The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

Lion Eyes said:
"Precedent" is a bitch.
Click to expand...
“Precedent”: a previous case or legal decision that may be or ( binding precedent) must be followed in subsequent similar cases.
"the decision set a precedent for others to be sent to trial in the US".

Darn right it is. Like Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. Inconvenient truths.

Try looking up stare decisis. A little old concept generally well respected by genuinely impartial judicial officers of the Court.
 
Nonononono said:
“Precedent”: a previous case or legal decision that may be or ( binding precedent) must be followed in subsequent similar cases.
"the decision set a precedent for others to be sent to trial in the US".

Darn right it is. Like Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. Inconvenient truths.

Try looking up stare decisis. A little old concept generally well respected by genuinely impartial judicial officers of the Court.
Click to expand...
We'll be hearing all about stare decisis in the SCOTUS appointment hearing...
I wasn't talking about a court of law.
I was talking about what how norms have changed, what was once unacceptable, now is.
Like when the Democrats changed the rules appointing federal judges with a simple majority, rather than 60%.
A precedent was established. The Democrats will now bitch moan and complain how unfair that is during the confirmation proceedings.
Precedent is "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances".
Precedent is a model, a yardstick, a standard, a guide...
https://www.bing.com/search?q=precedent&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IENTSR&pc=EUPP_
 
On eve of Trump's Supreme Court pick, top Dem suggests sacrificing Senate seats to stop nomination
1509651528227.jpg

By Gregg Re | Fox News
694940094001_5806701429001_5806714164001-vs.jpg

Media's Supreme Court scrutiny

Pundits spotlight abortion as Trump mulls pick.

Just one day before President Trump is set to announce his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in a primetime address from the White House, a top Democratic senator suggested that stopping the nominee is more important than the upcoming midterm elections.

Continue Reading Below


Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., acknowledged that so-called red-state Democrats may be tempted to vote for Trump's selection out of political necessity, but urged his colleagues Sunday to consider more than their political careers.

"Beyond the procedure, beyond the gamesmanship, it is a life-and-death important decision to be made by this court on so many issues," the Senate minority whip said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The men and women that I work with on the Democratic side really take this seriously," he added, after host Chuck Todd raised the possibility that Democrats could lose their bid to retake the Senate by opposing the nominee. "They understand it's an historic decision. It's about more than the next election. It's about what future the United States of America is going to chart."

"They understand it's an historic decision. It's about more than the next election."

- Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham called the situation a veritable "nightmare" for Democrats hanging onto their vulnerable seats in states that largely support Trump.

Those Democrats -- including West Virginia's Joe Manchin, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, and Indiana's Joe Donnelly -- must choose between alienating their constituents, or trying to halt a conservative nominee who may ultimately prove unstoppable anyway because of the GOP's slim Senate majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top