Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
“As a nominee to the Third Circuit, it would not be appropriate for me to address how this Amendment would apply in an abstract hypothetical scenario,” Bove wrote.
That should disqualify him or anyone who doesn't answer this question with a hard NO. But we live in stupid times with stupid people leading the way.
It's not like you can really trust a "no" from these people. Kavanaugh and Barrett were both asked about Roe during their Supreme Court nomination hearings, and they both responded like it was settled law and they'd leave it alone. Look how that worked out.
Well, they specifically dodged the yes or no question being posed and responded with "It is settled law".
He sounds like Jordan Peterson. How do you define "constitutional"? How do you define "term"? How do you define... oh shut up.
Ugh, i read your comment in his voice.
To the extent this question seeks to elicit an answer that could be taken as opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding term limits, or on statements by any political figure, my response, consistent with the positions of prior judicial nominees, is that it would be improper to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee.
The problem for him is that a hard NO would also disqualify him in front of this Congress.....
Too fucking bad.
Bove also faces scrutiny over how he has managed staff at the DOJ. A whistleblower report submitted last month by a former Justice Department employee alleges that Bove told colleagues that the administration should ignore court orders that are stymying some of Trump’s executive orders, particularly those that rely on declarations of “emergencies” to push his anti-immigrant agenda.
Shouldn't a basic understanding of the Constitution be a prerequisite to becoming a judge? And wouldn't a lack thereof be disqualifying for a promotion?
This is Trumpworld. The only thing you need to have a basic understanding of is how to kiss Trump's ass.
The lack of a basic understanding of the Constitution isn't a disqualifier. It's a prerequisite.
No no no it’s not an understanding of how to kiss Trump’s ass, it’s how to choke on his microscopic dick
That's only for Cabinet positions. Judicial nominees are only required to engage in some light rimming.
Outside of Trumplandistan, yes
"No, it would not be Constitutional. But the law only applies when it benefits Republicans."
Incoming Right-wing argument: since every cell in a person's body dies in less than 7 years, by the time of the next term, no cell will have been alive having served the first term and therefore, it's allowed. Or some other such nonsense, honestly, that's probably too intellectual for them.
Your suggested argument is too broadly-worded for their intentions. It would allow Obama or Clinton to run again. Last time they tried to push this shit, it was something along the lines of "any president who's been elected to two non-consecutive terms would be eligible for a third." That wording uniquely qualifies Trump while keeping two-term Democrats disqualified.
Ship of Theseus. "If nothing of you is alive that was voted for, then are you even the same person who won the election?"
So, every prisoner will be released after serving a maximum of 7 years? Also, it's not true. Cell turnover varies significantly by tissue type. Some cells, like those in the stomach lining, regenerate every few days, while others, like some brain cells, can last a lifetime.
since every cell in a person’s body dies in less than 7 years, by the time of the next term, no cell will have been alive having served the first term and therefore, it’s allowed.
There are a couple tablespoons of cells that live our entire lives in our brain so that argument should be rejected too. I would expect the GOP rebuttable is that GOP candidates have no brains and therefore their original argument should be valid, which I admit on its surface would be tough to refute given the large body of past behavior of GOP Presidents.
I would then have to argue that the the Qualifications Clause set forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires Presidential candidates to be at least 35 years, and they've just admitted their brainless candidates are 7 years old or less so they would not be be eligible to run for President of the USA.
Simple solution. Lobotomize that part of the brain.
Quit giving them ideas!
/s
Honestly why does it matter what they say, they're just gonna do whatever their leader tells them when the time comes.
It's just Kavanaugh's "Roe v. Wade is settled precedent" all over again. Grifters gonna grift.
Best case scenario is they don't want the wrath of maga and just hope the problem will go away.
Does anyone else smell burning in here?