Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official*** 25th Amendment Thread


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Tolstoy said:

I tend to agree, but let’s say hypothetically it wasn’t and there was general concern for his fitness due to health, mental capacity, etc. How would that look different?

This happened after a positive COVID test.  So I would just assume it's related to COVID-19.  He was discharged home from the hospital.  If he were on the ventilator in the ICU, ok.  

If he's at home in quarantine...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sadly, its been a legitimate option for a long time. Still, if he isn't removed through the 25th, then the 25th is worthless.  If he isn't impeached and convicted by the end of the week, the impeachme

It's time. Like today.

When you have people literally storming the capital building, we're past the "escalation" point.  The only legitimate option now is to remove Trump from office so he can't do any more damage and arres

What's the benefit of doing this now?  Attempt to slow stall SCOTUS pick?  Seems like things are going well for the democrats lately election-wise? 

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lehigh98 said:

What's the benefit of doing this now?  Attempt to slow stall SCOTUS pick?  Seems like things are going well for the democrats lately election-wise? 

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

That's about the only thing I could think of - her comments make it out to say we need something like this "just in case" (my words, not necessarily hers).  But I'm with you, the timing on this is tenuous at best.  Biden has all the momentum.  Not to mention, they've spent 3.5 plus years telling people he doesn't know what he's doing, isn't getting anything done.  Maybe him sending tweets all day, every day for the next 25 days is the best thing for all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lehigh98 said:

What's the benefit of doing this now?  Attempt to slow stall SCOTUS pick?  Seems like things are going well for the democrats lately election-wise? 

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Maybe to prevent nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it.

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Mammy said:

Maybe to prevent nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it.

That's a good reason.  I remember a long time ago in Civics class where I was taught generals wouldn't authorize an attack of any kind from a compromised or disabled POTUS but I think all of that is out the window these days. :(

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

For the record, I would have fully supported removing Trump under the 25th amendment earlier in his term. 

The benefit-cost ratio of doing it a few weeks from an election is highly unfavorable.  

I completely agree.  This is exactly the kind of thing the Democrats should NOT be doing right now.  They have this in the bag, the goal is to not do anything stupid. This qualifies as something stupid (at this juncture).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Mammy said:

Maybe to prevent nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it.

You think Trump is going to go all Bush on us and try to boost his popularity with a war?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

What am I missing here? I thought this was a bill and would really affect future presidents and not the current situation? 

Correct.  Pelosi herself said she doesn't expect it to be taken up until next year.  I'm not sure what her motivation for bringing it up now is.  Maybe it's just a way for her to point a spotlight on Trumps erratic mental state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HellToupee said:

People can’t see the forest for the trees . This is all about Biden

:goodposting:

They are doing to so if Biden were to win they can pull him out and stick Kamala in. Biden isn’t playing ball willingly apparently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:
1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

:goodposting:

They are doing to so if Biden were to win they can pull him out and stick Kamala in. Biden isn’t playing ball willingly apparently.

lol you guys are amazing

It really is amazing how no fact can ever stop them. They instantaneously pivot to the next conspiracy. No apologies, no self-reflection. Just conspiracies and fake news.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

By far the main reason why I'm voting for Biden is because I think it's crucially important to restore some respect for rules and norms in government.  Pelosi is normally pretty good on this sort of thing, but she's not filling me with confidence here.

 

Why do you think this is a bad idea? I'm not saying its a good idea RIGHT NOW. But if she had brought this up in January, I think I would support it (with the caveat that the devil is in the details).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

Why do you think this is a bad idea? I'm not saying its a good idea RIGHT NOW. But if she had brought this up in January, I think I would support it (with the caveat that the devil is in the details).

My bad.  To clarify, I think it's a bad idea RIGHT NOW, this close to an election in which Trump is on pace to get steamrolled.  If this conversation were happening 12 months ago, you and I would almost certainly be in agreement.

I know I'm jinxing us here, but we are very close to the end of the Trump administration, and I don't want any new dynamics injected into the race.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

By far the main reason why I'm voting for Biden is because I think it's crucially important to restore some respect for rules and norms in government.  Pelosi is normally pretty good on this sort of thing, but she's not filling me with confidence here.

