POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Agreed. Both people can easily lie (bias or person given a job).

 

Best professional reason, whatever.

You keep saying this is a job, it isn't. It's a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country for which one can only be removed by an act of Congress. There are, literally, zero "jobs" which fit these criteria. A federal judge on an appeals court is practically in the same boat as a justice, as well. So, no, there should be more than a simple asking of said judge in the instance a case personally involving the appointer comes before a judge.

 

It's a job that is hard to get fired from but you can get fired. I agree there should be more than just asking a few question but that goes for all judges no matter who hired them. For instance one of the jurors on the hush money case said he could be fair and partial but the defense uncovered that he had made social media post about locking Trump up. Any hit of bias should be seen as automatic disqualification as should something like being related or given a job.

 

Has a justice ever been removed?

 

You don't get fired, you get removed by a Congressional act and it's never happened in our nearly 250 year history. Again, it's not a job, it's a lifetime appointment. There's simply no greater "bias" than a defendant being judged by the person who they specifically chose for that position, even more so than any attitude a person expresses. It simply is whether you want to acknowledge this or not.

 

I have never seen someone so hung up on one thing before. A lot of things can disqualify a judge, a lifetime appointment by the defendant is one of them.

 

Uh, I'm responding to you on this one, so there's at least one other person you've seen hung up on one thing before.

At least you finally came around to the point that these judges, including Cannon, should recuse themselves from cases which involve Trump.

 

From the start I clearly said it happens on both sides. You started making the argument about which one was a bigger problem which is just silly. They're all problems.

 

No, that's not what happened, at all, and you certainly weren't clear. But, we can argue semantics all day long, like a judge who was appointed by a defendant actually is a greater problem than one who made contributions or, even less important, a social media post. Since we are in agreement Trump appointees shouldn't hear cases with him as the defendant, it's ultimately moot.

 

How is this NY fraud case different from what happened with John Edwards?

 

One. Samuel Chase in 1805.

 

I'm actually ok with the 18 year term proposal. One of a few limits I'd like to place in DC.

 

18 years or menopause. Whichever comes first.

 

I propose an American Gladiator style elimination competition every 6 years. You want to stay on the bench? Then defeat Gemini's tennis ball cannon in the Game of Assault after getting by Nitro on the rings in Hang Tough. Imagine the absolutely ripped bench of legal scholars we'd develop.

 

He wasn't even removed, just impeached.

 

If an only if the Gladiators have enough roids in them to make their eyes turn yellow.

 

Changes I would make -

1. Change the presidential requirement to American citizen for 35 years.
2. Limit Legislative branch to 12 years. Serve them however you want, but 12 years.
3. Judicial term on SCOTUS of 18 years.

Oh, and repeal the 19th.

 

Add no presidential candidates over 80.

 

I wouldn't make it an age because you don't know what will happen with medicine in the future.

 

True, do it now and we can change it later.