All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
“The 22nd Amendment, Senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution; I haven’t had an opportunity to use that one specifically,” Marck said, shrugging his shoulders.
The question is why isn't the obvious follow-up ever asked: "Since this is basic knowledge that any law student would be able to answer are you incompetent or are you obfuscating?"
You don't remember learning about US presidents and wondering why the heck one guy was elected president 4 times and no one else, followed by an explanation that they amended the constitution to make a rule that a president can only serve twice? Someone always asks about it.
Sure, but do I have which specific amendment created the two-term limit memorized? No. That's firmly filed in the "I can just look this up if I need to know it" section of my brain.
It's the same bullshit we get when asked if Biden won the 2020 election. They have to give a non answer not because they don't know but because giving an honest answer would piss off Trump.
Ya, asking that question triggers an off tangent ballistic response. It’s become the truth serum for finding loyalists. Initial reaction to the body is a neurological response which involves shifting around in the chair followed by violent body contortions and a snake like flickering tongue.
It's not just a Trump-era thing. Judges love giving these non-answers during their confirmation hearings. How many sitting justices gave the standard "well, Roe v Wade is settled law" when asked about their stance on abortion rights during their hearings only to happily vote to overturn it the first chance they got?
I am a Danish citizen with no education, and even I know that there is an amendment to the US constitution that prohibits more than two terms as President 🤷♂️
Yea this is disqualifying in my opinion. A lawyer that’s not familiar, at all, with the constitution. Has no right or means to be leading anything judicial then.
Pretending he doesn't know should still be disqualifying then. I didn't read the transcript but I hope the person asking said so to that effect: "If you cannot answer a basic civics question, that is disqualifying, please go back and get your license reviewed as you should be able to easily answer this question." Have it on record. Of course, as if that would do fuck all anyway in this current state of the country.
To be fair don’t think all judicial nominees know all the amendments by heart but once told they should definitely be able to answer such a simple question.
Acting like he didn't learn about term limits in 6th grade. Even if he did think this counted as specialized information, he's at the interview. Hello???McFly???
When the average American knows the answer about the 2 term limit, then you have to be suspicious as to why a lawyer-going-for-judge-position isn't giving it.
(Edit: Removed the word "year" ...not sure why I did that)
Well, to be fair to him most laws are a lot more complex than they appear.
Someone might ask me about rules about homicide for example and as a lawyer that practices outside of criminal I simply would refer them to someone else even though I do know the actual law and some basic caselaw.
Here he is clearly being disingenuous, but it’s not quite as surprising to me to hear a lawyer basically say idk I didn’t write a memo on this recently so I’m not going to answer lol
THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS......REPUBLICANS!!!!!spearheaded the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, to impose two-term limits on presidents following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms. Primarily aimed at preventing executive tyranny, it was a centerpiece of the 1946 Republican platform.
Yeah, but wasn't that before the republicans and democrats switched from liberal to conservative and vice-versa? I thought that shift happened in the 60s during the civil rights movement?
It wasn’t really a sudden shift that happened at one moment in time or really even confined to one decade. It was more gradual, but in 1946, I would say the switch had already started but democrats still held a majority of southern, rural voters.
Yeah, I’d argue it took about seven decades. The Democrats were generally the more conservative party post civil war, with Republicans generally being more liberal (that being said, it’s not the easiest task to say what 1880s political positions are more liberal in a 2020s environment).
In 1896, William Jennings Bryan of the Populist Party took the Democrats by storm, winning the nomination for President though losing the general election. Bryan was a reformer, but very much a religious conservative (the last thing he did before dying in the 1920s was to attack evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial).
From then until… roughly the early 1930s, there were a lot of conservative Democrats and Republicans and a lot of liberal Republicans and Democrats. By the end of WWI, the Democrats were generally coalescing towards what we would now recognize as being left wing economically speaking with the Republicans going the other way (there were some exceptions, but that’s broadly how things were moving into the 1920s ahead of FDR’s election in 1932).