I already did. By mail and everything. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

:goodposting:

They are doing to so if Biden were to win they can pull him out and stick Kamala in. Biden isn’t playing ball willingly apparently.

Why would she want to do that...she would have a much easier job pushing Biden around than Kamala.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2020 at 2:55 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

By far the main reason why I'm voting for Biden is because I think it's crucially important to restore some respect for rules and norms in government.  Pelosi is normally pretty good on this sort of thing, but she's not filling me with confidence here.

I would align with this line of thinking much more IF Biden or Harris would categorically say they would respect the norms and rules of not tinkering with packing the supreme court. That, in itself, is a rule and norm that I think would be very abnormal if they go tat route and shouldn't be hard to just say "of course we aren't going to mess with something as old as the constitution our founding fathers put into place.  But since they won't and since this is actually an idea that has been floated around for a few years now, I can't back Biden as the guy that will lead with normalcy.  That ship sailed from the port when the far left took control of the Democratic party and this seed of the 25th Amendment might be (maybe not but sure looks coinky dinky) part of that (let's drum up something very "not normal" and start planting the crops that will come to harvest once he's won and we don't need him anymore.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shutout said:

I would align with this line of thinking much more IF Biden or Harris would categorically say they would respect the norms and rules of not tinkering with packing the supreme court. That, in itself, is a rule and norm that I think would be very abnormal if they go tat route and shouldn't be hard to just say "of course we aren't going to mess with something as old as the constitution our founding fathers put into place.  But since they won't and since this is actually an idea that has been floated around for a few years now, I can't back Biden as the guy that will lead with normalcy.  That ship sailed from the port when the far left took control of the Democratic party and this seed of the 25th Amendment might be (maybe not but sure looks coinky dinky) part of that (let's drum up something very "not normal" and start planting the crops that will come to harvest once he's won and we don't need him anymore.

 

 

They would respect the rule as it comes to court packing.   They wouldn’t be making the rule, congress would.  If they signed it...it would be be within the rule as congress would have you know, made the rule.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

They would respect the rule as it comes to court packing.   They wouldn’t be making the rule, congress would.  If they signed it...it would be be within the rule as congress would have you know, made the rule.

If it were that simple, no one would be asking the presidential candidates about it. They would be asking Congress.  You're playing with words and theories and you know it.  

The reality is things like this get zero traction unless the man or woman sitting in the oval office wants it.  

I personally do not think Biden, himself, is too keen on packing the courts but he can't shoot it down because it would cut against the far left in his party that he needs to retain.  That, in itself, speaks volumes.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shutout said:
24 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

They would respect the rule as it comes to court packing.   They wouldn’t be making the rule, congress would.  If they signed it...it would be be within the rule as congress would have you know, made the rule.

If it were that simple, no one would be asking the presidential candidates about it. They would be asking Congress.  You're playing with words and theories and you know it.  

Having a 9-person Supreme Court is not a "rule"; the slated size of the court has actually changed several times since this country was founded.

I, too, would prefer to see Biden emphatically disavow the question, simply because it's ultimately Congress's decision to make, not his. But I'm not outraged by his waffly responses, as they're not much different from Trump's trademark "We'll see." It's just politics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Having a 9-person Supreme Court is not a "rule"; the slated size of the court has actually changed several times since this country was founded.

I, too, would prefer to see Biden emphatically disavow the question, simply because it's ultimately Congress's decision to make, not his. But I'm not outraged by his waffly responses, as they're not much different from Trump's trademark "We'll see." It's just politics.

It hasn't changed several times and it has been 9 since 1869.  150 years is probably long enough to be considered a trend and tradition strong enough to make the point and be considered the norm (which is the point of the reply).  If something has been almost exactly the same for 200+ years and exactly the same for 150 years, my point was if someone is wanting to go against that for not commit to it, then that IS going against the norm in this case.  

 

Edited by Shutout
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shutout said:

If it were that simple, no one would be asking the presidential candidates about it. They would be asking Congress.  You're playing with words and theories and you know it.  

The reality is things like this get zero traction unless the man or woman sitting in the oval office wants it.  

