They introduce it now, and even some conservatives laugh it off as “just a joke,” but within the next 4 years, it will be raised many more times, each time with them getting more serious. They put it out there like this so it’s less shocking the second, third, and fourth time you hear it. By the end, every conservative bootlicking moron will be lining up to say “presidents should be allowed to have an uninterrupted span of 8 years of rule so as to enact the agenda we ‘voted’ for!”
It’s predictable. I’m going to buy some guns and start hitting the range.
I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don’t think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened–but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they’d need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.
While I find the Robert’s court troubling, I don’t think they’re capable of such a thing.
I said the same thing about Roe V. Wade. “The SC would never actually over rule it. The women on there wouldn’t stand for it” I said, trying to console my spouse. What a fool I was
I empathize. But Roe v Wade was never a super-precedent and while I support abortion, I (and many legal scholars) found flaws in the notion that a fundamental right to privacy is located in the 14th amendment and that that right extends to abortion. This is why I think it was a mistake that Democrats didn’t codify abortion rights when they had the chance in 2008.
I disagree. While I agree that Thomas and Alito are radicalized originalists, the rest of the court is more ambiguous. Roberts is an institutionalist with an incremental approach while Gorsuch favors textualism over originalism and occasionally swings left. Kavanaugh is a textualist with varying degrees of pragmatism on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, I find his jurisprudence to be rather clumsy. But he’s certainly left of Thomas and Alito by a wide margin. Finally, while Barrett favors originalism, she exercises independence from the conservative wing more than any other justice and I have very little concern that she’d entertain such nonsense as this.
It could be that, it’s more likely that this never passes/or is ratified and is effectively a Benghazi or hunter Biden trope that plays well on Fox News.
My bigger fear is that Trump just runs for a 3rd term anyways because who’d stop him? The supreme Court will vote 6:3 that their hands are tied any they can’t keep him off the ballot. And if he’s elected, they’ll rule 6:3 that “well, the Constitution says we can’t do this, but it’d go against the will of the people and would be hard to unwind so we won’t do anything”
They introduce it now, and even some conservatives laugh it off as “just a joke,” but within the next 4 years, it will be raised many more times, each time with them getting more serious. They put it out there like this so it’s less shocking the second, third, and fourth time you hear it. By the end, every conservative bootlicking moron will be lining up to say “presidents should be allowed to have an uninterrupted span of 8 years of rule so as to enact the agenda we ‘voted’ for!”
It’s predictable. I’m going to buy some guns and start hitting the range.
Me too. Arm up, fellow leftists. This is only going to get worse from here.
I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don’t think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened–but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they’d need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.
While I find the Robert’s court troubling, I don’t think they’re capable of such a thing.
Let’s hope I’m right.
I said the same thing about Roe V. Wade. “The SC would never actually over rule it. The women on there wouldn’t stand for it” I said, trying to console my spouse. What a fool I was
I empathize. But Roe v Wade was never a super-precedent and while I support abortion, I (and many legal scholars) found flaws in the notion that a fundamental right to privacy is located in the 14th amendment and that that right extends to abortion. This is why I think it was a mistake that Democrats didn’t codify abortion rights when they had the chance in 2008.
The Supreme Court currently has a majority of batshit insane constitutional originalists.
They are most definitely capable of doing this.
They just have to divine some batshit insane constitutionally originalist argument that justifies it.
I disagree. While I agree that Thomas and Alito are radicalized originalists, the rest of the court is more ambiguous. Roberts is an institutionalist with an incremental approach while Gorsuch favors textualism over originalism and occasionally swings left. Kavanaugh is a textualist with varying degrees of pragmatism on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, I find his jurisprudence to be rather clumsy. But he’s certainly left of Thomas and Alito by a wide margin. Finally, while Barrett favors originalism, she exercises independence from the conservative wing more than any other justice and I have very little concern that she’d entertain such nonsense as this.
It could be that, it’s more likely that this never passes/or is ratified and is effectively a Benghazi or hunter Biden trope that plays well on Fox News.
My bigger fear is that Trump just runs for a 3rd term anyways because who’d stop him? The supreme Court will vote 6:3 that their hands are tied any they can’t keep him off the ballot. And if he’s elected, they’ll rule 6:3 that “well, the Constitution says we can’t do this, but it’d go against the will of the people and would be hard to unwind so we won’t do anything”