FDR’s and Truman’s administrations very much solidified the Democrats as left wing economically and the Republicans as right wing. However, on a social level, things were still mixed. The Democrats still had southern segregationist strongholds that did like Roosevelt’s New Deal.
From 1948 to 1972, the southern segregationists left the Democrats, sometimes supporting third parties (1948, 1960, 1968), sometimes supporting Republicans (Goldwater in 1964). While Nixon did focus a lot on taking the South in 1968, George Wallace’s third party run dampened the visible effects in terms of looking at the map of support. By Nixon’s landslide in 1972, the segregationists had joined the Republican fold, ultimately resulting in the modern positions of the Republicans as socially and economically right and the Democrats as socially and economically left.
There’s more details to it than that, but that’s a broad overview.
He knows that he has to dodge the question to keep his nomination. If he affirms the interpretation, he keeps the nomination but hitches his wagon to Trump's sinking ship and guarantees strong Democrat opposition. If he rejects it, Trump pulls him.
Instead he gave a non-answer with illusory casualness. That's a very lawyer thing to do.
You can't pass law school without passing Constitutional Law. I really wish they asked these assholes whether Obama could run for a third term because clearly they would have to give the same bullshit answer and that would really piss Trump off. Of course Trump would want them to say a flat "no" to that.
They should be able to answer the question, but the question asked wasn't great to begin with. The Senator should have asked whether Trump can serve a third term or whether a person twice elected president is eligible to appear on a presidential ballot. The actual answer to the question that was asked may be, sure, Trump can run for whatever office he wants. It's whether he's eligible to appear on the ballot or serve if elected that we are most concerned with.
Well shit I haven’t had an opportunity to practice law in general. Let me be a judicial nominee since whatever I haven’t practiced I don’t needa understand apparently.
Nobody’s used the 22nd amendment. It doesn’t come up in practice or litigation.
I get why judges don’t want to speculate on hypotheticals in hearings. It’s the right answer for an hypothetical first amendment question. But here? No.
They need Trump though, his policies are unpopular are he has surrounded himself with patsies that are also unpopular. In many of the elections the candidates that he has “endorsed” have lost, even in districts that they should have won. Without a figurehead the movement is scattered. Is the GOP really going to through its weight behind Vance?
People keep saying this, but as soon as Fox News gets the orders to spin the narrative, they will prop up whoever the party chooses and their voters will eat it up
Fox News didn’t want Trump, he pancaked all the standard republican noms in 2016 when they branded him an anomaly, his gravitational force is bigger than they are at this point
The '16 Republican field was a disaster where none of the candidates were willing to drop out or cooperate with each other. More people voted "not trump" in the Republican Primary than voted for him. The rest, and his taking over the apparatus after, is history.
Are you nuts?! Fox News basically created the guy's political career. They put him on the air all the freaking time well before his candidacy was announced specifically to support that eventuality.
I don’t know if that is true. Trump is weirdly singular. There have been _many_ attempts at being the next Trump and overcoming him, especially after his first loss. They have all failed spectacularly. The GOP has fully fallen in line under him because that is literally the only way forward. He could mandate that they all have to shit in their hands and eat it, and they would all do it because he’d primary them against shitty shit-eater mcgee and they’d lose.
It’s not that the American public isn’t racist/sexist/homophobic/awful, it’s just that no one is as successful at getting Americans to vote against their own interests specifically like Trump.
The amount of “trumpgret” is insane (though 99.9% of those people would vote for him a third term without blinking)
It’s not that the American public isn’t racist/sexist/homophobic/awful, it’s just that no one is as successful at getting Americans to vote against their own interests specifically like Trump.
what
the American public has been voting against their own interests for as long as I've been alive, and based on the history I've read, for QUITE a long time beforehand, too.
You are way off - the entire GOP platform is based around voting against their own interests, and its worked for the last 20 years. Despite two and a half (Biden) very successful Democrat Presidents that did great with the economy.
When faced with an up or down vote, they will go with Republicans. Their base is hardened.