I personally do not think Biden, himself, is too keen on packing the courts but he can't shoot it down because it would cut against the far left in his party that he needs to retain.  That, in itself, speaks volumes.  

Biden is no stranger to cutting against the far left on every other issue, may as well do it here too

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shutout said:
1 hour ago, [scooter] said:

Having a 9-person Supreme Court is not a "rule"; the slated size of the court has actually changed several times since this country was founded.

I, too, would prefer to see Biden emphatically disavow the question, simply because it's ultimately Congress's decision to make, not his. But I'm not outraged by his waffly responses, as they're not much different from Trump's trademark "We'll see." It's just politics.

It hasn't changed several times

Come on, guy.

1789: 6
1801: 5
1802: 6
1807: 7
1837: 9
1863: 10
1866: 7
1869: 9

 link

The actual size of the court didn't always change right away (because the legislation did not apply to incumbent justices), but that doesn't change the fact that the slated size of the court changed a total of 7 times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2020 at 1:25 PM, bagger said:
On 10/9/2020 at 11:53 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

For the record, I would have fully supported removing Trump under the 25th amendment earlier in his term. 

The benefit-cost ratio of doing it a few weeks from an election is highly unfavorable.  

I completely agree.  This is exactly the kind of thing the Democrats should NOT be doing right now.  They have this in the bag, the goal is to not do anything stupid. This qualifies as something stupid (at this juncture).

:goodposting:

I guess it's a good thing I didn't even know this was going on until I saw this thread.  Pelosi can't get out of her own way....SSDD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shutout said:

It hasn't changed several times and it has been 9 since 1869.  150 years is probably long enough to be considered a trend and tradition strong enough to make the point and be considered the norm (which is the point of the reply).  If something has been almost exactly the same for 200+ years and exactly the same for 150 years, my point was if someone is wanting to go against that for not commit to it, then that IS going against the norm in this case.  

 

You'd think...this administration's blown through countless "norms" as you've defined here.  The precedent on this no longer exists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KiddLattimer said:

Biden is no stranger to cutting against the far left on every other issue, may as well do it here too

But the true danger is he may not and that is a huge, huge risk or that his running mate ends up in the seat and we know from her voting record she won't hold back. 

Edited by Shutout
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Come on, guy.

1789: 6
1801: 5
1802: 6
1807: 7
1837: 9
1863: 10
1866: 7
1869: 9

 link

The actual size of the court didn't always change right away (because the legislation did not apply to incumbent justices), but that doesn't change the fact that the slated size of the court changed a total of 7 times.

Gonna have to give you a Joe Biden "come on, man" yourself.  

It has changed 7 times in 230+ years. Clearly it is something that sets a strong norm for multiple generations at a time. 

2 of those 7 times were completely political and then adjusted.  In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.

As you can see the last two times was purely political, was corrected and has remained exactly the same for more than 150 years.  It is clear the "norm" is where it is now. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself, was interviewed a number of years ago where she opined that 9 was exactly where it should be and that is why she believed it had not been monkeyed with for 125+ years at the time. She also opined back then that packing the supreme court should not happen, FWIW. She said it would turn to be as we are now discussing and that the judicial branch should never be a partisan extension of another branch.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shutout said:

Gonna have to give you a Joe Biden "come on, man" yourself.  

It has changed 7 times in 230+ years. Clearly it is something that sets a strong norm for multiple generations at a time. 

2 of those 7 times were completely political and then adjusted.  In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.

As you can see the last two times was purely political, was corrected and has remained exactly the same for more than 150 years.  It is clear the "norm" is where it is now. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself, was interviewed a number of years ago where she opined that 9 was exactly where it should be and that is why she believed it had not been monkeyed with for 125+ years at the time. She also opined back then that packing the supreme court should not happen, FWIW. She said it would turn to be as we are now discussing and that the judicial branch should never be a partisan extension of another branch.  

which is exactly why what McConnell has done in 2016 and then in 2020 is so disgusting.

