A U.S. judge has blocked Biden's new sweeping student loan forgiveness plan before his administration could even roll it out. What borrowers need to know.
So your plan is ignore all of the corrupt appointments?
Until when exactly? Just let them die on the bench in a couple decades?
That’s not fixing anything, it’s ignoring the problem.
Exactly what I’m complaining about. I’m just not sure why I had to say the same thing twice. Is it still not making sense to you that fixing a problem works better than ignoring it?
Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives
You obviously have no problem insisting you know more than me, but are you going to say you know more about it than Yale?
Well, . . . no. Contrary to the orthodoxy, nothing in the Constitution mandates that impeachment be the exclusive method for removing misbehaving judges.
Congress clearly can adopt measures to help the chambers impeach and convict. But Congress can go further and adopt statutes that remove judges upon proof of judicial misbehavior.
Unfortunately Congress adopting statutes to hold hearings on bad behavior still requires the cooperation of Congress according to “Yale”.
And unfortunately being appointed by Trump does not immediately constitute “bad behavior”. I prefer not your plan.
I stated the current process for removal. So no, I don’t agree that the idea of passing a law through Congress so that Congress can make it easier for Biden to remove federal judges in any way whatsoever works around the issue of needing to control House seats before any progress toward these goals can be made.
You can ignore me if you think that is unreasonable.
To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment. You would have to take an untested claim to court, prove it, then still to apply that process to remove judges case by case after. Unfortunately, it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court. I just can’t see us convincing 6 of those justices to accept consequences for their and their party’s actions. This would be a hell of a legal long shot.
There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress.
I know you’re arguing against fixing stuff,
What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.
Just like Obama didn’t need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there’s nothing saying they have to.
So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.
Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.
Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating…
Which is why I’m probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.
If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing…
I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What’s weird is after I block one of them, it’s common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren’t getting any other new replies.
So your plan is ignore all of the corrupt appointments?
Until when exactly? Just let them die on the bench in a couple decades?
That’s not fixing anything, it’s ignoring the problem.
Exactly what I’m complaining about. I’m just not sure why I had to say the same thing twice. Is it still not making sense to you that fixing a problem works better than ignoring it?
Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives
You have no plan and no idea what you are even complaining about.
You obviously have no problem insisting you know more than me, but are you going to say you know more about it than Yale?
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment
Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean no one else does.
Unfortunately Congress adopting statutes to hold hearings on bad behavior still requires the cooperation of Congress according to “Yale”.
And unfortunately being appointed by Trump does not immediately constitute “bad behavior”. I prefer not your plan.
Before I keep going (because honestly I’m losing faith I can explain this in a way you’ll understand) do you agree that you were wrong?
If you can’t do that, then there’s no point in me putting more effort into helping.
I stated the current process for removal. So no, I don’t agree that the idea of passing a law through Congress so that Congress can make it easier for Biden to remove federal judges in any way whatsoever works around the issue of needing to control House seats before any progress toward these goals can be made.
You can ignore me if you think that is unreasonable.
You’re not able to explain this in a way that any rational and sensible human can understand. Hence the consistent downvotes.
To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment. You would have to take an untested claim to court, prove it, then still to apply that process to remove judges case by case after. Unfortunately, it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court. I just can’t see us convincing 6 of those justices to accept consequences for their and their party’s actions. This would be a hell of a legal long shot.
And on 1/5/20, to my knowledge no sitting president had organized a coup to keep power…
The difference is this would be legal.
Add 6 justices, that goes to SC and they rule expanding the SC is fine and has happened before.
Kick out the lower judges, if it goes to the SC, that’s fine. Because we’ve already taken back the majority.
I know you’re arguing against fixing stuff, but your arguent basically boils down to:
I agree.
Where we disagree is I want to fix everything, so it’s all fixed.
And you think we should fix…
Nothing?
There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress.
What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.
We dont need congress to expand the SC court…
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/
Just like Obama didn’t need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there’s nothing saying they have to.
So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.
Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating…
Which is why I’m probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.
If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing…
I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What’s weird is after I block one of them, it’s common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren’t getting any other new replies.
Could it be a giant coincidence?
Sure but I just don’t think it’s likely.
Literally all four of those options require legislation to move through the halls of Congress. Did you even read that source?