Will President Trump compromise on Supreme Court nominations because Clinton won the popular vote and Democrats represent nearly half of the Congress?
No. The only leverage Democrats have is the filibuster in the Senate. The popular vote has no influence. If Democrats use the filibuster carefully they may be able to persuade Republicans to moderate their choice of candidates. If they behave as the Republicans did, they may succeed in getting Republicans to eliminate the filibuster so that they will have no influence. The best hope for Democrats is that Trump is a loose cannon who may nominate someone unexpected. Republicans might not like his nominees either.
I need to know these things about the supreme court...?
What is the supreme court? what does it do? how many people are members of the Supreme Court and how long do they hold their office and how do they recieve office? please please write back! thanks!! :]
Under what circumstances would the supreme court overturn Roe v Wade?
Under what circumstances would the supreme court overturn Roe v Wade?A2A.The sequence of events would be something like this.1 Some state . . . South Dakota, let’s say, passes a law outlawing abortions.2 A woman, seeking an abortion, is turned away by a clinic, citing the state’s new law,3 The woman sues.4 The State fights the lawsuit.5 The State is going to lose at every level, pretty much, because every court is going to cite Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.6 Regardless,at every level, whichever side loses appeals it to the next higher court.7 Eventually it arrives at the Supreme Court’s doorstep.8 SCOTUS must then decide if it will hear the case. It takes four votes for the Court to agree to hear a case, and it’s by no means a certainty that a case of this type would get the four votes. That is because most Justices do not vote to hear a case unless there is some new area of law in the case that has not been previously addressed by the Court. Or some emergent situation, like the Bush/Gore Florida recount, Nixon having to hand over the Watergate tapes, etc.8A In the case of this hypothetical law against abortion, what is the State’s argument that any new area of the law would be addressed? It’s not 100% clear to me what it would be. But anyway, moving along in this hypothetical situation:9 SCOTUS decides to take the case9A Note that if SCOTUS votes not to hear the case, the ruling the last lower Court (in this hypothetical case it would be the Eighth Circuit, as they cover South Dakota) would stand.10 SCOTUS hears the case and could rule that Roe v. Wade is invalid, and that abortion is a matter for each state to determine. In that outcome the South Dakota law would stand and the woman would have to go to another state to get her abortion (which in reality she would’ve probably done anyway since courts move much slower than pregnancies). Many other states would pass laws making abortion explicitly legal with few exceptions, and some would follow South Dakota’s lead and outlaw it, some in almost all cases.Or they could uphold Roe v. Wade. They could change the viability standard, to take into account advances in technology since 1973.Despite what many have said, mostly in the media, it’s hardly a foregone conclusion that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, regardless of who is on the Court.
What is a recent political example of the strength of the constitutional system?
The resignation of Attorney General Gonzalez is one recent example. He was called to answer for some questionable actions by the Senate, knowing that they could impeach him if necessary according to the Constitution. While it was very unlikely to go that far, the knowledge that they had that ultimate authority made him choose resignation instead of just rely on President Bush's pledges of support. Other examples: the Harriet Miars appointment going down in flames and the nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Had Bush had his way, Bolton would still be at the UN, and Harriet Miars would have been on the Supreme Court. But, the Senate's lack of support in their role of advising and consenting made the president withdraw these nominees. The president's veto of the SCHIP expansion is yet another: Congress' inability to garner the Constitutionally-required two-thirds vote keeps this bill from becoming law. There is yet another that is on-going: Congress' current refusal to approve the president's request for supplemental funding of the Iraq War. While the Constitution make the president commander in chief of the armed forces, it give Congress the so-called "power of the purse"--the authority and obligation to approve funding for the military and the government at large. Reading some of the other fine answers, it appears that several people understand the "Bill of Rights," but not so much the CONSTITUTION to which the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.
Can the currently sitting judges who ruled in the majority on Bush v. Gore in 2000 be impeached because of the unconstitutional and some would say illegal nature of the decision?
IF Democrats gain control of Congress and the Senate, they may go on an impeachment spree, impeaching any Republican anywhere. It will make Nixon’s Saturday massacre look saintly in comparison. Actually there is a case to be made that the Gore Supreme Court ruling was inappropriate & unconstitutional. The purpose of Supreme Court rulings is to set precedent for other cases. It was very odd that at the end of the Gore ruling, the Court said the case could not be used as precedent for any other case. Vincent Bugliosi pointed that out, as proof the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush. Had it been a legitimate ruling it would have been used as legal precedent for future similar situations. The Supreme Court ruled for Bush solely to steal the election, without lawful authority. IF the Supreme Court really believed its own ruling, it would have accepted it, welcomed it as precedent for future cases. Democrats though would probably instead adopt a court packing scheme similar to FDR’s plan to increase the justices from 9 to `15. A new Democrat controlled Congress will probably increase it to 25 or 55, giving jobs to all unemployed attorneys. Expect Comey & Mueller to be some of those 55 or more. Whatever happens, impeachment of Clarence Thomas might be a major victim in the plot. Mueller might indict him now, to the cheers of racist Democrats everywhere. Democrats hate Afro-Americans who won’t stay on the liberal plantation as slaves. To be fair, Bush did steal the election from Gore, and also from Kerry, using Chuck Hagel’s voting machines that flipped votes to Republican. Chuck Hagel then befriended Obama and helped Obama steal 2 elections, so in a sense the stealing cancelled out. Hagel stole his own election to the Senate. He’s had practice. If Kennedy retires, Kavanaugh’s nomination be held up, and Thomas indicted, Democrats can retake the Supreme Court. They’re considering similar plans right now. Mueller will squeeze some attorneys to lie about Thomas. Mueller is good at that strategy. Mueller’s only real talent.