I am against this packing the court business because two wrongs doesn't make a right, but something needs to be done about this.  We have got to have some statute clearly defining when the Senate must bring forth a confirmation and when not, with respect to timing of a presidential election.  That will never happen as McConnell (or Democratic Senate leader) would never vote against their own self interest, so we are stuck with this hyper-partisan shenanigans. 

It's not good for the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 3:26 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

If you have to go back to 1869 to find a counter-example, you've proved our case that this is an established norm.

Oh we respecting norms all of a sudden? Weird how that happens when dems get a chance at the tiller. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jackstraw said:

Oh we respecting norms all of a sudden? Weird how that happens when dems get a chance at the tiller. 

One argument I keep hearing is since the people voted for a Republican president and Senate then they have the will of the people. Guess you can use the same argument for the Democrats if the packing the SC happens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's normal to respect congressional subpeonas. It's normal to call witnesses under oath during a impeachment. It's normal to get senate approval for your department heads. It's normal not to receive direct benefits to your businesses from your government activities. It's normal not to call for the DOJ to arrest your political enemies. It's normal not to solicit foreign interference in elections. It's normal to practice fundamental safety precautions during an epidemic. It's normal not to fire inspector generals when they start investigations. It's normal not to pardon political allies involved in your investigation. Etc Etc Etc. 

NORMS. Please with that garbage.   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, moleculo said:

which is exactly why what McConnell has done in 2016 and then in 2020 is so disgusting.

I am against this packing the court business because two wrongs doesn't make a right, but something needs to be done about this.  We have got to have some statute clearly defining when the Senate must bring forth a confirmation and when not, with respect to timing of a presidential election.  That will never happen as McConnell (or Democratic Senate leader) would never vote against their own self interest, so we are stuck with this hyper-partisan shenanigans. 

It's not good for the country.

I think you have not seen the part of this that says in the 29 times a seat has come available during an election year, a nomination has been made by the sitting president, regardless of the party they represented all 29 times. In the times that the senate was aligned with the president, it largely passed. In the times it did not, it largely did not. 

It has been incredibly consistent from both parties. This is nothing new. 

We already know clearly when a confirmation is needed to be nominated. It is when a vacancy opens. It has been carried out by every president, regardless of party every single time. There is nothing strange at all about this. We, the people, elected the people in office until a certain date. If a vacancy occurs, those people are OBLIGATED to do their jobs. They do it and the people WE ELECTED that are in power at the time make that decision. 

I agree we need no court packing. The idea of using power to get the effect they want when it doesn't go a certain way as the rules were set up is exactly why we are here today. Had Harry Reid not eliminated the filibuster (which Mitch McConnell warned him would blow up in their face at the time), we would not even be having this discussion.  So, no, two wrongs don't make a right but it appears it is being threatened to happen. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jackstraw said:

Oh we respecting norms all of a sudden? Weird how that happens when dems get a chance at the tiller. 

It's literally the only reason I voted for Biden.  If the Democratic party follows your advice and starts acting all Trumpy, I'm out.  I have a very comfortable life and there's really no particular reason why I need to vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

It's literally the only reason I voted for Biden.  If the Democratic party follows your advice and starts acting all Trumpy, I'm out.  I have a very comfortable life and there's really no particular reason why I need to vote.

Do you think its unsustainable that when  conservatives are in charge they fight guerilla war power politics and when dems are in charge its strictly the marquis of queensbury rules? I do. 

The dems have won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections and we have a 6-3 deficit in the supreme court. The filibuster in the senate gives conservatives a de facto veto on any progressive legislation. 

Tyranny of the minority has to stop.   

You are comfortable? Good for you. So am I. Many are exceptionally not and it will get decidedly more so with the new court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

The filibuster in the senate gives conservatives a de facto veto on any progressive legislation. 

I'm all for abolishing or severely dialing back the filibuster.  The nice thing about this one is that it's actually bipartisan.  The last two senate majority leaders have moved the needle on this one.  

Otherwise, if you want to fight a guerilla war, have fun.  But you can count me out.  I'm not interested in choosing between two different flavors of Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm not interested in choosing between two different flavors of Trump.

McConnell really. Trump is just the man with opposable thumb  that can sign things. 

No I feel a little more radicalized than you obviously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...