He voted to convict because he believe the President and his administration were corrupt. How do you square that with trusting his judgement on lifetime nominations?
Banzai
5414
Maybe romney is gonna pull a mccain when the actual vote for a crazy right wing justice comes up and sticks it in trumps face again. Sad to say that its all we can hope for, but it kind of is.
Menzo
5415
I just donât get it. Why in the world do you think Mitt Romney is going to turn down a justice that will be picked specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade? This is what he wants. This is actually probably something a lot of his constituents want. Heâs going to run on this, not run away from it.
You can hate Trump AND vote for his SC pick.
Trumpâs judgment is really just the Federalist Societyâs judgment in this case, anyway.
Yes, the entire message of the GOP has been we are quite happy with evil if it produces the result we want. If Trumpâs nominee is a conservative who will gut Roe, Romney is surely on board, no matter who makes the nomination and no matter how they make it.
He could vote to convict Trump because 1) it was a demonstration vote which would not result in Trumpâs removal and 2) heâd get the same judges from Pence anyway.
This was my take as well.
Submitted for your consideration, without comment, because I donât really know what I think of it.
Isnâtâ that basically the Trump Doctrine of Judicial Review? Ignore the court?
It does have a sweet FUCK YOU to it.
Enidigm
5421
In other words, just declaring Marbury vs Madison invalid.
Thatâs not quite a constitutional crisis but itâs just another brick in the âwhy are we still one country pileâ when the solution is to pretend the other side doesnât exist.
I would much prefer Court packing to this. Court packing preserves the idea of the judiciary; ignoring the SC more or less ignores or invalidates the concept of judicial review.
Let me be honest these sorts of Context-Emotional-Pseudorational opinion pieces really annoy me and donât do the left justice, because their part of this increasingly widespread notion that the right argument is what gets you what you want right now. But they come out whenever progressives hit a setback.
Another context, like interpreting the 2âd Amendmentâs militia clause more concretely, and these same people would be praising the wisdom of the original constitution. Like a few progressive media types were crossing their fingers and hoping faithless electors would save us, proving the electoral college right⌠until they didnât save us, and the EC goes back to being undemocratic and had to go.
Gore Vidal was saying this decades ago!
Alstein
5423
Judicial review ending would almost certainly lead to one side trying to declare the other party illegal totally, and form a 1-party state.
I think civil war would be inevitable if this happens.
I really think the best scenario right now might be constitutional convention for the purpose of splitting the US, and setting aside funds for folks to move, and plebiscites to join each union, or perhaps a 3rd option of joining neither. Do it peacefully before we get a civil war.
You say this as if you think it is a bad thing?!
CF_Kane
5425
You have the causation backwards. If one party has sufficient support to declare the other party illegal and form a 1-party state, they will not care about judicial review. Judicial review only works as long as people agree that it works.
Timex
5426
In fairness, if you took out the fiasco that McConnell pulled in 2016, it would actually be totally reasonable to say that whoever the sitting president is gets to nominate a justice.
What makes the GOP position totally absurd, is that you have most of the party talking out of both sides of their face, and contradicting their earlier positions.
I do not know if Romney backed that position in 2016.
From that piece:
One potential nominee is Amy Coney Barrett, a hard-line social conservative who has suggested that paper money, West Virginia, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Social Security Administration are all possibly unconstitutional.
How can an amendment be unconstitutional?
Banzai
5428
To be clear, I dont think romney will vote against a trump sc pick. I think we will have that pick rushed through in 2-3 weeks.
Timex
5429
How can paper money be unconstitutional? It existed since the founding of the country.
Tortilla
5430
I think, Romney being Romney, heâs going to vote for anyone qualified for the job. So if Trump nominates a son-in-law or some such nonsense, that wonât fly with Romney. If he nominates an accomplished conservative judge then he will vote yes.
Banzai
5431
wish i had your confidence in him. but i dont see the evidence behind it. he ran our only two national toy store chains out of business and strapped his dog to the roof of the car. dude may have principles in there somewhere, but theyre bad ones.
Menzo
5432
I donât like the idea, but it seems certain that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the court was about to be 6-3 for progressive liberals, the next Republican President would abolish the notion of judicial review.
I donât know if that means the Left should do it first, though.
