Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Trump's Worst Lawyer ft. Liz Dye" video.

There isn't technically, but due to the fact that the President can nominate whomever he likes and the Senate doesn't even have to have confirmation hearings, it leads to a situation where the party that gets justices on the court can select ones that they expect to rule the way that they like on at least the important issues.
14
@GorgeDawes TBF, the focus of the channel really hasn't changed that much, it's still focused on the law. It's just that the law that everybody is wondering about is tied up in all the illegal and unconstitutional things that a political figure and his political appointees are doing.
9
He remembered that it's easier to rebrand a swamp to a "water hazard" and make money collecting the balls that fall in.
8
Sort of, most actual conservatives vote blue these days, and most actual lefties and progressives flat out don't have a party as the Democrats have moved further and further to the right.
1
@BeanManolo I'm increasingly convinced that we need a constitutional amendment to fix the SCOTUS situation once and for all. The POTUS should be restricted to using somebody from a list that is provided to him or her from a bipartisan Senate committee. The Senate should be required to hold hearings and and have an up or down vote on any of the folks that are nominated. That right there would help remove at least the worst actors from the pool of appointees and allow for a more thorough vetting process as they could be given a preliminary vetting before they go on the list and then again during the confirmation hearings.
1
@DDUU11 The good news of sorts is that there are special elections that are coming at the beginning of April to fill some of the seats that were vacated by Floridian politicians that joined the administration. There's 2 house seats and I haven't seen any indication of when the Senate seat will go up for election. But, if the Senate seat doesn't go up for election before the shit hits the fan with respect to social security checks, it will likely go blue. Or at least to a Republican that has the balls to say no to at least some of this nonsense. Also, trump is only about halfway through his first hundred days and has gotten his plans tied up in court. There's a bunch of folks across the country that are very angry at him and midterm election season is only about 8 and a half months away. Meaning that it just takes the Democrats, Lincoln Project and various AGs tying things up in court and dragging things out as much as possible before you get the opportunity to start voting these POS out. And, even in a normal cycle with sane people holding office, the party that holds the Whitehouse usually loses seats in the House and/or Senate and that's especially true if one party controls all three. The American people tend to be rather nervous with one party having too much power for reasons that we're seeing every day.
1
Considering how much of a fan the GOP is of literacy tests, perhaps we could have literacy tests for people that want to be federal judges.
1
@MarkRobbo96 The US has far, far more judges, some individual states have more judges than the entirety of the UK. And on top of that, we've also got the federal court system. On top of that there are huge numbers of potential judges to be picked, if you want somebody that can rule reliably the way you like, you can usually find a bunch of lawyers that would be willing to do that unironically as judges.
1
@TesterAnimal1 We used to, the way it's set up is that the President nominates justices and the Senate confirms them. However, ever since Bork was denied his seat, there's been a bunch of partisan hackery going on to try and deny nominees their place on the court. In the case of Bork, he was a hack and somebody that Nixon had used to fire the prosecutor that was looking into his crimes after others had quit in protest.
1
The problem there is that you're assuming that people who didn't vote for Trump are people. Clearly we aren't, so crimes against us are not that big of a deal.
1