The debate over President Trump's right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice before the pending election has no legal foundation... Under the Constitution, the President may appoint Justices to the Supreme Court as long as he holds the Office of President. The US Senate may confirm his appointments to the Supreme Court as long as they are in session.

Serious legal questions for the 2020 election are before the Courts and more are likely to come... The SCOTUS must have all 9 Justices seated when they hear these cases. A tie vote on any of the election cases could create a Constitutional Crisis as great as the Civil War.

We know there will be additional critical legal challenges to the results of this election... that those legal challenges are likely to be fast-tracked to the SCOTUS for resolution.  The Court needs all 9 Justices to ensure there are no ties in their decisions... adjudication.

If Justice Ginsburg wanted to ensure her replacement on the SCOTUS would follow her judicial philosophy, she should have retired while Pres. Obama was President. However, Justice Ginsburg did not retire.  Instead, she chose to remain on the Court, to promote her judicial agenda on critical social and civil rights issues pending SCOTUS review.  She believed her remaining on the Court was more important than risking her seat going to a moderate Justice.

It is now being reported that she made a 'death bed' request... that her seat remains open, until after the election, knowing that the Court may be called on to settle a disputed election. Understanding, that a Court with 8 justices, evenly divided philosophically, could lead to deadlock and throw the Nation into a serious Constitutional Crisis. She continues to be more concerned with promoting her judicial philosophy than securing the nation from a judicial crisis

The appeal in the MSM and by the Democrats ... is without legal merit.  The dramatizing of this issue is wholly political theater for the consumption of the uninformed and frankly is likely to create a Constitutional Crisis and widespread insurrection.  However, the GOP must not back down, on this issue, as the Court is likely to be a  major player in making decisions that could result in the overturning of the coming election.

Finally, we are standing at a great crossroad and we must not take the wrong path... we must remain adamant about the President's Constitutional DUTY too appoint a Justice to the SCOTUS as quickly as possible, and for the US Senate to confirm that appointment BEFORE THE ELECTION.

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Hello guys, I'm just a deplorable 2016 throwback and was a little confused about all of this.  From what I researched it is the Supreme Court's duty to, "the Supreme Court is responsible for the interpretation of laws and the interpretation of the Constitution."   So in all fairness I checked on the President's Oath of Office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  Ok, so what about the Consitution as it pertains to the President's position on this, "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…"  I notice the word "shall", not should.  So, in my deplorable mind I understand that a SCOTUS should understand the Constitution & be able to recite it in their sleep.  That the POTUS has taken a oath to protect & defend it.  And that the POTUS SHALL appoint judges to the SCOTUS.  Like it or not, it is what it is!  So I asked myself, what the hell is the left complaining about? 

    I truly appreciate you taking the time to lay out the information like you did, it answered a lot of questions for me & my limited, deplorable mind.  : )

     

     

    • Difference Between Shall and Should

       

      Shall vs Should

      The basic difference between “shall” and “should” is that “should” is the past tense of “shall.” But when we use these words or modals, the usage is not as simple as using “should” in place of “shall” in the past tense. “Should” is not used in the past tense independently; it has either present or future reference when it predicates a main clause. “Should” is the conditional form used for “shall.” Occasionally it is used as a past tense of “shall.” To understand the difference, we need to first understand what “modals” are and how they are used.

      Should
      “Should” is used as deontic modal as well as epistemic modal. Modals are helping verbs. They are also called modal auxiliary. They have varied meanings and are used to convey these varied meanings. “Should” is specifically used to express advisability. Other uses of modals are: ability, possibility, probability, permission, necessity, and requesting assistance, making conclusions, giving instructions and making suggestions, showing preference, making offers, making promises or predictions.

      Deontic modals are verbs which are used to give permission and, hence, affect a particular situation. For example, You should go only after you finish the work. Here, permission is being given by the speaker.

      Epistemic modals are verbs which show the opinion of the one who is speaking. For example, He should be here any moment now. Here the speaker is not sure but is expressing his opinion.

       

      Meanings and usages

      “Should” expresses that some action is correct for someone. For example, You should get more sleep.
      It expresses probability. For example, You should have reached the office by now.
      It expresses consequences and conditions. For example, Should he have any problems, I will be there to help.
      It is used in place of “would,”used mainly with “we” and “I.” For example, I should like to meet her parents.
      Expressing somebody’s views from the past about the future. For example, It was decided from the start that the school should be used to educate underprivileged students.
      It is used to make harsh words more polite. For example, I should expect you to apologize now.

      Shall

      Shall has slightly different usages and meanings.

      Meanings and usages“Shall” means something that is intended to take place in the future. For example, He shall be the CEO of the company by next year.
      It expresses determination. For example, I shall overcome all the hindrances in my way.
      It expresses certain laws and rules. For example, The government shall declare an emergency.
      For formal writing, “shall” is used to express the future tense.

      In my opinion,shall is appropriate. But bet some liberals will try to say shall does not mean determination.

      Read more: Difference Between Shall and Should | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference...

      Words Articles | Difference Between
      Comparing words that are similar
    • I appreciate WORD PEOPLE!!  Thanks!

    • Just remember, it doesn't take two supreme court justices and a bevy of pettifoggers to understand the simple language used in the US Constitution.  Pettiffogers deliberately uses the fog of vagary in the construct of their laws and contracts to assure themselves of repeat business. Keeping their clients in need of their services to understand what they just signed.  It's a very deceptive and clever racket; the profession of pettifoggery.

    • Should implies choice... to act or not to act.  Shall implies the imperative to act... one has no choice.

      Wordsmithing and the twisting of language is the livelihood of pettifoggers. It is these wizards of language who would make the definition of words a COMPLEX and confusing issue.  It is the Pettifogger who snares his clients with a vagary of words on parchment; such are the tools of the wizards of language, so destructive, that their trade may define up as down, and down as up. 

      However, in most cases, the common usage of words is easily understood.  After all, Language evolved from a need to communicate clearly. As such, the common usage of language is simplistic.

      Example: a single sentence can express the true meaning of Should and shall... pettifoggers would spin that simplicity to make people believe they can't understand simple linguistic differences in the English language.  Should implies a choice to act or not to act... Shall implies an imperative to act, not a choice  

    • Shall has a legal obligation to act, I believe. Shall applied to scriptural decrees has the force of law, biblically. That is what i have been taught. 

    • Should implies choice... to act or not to act.  Shall implies the imperative to act... one has no choice.

    • Mr. Nelson you are correct, as I applied those terms. I know from my previous life the Texas Code of Crimal Proceedures defines "shall" as a legal obligation to act. And we would carry that out within the bounds of the Texas Penal Code. The word "should" is at the officer's discretion.

    • Well stated Mike... and this deplorable thanks you for your cogent and timely response.

This reply was deleted.