I know what the constitution says but Bush has set a precident for playing fast and loose with what our founding fathers put down, so why not?
2007-07-01 17:09:36 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Mr. Taco get's a gold star...a Constitutional amendment is ALL THAT IS NEEDED...or maybe some of that "Patriot Act" mojo that Bush & Pancho are so adept at
2007-07-01 17:22:20 · update #1
Hillary would not muck around in the shady side of government, all she desires is to improve the lives of her fellow Americans.
All branch's will gladly cooperate and bend a little to help make her policies a reality.
2007-07-01 19:07:19 · answer #1 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
There is absolutely nothing they can do to change the Surpreme Cout unless someone retires. Bush's supposed "precedent" doesn't have anything to do with purging the court. Without a Constitutional amendment that would NEVER get passed, then the ONLY way for court members to get the boot is for them to retire or die. Sorry.
2007-07-01 17:17:52 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hillary isn't going to win. People want change, not conformity and staleness.
2016-05-21 00:14:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then we'd be a banana republic. Fact is we're stuck with the Bush court unless one of the justices does something egregious that is impeachable.
2007-07-01 17:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, it's a lifetime appointment. And they're all relatively young and healthy, so we have a while before we can replace any of the justices.
And contrary to the above post, the Court is 4/4 liberal and conservative, with one swing vote. Most of its decisions have been on the conservative side.
2007-07-01 17:18:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Fast and easy??? Um . . . do you know how many recess appointments Clinton had? Bush filled a UN chair via recess appointment, and Dems freaked out . . . if it wasn't so pathetic it would have been funny.
What you are suggesting is Fascism, but that is a left-wing ideology. Fascism and your brand of Liberalism are close cousins.
Move along Hitler.
2007-07-01 17:21:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
1. Not gonna happen.
2. No, the socialist wouldn't be able to remove any Supreme Court Justices.
2007-07-01 17:19:12 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Boy, are you mixed up. We have so many problems in this country because the Supreme Court is Liberal and has been Liberal for more than a century. Look at abortion and all the other illegal acts they have committed.
It is not President Bush that is playing fast and loose, but the Liberals.
2007-07-01 17:15:21 · answer #8 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Nope. Supreme court appointments are for life. You have to wait for the justices to retire or die.
ss
2007-07-01 17:18:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
wow another liberal showing tolerance to different views...liberals have been in control of the court for a long time, things aren't getting better...lets try a different view...
2007-07-01 17:26:16 · answer #10 · answered by turntable 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