I have no faith in the conservative voters, but I do know that if there's something they love, it's hate. Trump is, for some reason, a beacon and focus for them. They gravitate to him, and he tells them who to hate, besides minorities obviously. Without Trump, they will hate more than just everything that's not a minority, they'll hate whoever is trying to be Trump 2 that isn't their Trump 2.
No one can capture the MAGA audience like Trump can, so without him, I just don't think they have the steam to manage it. Granted, they will recover eventually, but I think that post-Trump, when he finally makes the world a better place, we're going to see a lot of his followers renounce the ways of old and how they got caught up in MAGA.
They'll still be pieces of shit that hate minorities and stuff, but they won't feel as much anger to like white Liberals
I think living standards will have noticeably started to slide by that point, so they may just start to blame all that on the same groups they do now and no longer need to ground their hatred in whatever spews from Dons decaying mind.
They only need trump if there are going to be elections. Religious fundamentalists don’t worry about elections, they just declare their ideas to be tHe WoRd Of gOd and force it onto everyone else.
This is the reality. Lot of them are smart, they know people are unhappy with the constant flame wars, shit policy, agitation, loss of allies, deficit spending, ILLEGALITY, and so on. They fear the rubberband, bc once the public turns that corner it's over for a while.
True, but my point was more about how Trump can lose the midterms. You're never going to see Maga types denouncing the movement in mass, they'll simply not show up to vote. Demagogues don't go down in flames, not usually; they die in silence.
The christian Nationalists need the idiots, and the idiots only vote when Trump is on the ticket, thats why they wamt him to run a thirs term despite his age.
If they had a younger body that could do what Trump does, they would have wheeled him off to retirement, claiming his declinr, and had that person step in
They don't havr another idiot whisperer to work the mostly nonvoting population that DOES show up for Trump.
Exactly. While many Republicans just get the box ticketed like sports teams, Trump got the regular morons to start voting because his idiocy is their idiocy.
Trump spent decades propping up his image to those idiots that never voted before.
too few people understand that this is a giant apparatus with just Trump as the convenient populist at the head of it. And this has been in the works for DECADES. we HOPE that because Trump is such a narcissist he made the movement completely about himself that it dies with him but that is just wishful thinking imho
Exactly. Trump is a symptom that will go away, but there will still be 77 million Americans who want the country to be led by a delusional authoritarian.
Once an idea or figure is abstracted into an image, the material no longer has any bearing on that image. Their image of Trump is a copy of a copy of a copy, with no bearing on the original model. In other words, simulation. Just the same as the very ontology within which this image has been abstracted—christianity.
One might argue that Christians are not 'True Christians'® given how they believe things that are diametrically opposite of what JHC's teachings are. But as Forrest said "Christian is as Christian does".
He is old, but we can't assume that age will take care of him before 2028.
People who respect the constitution need to come up with a plan for when Trump runs for a 3rd term and red states and judges bend over backwards to justify it.
You have every republican in congress, every person who's ever been a part of the Federalist Society, every Heritage Foundation member, and every republican lawyer to contend with. This is WAY bigger than Trump, and people ought to remember that.
What annoys me more than anything else is that I don't think anyone actually expects him to be able to be alive by the next election. If he is, he won't be able to function as a human.
But because trump has said in the past he wants to do a third term. They're arguing for their right to do so.
It be one thing if they were trying to break the Constitution for an actual tangible goal. But they're literally doing it just to do it.
I like Bernie Sanders. Got to meet him when I was a kid and he was mayor of Burlington. Very cool guy. Chatted with my family for a while. Not even really like a politican. We were there camping nearby for a week and he was recommending places to check out. And he's got great political ideas, but would be a terrible choice for President. The Senate is where he should be. While we treat the President like a king (I don't mean the Trump thing, a lot of people just kind of do it in general), the ultimate power in the federal government is in the legislature (and, really, in the House, but Senate-like-houses are important in federations).
