Without going off on a tangent to keep from admitting that you forgot the political question doctrine, can you explain how and under what authority Roberts would refuse to "allow a vote" to proceed?
The Supreme Court decided for itself along time ago that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all questions of Constitutional interpretation. And, outside the amendment process, no one has or can do anything about that. Further, John Roberts has already shown us that he is willing to exercise extra-judicial authority to achieve what he thinks must be done in order to protect the Court, its traditions and reputation. In any event, again, let us see what the future brings. If the House impeaches Trump because of his hair and skin color or some such similar nonsense, I will be willing to bet you "the house" Roberts will not let it stand.
How do you reconcile that with the political question doctrine? Just look it up. It's OK. I don't remember oil and gas. It's OK for you not to remember this. He has never done anything like what you're suggesting. Earl Warren never did anything like what you're suggesting. Do keep in mind that Roberts presides, not the Court. If he decides as presiding officer not to allow a vote on something, he isn't protecting the Court at all or its traditions or its reputation. He'd be asserting his own authority, not the Court's.
And, yes, Roberts has already made scheiße (in honor of the Merkel visit) up in for extra-judicial reasons. We have a remedy when the lower courts exceed their Constitutional authority. But what remedy do we have when the Supremes do it? We we have none (outside the above), although I would like to see someone, someday put impeachment on the table.
So you can't reconcile your prediction with the political question doctrine. And the irony of this is that you're suggesting that Roberts prohibiting the Senate from voting on impeachment articles is a check on the Court. It's the opposite. It is the ultimate assertion of judicial power on Congress.
I was actually responding to your hidden stalker who thought it was cool to add Trump supporters to the cult list.
Does /r//the_donald = all Trump Supporters? I don't think so thus I'd kindly ask you to not attribute to me things I did not claim. What I did point out is that like much of what JoeFan posts, the "crazy" is only from one side. "Crazy" exist on all sides, generally in the extreme areas like /r//the_donald.
Perhaps you could have said "some". That would be much clearer. Some of us don't know much about Reddit.
Ex-Bush Adminstration Ethics lead and currently frequent Trump critic will be running as a Democrat for Al Franken's vacated Senate seat in Minnesota.
West Virginia Senate candidate Blankenship released an ad in which he calls McConnell "Cocaine Mitch"! The party establishment has been trying to get him to drop out of the primary race for a chance to defeat Joe Manchin. The D's have reportedly put money in support of Blankenship. He's gone from leading to 3rd in the primary that occurs later this week. The R's feel Manchin is beatable but not by Blankenship, the most ardent Trump supporter you'll find anywhere. Who is Blankenship? A Coal mine operator who spent a year in jail after many safety violations that led to a deadly accident. He also lives in Las Vegas.
Two things are funny about this. First, there's probably nobody who fits the stereotype of a coke head less than Mitch McConnell. The guy looks like a turtle - the epitome of dorkiness. Second, the racial slur he used warrants consideration. He said "Chinaperson." Of course, the actual slur is "Chinaman." So he's willing to publicly use a racial slur, but he's sensitive and politically correct enough to use the gender-neutral version of it. I find that a bit ironic.
I wonder how this is going to work. Obviously Painter has been a fierce Trump critic since the beginning, which, of course, helps in a Democratic primary. However, he has also been a Republican for years, and he wasn't a Lowell Weicker or Lincoln Chaffee. Those guys have been considered far left by GOP standards since at least WWII. Painter was a Republican in the Bush/McCain/Romney era. That means he has almost undoubtedly taken positions on issues that are an anathema to Democratic primary voters. I'm sure he favored the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and at least some restrictions in abortion and gay issues. Is he just going to flip flop on all that? If so, will primary voters be suspicious of him, or will his hostility to Trump be enough to overlook it? He also doesn't fit the profile of Minnesota senators from either party. Most of them haven't been hyperpartisan (even if some of them were pretty liberal) and haven't been big camera hogs. Al Franken was somewhat of an exception, but even he toned it down by his standards. Perhaps it's the influence of the "farmer" element in the DFL, but most have been fairly reserved and pragmatic in their rhetoric. That's not Richard Painter.
The only time Painter reached my radar was in his anti-Trump TV appearances. Has he staked out conservative positions previously? I assumed he was a behind the scenes dude which would make it easier for him to flip.
I'm sure that's the narrative that he's going to try to push, but the guy worked for people hated by the Left pretty recent years. People can forgive him for working for a conservative federal judge. He was very young at the time. It's a little like Paul Krugman working for the Reagan Administration. However, Painter held a position that put him in direct contact with President Bush. He may have been cautious about taking public positions, but liberals don't get hired for gigs like that. As recently as 2016, he referred to his "commitment to conservative values," albeit in a piece endorsing Hillary but mitigates that support by saying she's too big of domestic spender. It's just a weird arrangement. A guy is a loyal Republican for decades with "conservative values," and he ends up getting a job with a George Soros front group and then running as a liberal Democrat for Senate. It's suspicious. It's not suspicious that he leaves his party. After Trump, that sort of thing was bound to happen, but people with "conservative values" usually don't usually run as and certainly don't win or even be competitive in Democratic primaries. What's he going to do on specific issues if he wins? Is he going to vote the conservative values he claimed to have less than two years ago? If he is, then he'll necessarily end up voting with Trump a significant amount of the time. That's not gonna look good. Will he turn into a latter day Paul Wellstone but with far more partisanship? If he does, the I think a voter has to wonder whether he was an unprincipled hack in 2016 or whether he's one now. If I was Minnesota Democrat, I'd just stick with the incumbent. Like other Minnesota senators, she's a pragmatic liberal who largely goes about doing her job.
At the R-Senate primary debate in WV, the 3 candidates were asked to raise their hand in support of Mitch McConnell None did Hopefully this race is a net +1 for the Rs in the Senate http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/01/west-virginia-gop-senate-candidates-mitch-mcconnell/
That's a really bad attempt to adopt Trump's persona. I read that Don Jr. has urged voters to vote for the other two candidates.
Recent polling shows 5 Senate Dem incumbents are behind in polling. It will be impossible for Dems not to lose seats.
