Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[untermensche]

Deliberately refusing to do your Constitutional duty is.

Still don't see where 'inaction' is an 'attack.'

Nowhere in the D&D charts is there a table 'roll for inaction' that leads to damage done to an opponent.

I've made my point.

In my society elected representatives are afraid to refuse to do their duties.

In the society allowed by people here they are not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, if uber's stance is that fucking with another branch's operation is treason, then any time they wrote or changed that law would be treason, wouldn't it? Establishing the number changes the 'normal function' of the court, pretty much by definition.

WOW!

You've finally discovered the Court is defined in law.

You've taken your first baby step from complete ignorance.

What is with the attitude?!

- - - Updated - - -

Still don't see where 'inaction' is an 'attack.'

Nowhere in the D&D charts is there a table 'roll for inaction' that leads to damage done to an opponent.

I've made my point.

In my society elected representatives are afraid to refuse to do their duties.

In the society allowed by people here they are not.

You need to have standing to sue in court.

 

[untermensche]

You need to have standing to sue in court.

It's an attack of the government.

Attorney General.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still don't see where 'inaction' is an 'attack.'

Nowhere in the D&D charts is there a table 'roll for inaction' that leads to damage done to an opponent.

I've made my point.

In my society elected representatives are afraid to refuse to do their duties.

In the society allowed by people here they are not.

Your POINT was that people playing at partisan politics should receive the death penalty.
That's exactly the sort of thing the founding fathers wanted to get away from.

So it's not a new idea, it's a very old one, that we've rightfully rejected.
Insults and hyperbole are not advancing your point.

 

[untermensche]

I've made my point.

In my society elected representatives are afraid to refuse to do their duties.

In the society allowed by people here they are not.

Your POINT was that people playing at partisan politics should receive the death penalty.
That's exactly the sort of thing the founding fathers wanted to get away from.

So it's not a new idea, it's a very old one, that we've rightfully rejected.
Insults and hyperbole are not advancing your point.

They are not playing anything.

They are doing real damage.

Every decision by the Court is distorted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The law was passed in 1869.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice  of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall  constitute a quorum.

You need to have standing to sue in court.

It's an attack of the government.

Attorney General.

Does the law indicate how long is allowed before the Congress is in violation of the law? A quorum of six is necessary, so the court can operate without nine.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The law was passed in 1869.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice  of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall  constitute a quorum.

It's an attack of the government.

Attorney General.

Does the law indicate how long is allowed before the Congress is in violation of the law? A quorum of six is necessary, so the court can operate without nine.

Well, by the wishy washiness of Thomas's dissents today, I'd say more than one seat is open.

 

[untermensche]

The law was passed in 1869.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice  of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall  constitute a quorum.

It's an attack of the government.

Attorney General.

Does the law indicate how long is allowed before the Congress is in violation of the law? A quorum of six is necessary, so the court can operate without nine.

The presidents nomination is like an order to begin the nominating process.

It must begin immediately.

Every day it is delayed the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is in contempt.

That is how it should be. But a delay beyond what could be considered reasonable, since that will be decided at the trial.

The Judiciary Committee has no greater duty than to maintain the integrity of the SC. The highest level of justice available within the government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The law was passed in 1869.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice  of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall  constitute a quorum.

Does the law indicate how long is allowed before the Congress is in violation of the law? A quorum of six is necessary, so the court can operate without nine.

The presidents nomination is like an order to begin the nominating process.

It must begin immediately.

Every day it is delayed the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is in contempt.

That is how it should be. But a delay beyond what could be considered reasonable, since that will be decided at the trial.

The Judiciary Committee has no greater duty than to maintain the integrity of the SC. The highest level of justice available within the government.

Immediately? Gorsuch hasn't had a hearing yet. So we string Grassley up twice?

 

[jonatha]

So we string Grassley up twice?

Sounds like he'd have to be quartered....

 

[untermensche]

The presidents nomination is like an order to begin the nominating process.

It must begin immediately.

Every day it is delayed the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is in contempt.

That is how it should be. But a delay beyond what could be considered reasonable, since that will be decided at the trial.

The Judiciary Committee has no greater duty than to maintain the integrity of the SC. The highest level of justice available within the government.

Immediately? Gorsuch hasn't had a hearing yet. So we string Grassley up twice?

The process has started. Hearings occur after investigations and background checks.

But I said that is how it should be.

Ultimately it would be up to the Attorney General to make a case.

If the Committee has legitimate business then there may be reasons for delay.

But if it does absolutely nothing then that is willful dereliction of duty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Immediately? Gorsuch hasn't had a hearing yet. So we string Grassley up twice?

The process has started. Hearings occur after investigations and background checks.

But I said that is how it should be.

Ultimately it would be up to the Attorney General to make a case.

If the Committee has legitimate business then there may be reasons for delay.

But if it does absolutely nothing then that is willful dereliction of duty.

"willful dereliction of duty" isn't "treason".

 

[untermensche]

The process has started. Hearings occur after investigations and background checks.

But I said that is how it should be.

Ultimately it would be up to the Attorney General to make a case.

If the Committee has legitimate business then there may be reasons for delay.

But if it does absolutely nothing then that is willful dereliction of duty.

"willful dereliction of duty" isn't "treason".

I see it differently.

I see deliberately distorting the working of government as a treasonous attack of that government.

I see it as an attack of the will of all people that put a president in office. An attack of the democratic process.

It is despotism. A few people making their will dictator over the whole system.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"willful dereliction of duty" isn't "treason".

I see it differently.

Does anyone else?
Has anyone else ever formally charged people with treason for this sort of thing?
Is there any official interpretation of the term 'treason' that even vaguely matches your view, or is it a personal fantasy of yours?

 

[untermensche]

I see it differently.

Does anyone else?
Has anyone else ever formally charged people with treason for this sort of thing?
Is there any official interpretation of the term 'treason' that even vaguely matches your view, or is it a personal fantasy of yours?

Where do you think you are?

The most I can do here is present the logic of my position.

I consider a willful attack of the government an act of war. Willfully causing or allowing SC decisions to be distorted is a willful attack.

Waging war on the government fits the definition of treason.

It is no more complicated than that.

I can only present it. I can defend it and have. But I can't force anybody to accept it.

If you think a willful attack of the government is not treason then you have very strange definitions.