitors to the Republic; even met with civil or even military force. The more they protest, the more force the right can justify using on them. And the more the right can justify demonizing the left.

The GOP needs to control the federal courts to control the country. It's that simple. If the GOP ever grew a backbone and took over the federal court system, it would be all over for liberals and the democratic underpinnings of the Republic. At their current rate, they may never get there. Acceleration through impeachment is the only way they can guarantee the desired results.

Now, let's put my morality screen back in place. That would be the end of democracy and probably tear the country apart. It would turn our Republic into an empire and quite possibly result in tens or hundreds of millions dead - one way or another. Either through civil war, external war, ideological pogrom or some combination. And it is against every principle our founding fathers ever put forth in the creation of our nation. It is ultimately unethical.

[Rapperson]

Let me set ethics aside for a moment.
Now that I'm purely rational, unfettered by morality this is what I think.

1. The Republican Congress should use the nuclear option to completely disable the filibuster.
2. then they should impeach every liberal federal judge. Historically, the bar for impeachment is pretty low. And Congress ultimately decides what an impeachable offense is. Impeachment could be as simple as a quick viva voce after 5 minutes of debate.
3. Any judge who objects can be impeached within hours of his objection.
(Note there are hundreds subject to congressional impeachment, and thousands subject to replacement by confirmed judges)
4. Replace every impeached judge with young conservative ideologues loyal to the GOP.

With that accomplished, states would be free to write any laws that disenfranchise Democrats/liberals/minorities all they want. All lawsuits would eventually hit a Republican controlled court where Republicans are certain to win regardless of merit. The Democrats would not win on the federal level again for decades - possibly even longer.

And note that everything I wrote is perfectly constitutional. It can be done within the current legal framework and legal precedent. And any protest can be viewed as anti-American, anti-establishment and treasonous. If any protest turns violent, then liberals can be portrayed as violent traitors to the Republic; even met with civil or even military force. The more they protest, the more force the right can justify using on them. And the more the right can justify demonizing the left.

The GOP needs to control the federal courts to control the country. It's that simple. If the GOP ever grew a backbone and took over the federal court system, it would be all over for liberals and the democratic underpinnings of the Republic. At their current rate, they may never get there. Acceleration through impeachment is the only way they can guarantee the desired results.

Now, let's put my morality screen back in place. That would be the end of democracy and probably tear the country apart. It would turn our Republic into an empire and quite possibly result in tens or hundreds of millions dead - one way or another. Either through civil war, external war, ideological pogrom or some combination. And it is against every principle our founding fathers ever put forth in the creation of our nation. It is ultimately unethical.

Thank you for the Straw Man of the Week.

[Rapperson]

The 9th Circuit has proposed removing Trump from the presidency?

Courts do not make policy, they interpret its legality. That is their role in the checks and balances.

Does that mean they can do anything they want? There is such a thing as abuse of power, for judges too.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Rapperson

Are you claiming that the judges of the ninth circuit abused their power?

[Citizen J]

Thank you for the Straw Man of the Week.

Not my intent at all. I'm saying the GOP has a choice - they COULD take over the government - essentially forever. And all they have to do is forgo a bit of ethics.

Are you trying to say it's not an option?

[Rapperson]

Not my intent at all. I'm saying the GOP has a choice - they COULD take over the government - essentially forever. And all they have to do is forgo a bit of ethics.

Are you trying to say it's not an option?

I'm saying that's not the topic of this thread at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

How many of Trump's orders has the 9th circuit overturned?

While he blamed the 9th for the failure of his funding cut for sanctuary cities on the 9th circuit, the judge responsible is not part of the 9th.

So, is it just the two travel bans, or is Trump also incorrectly blaming the 9th for these as well?

[Citizen J]

I'm saying that's not the topic of this thread at all.

No? It's not about removing judges Trump does not like? It's not about one branch exerting control over another?
Then there's no reason to discuss the 9th district court over any other district court.

[Rapperson]

No? It's not about removing judges Trump does not like? It's not about one branch exerting control over another?
Then there's no reason to discuss the 9th district court over any other district court.

Then why are you posting in a thread with that exact topic?

[Citizen J]

Then why are you posting in a thread with that exact topic?

Precisely my point. Why is ANYBODY posting ITT if not to talk about replacing judges? My first post here was all about replacing judges Trump does not like. Yet, you claimed it's not.

Hmm.... I can't write about replacing judges in a thread about replacing judges? So while you write about replacing judges, what am I supposed to write about?

While others are talking about rearranging the 9th district to minimize these judges, I show that we can go much further and replace them entirely. In a completely legal way. I then provide my opinion on the matter. That's not a straw man argument. It's facts followed by an opinion; each clearly delineated.

Of course, any attempt to alter the 9th district court - at this point - would be widely viewed as a constitutional crisis. Had the GOP done so before the court publicly humiliated Trump, it would not have been such a big deal. But now, the whole country would hear about it.

Even so, the GOP is still capable of impeaching and replacing thousands of judges all across the country. Quickly followed by election reforms in red states that "just happen" to disenfranchise Democrats by the millions. The laws would be upheld by the GOP judges, the Congressmen would not have to worry about their next election, and the Democrats would never be able to carry those red states again. It's all connected. And laws are constitutional when the courts say they are constitutional - even if you and I think they completely violate the constitution. Our opinions don't matter - the courts opinions do. Disenfranchising millions is perfectly legal and constitutional if the judicial branch says it is.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're already close to all out war in the political sense. There's a lot of people who voted for Trump just because they hate liberals. They would fully support any GOP power grab; they would cheer it on. This thread is all about a power grab, but it's provincial; just the 9th. I showed you a perfectly legal way to expand that nationally. Because you don't like the idea does not make it a straw man argument.

[Rapperson]

@Citizen J

This is a very silly argument.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.