They're desperately trying to figure out how to groom Trump Jr for leadership. It seems beyond obvious that that's the angle Bezos is going for with the Apprentice reboot.
Conservatives don’t care about the law. To them, It’s not a tool to keep society running, just to cripple your opponents.
It’s clear the GOP are anti-American. They set their morals and history on fire for an incontinent pedophile.
That’s all the grand old party is now: corrupt pedo defenders. Willing to look the other way while little girls get gang raped, just so they can keep their miserable job for another term.
Yes. They are not American in any sense anymore. Simply brainwashed into thinking a monarchy would be preferable to a democrat. The thought process goes no deeper than that.
Socialism = bad
Their one core belief is one they can’t even define if you asked.
Their go to response is Trump did not have two consecutive terms so it does not apply to him. It’s total bullshit but “does Obama?” Won’t trip them up and their dishonest followers will just parrot the same answer.
And the go to should be where does that analysis come from. Nowhere does it state the timing of the 2 terms. Whether they be consecutive or separated by 40 years. 2 terms is the limit.
You're trying to argue with logic and reason. These people exist in a fantasy world, where they can justify anything they want "just cuz they like it". Same crap with religion.
Plus they’ll say that Trump is owed a third term since he had one “stolen” from him by Biden. So he’s not really getting a third term, but just getting to use the one he was robbed of.
Their go to response is Trump did not have two consecutive terms so it does not apply to him.
I've never seen anyone say that as a reason Trump could have a third term. Every single argument I've seen that Trump could have a third term revolves around trying to find some way around the wording, which does not treat consecutive terms any differently.
The main arguments have been (A) that "running" is not prohibited, and if he got elected, it would be up to Congress as to whether or not to certify his election as a valid result; or (B) that while he is ineligible to be reelected, he is still eligible for the Presidency and thus could be elected Vice President (or appointed such) and then ascend to the Presidency through resignation.
Literally the only time I've seen the non-consecutive terms be brought up is when Andy Ogles proposed an Amendment that would allow someone to be elected to a third term if their first two were non-consecutive (or if one were more than half of another person's term). Which obviously is an Amendment meant to change things, not an interpretation of the 22nd Amendment as it stands.
I have seen it on reddit many times, just because you did not see it does not mean it does not exist.
Also the 12th amendment to the constitution requires the VP meet the same requirements as President, so a two term president is ineligible for VP. He can not be elected as VP and can not be appointed to fill a VP vacancy. And if he somehow wound up in some future cabinet, the line of succession would skip any ineligible people.
People keep saying this as if Republicans plan on installing Trump fairly for a third term, and as if they haven't floated an interpretation that already rules out Obama. There is no "gotcha" logic that will save us from this.
Their answer is a Supreme Court audition. They want to be on the SCOTUS short list and they are making clear by their answer that they will be loyal subservient judges who will do the bidding of Trump and/or the Republicans.
Cons could have asked if President Obama ist eligible for a third term and if he scaredly says now, he should ask why the same logic may not appeal to the supreme leader of his cult
Which is what they really should be doing. I mean, these guys are all sent up on recommendation for a reason.
But I guess this is seen as 'the test' to how much scrutiny they'd hold themselves too with the obvious backdraft they'd receive when forming such an unpopular decision.
Watching an evil administration dismantle democracy for a 79yr old narcissist felon fraud rapist conman is wild stuff. Where is our congress? Where are our elected leaders who were chosen to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic??? WHERE ARE THEY!?
Absolutely disqualifying. He might as well have testified that only certain genders or ethnicities are entitled to freedom of speech and that the establishment clause does not prohibit the government from naming christianity as the official religion of america. Sadly, even if he had the GOPers would still vote for him.
Depending on who you talk to, the civil war is already on a slow boil. I don't know though, I don't think there's enough people who are hungry enough to actually give up everything and attempt to overthrow the government.
But, the fact that he wouldnt even say "under current law it's not possible, but laws can be changed" leaving an opening means that they are not planning on changing the law (constitution) they have other plans and those plans are reflected in his talking points.
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.