SCOTUS
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
Well, darn....
I guess we're just gonna have to put Mitch's testicles in a vice if he blocks another appointment.
I guess we're just gonna have to put Mitch's testicles in a vice if he blocks another appointment.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS
Can't we do it just on general principles, with the promise of much longer session if he blocks again?
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
As a prophylactic's exercise?Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:59 pmCan't we do it just on general principles, with the promise of much longer session if he blocks again?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS
Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:47 amAs a prophylactic's exercise?Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:59 pmCan't we do it just on general principles, with the promise of much longer session if he blocks again?
Re: SCOTUS
Turtle testicles are thought to reach!
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
The Dachshunds have special tools.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- Tiredretiredlawyer
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
- Location: Rescue Pets Land
- Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
- Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting
Re: SCOTUS
That's what it's all about. HIS religious liberty to impose upon you.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
Re: SCOTUS
The Appointments Clause specifically requires Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices. I don’t think prior confirmation as an appellate court judge will satisfy the Appointments Clause.Gregg wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:49 pm My idea is kind of like that and I think takes the doubt of if it's Constitutional (which let's face it, the current court will rule that is not)
Upon a Justice turning 70, the President can appoint a Justice to replace him, and that replacement is not required to be Senate confirmed as long as he is a current Senate confirmed Appeals Court judge, until the Justice they are replacing dies or retires. Takes the "Mitch McConnel says only Republicans can appoint Supreme Court Justices Rule" off the table. Let's the Court have predictable turnover and keeps 88 year old geezers who have been on the Court for nigh 40 years from outliving their usefulness.
Fifty votes plus one in the Senate, simple majority in the House.
Sweeten the deal by saying if you won't vote for this, fine, Expand the Court to 15 Justices permanently, double the number of Circuit and Appeals Court benches and phuck you Mitch McConnell, they'll be confirming Judges 6 at a time until the next election.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
How about a lw that states that once a President has sent a nominee up, the Senate must vote to confirm or reject within a set period?
I am just still not over Merrick Garland being AG and not being Associate Justice.
Fuck you Mitch McConnell
I am just still not over Merrick Garland being AG and not being Associate Justice.
Fuck you Mitch McConnell
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: SCOTUS
Such a law would be unconditional. Amendment required.How about a lw that states that once a President has sent a nominee up, the Senate must vote to confirm or reject within a set period?
- Ben-Prime
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
- Location: Worldwide Availability
- Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
- Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide
Re: SCOTUS
Would a law be constitutional to define terms of art in the Constitution for clarity? e.g., defining that advise and consent is a positive duty and not a negative one, and that the Senate is certainly within its rights to vote down a nomine, but cannot simply refuse to consider one.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
Re: SCOTUS
Nope. The Supreme Court is the official interpreter the Constitution. It said so in Marbury v Madison.Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 3:44 pmWould a law be constitutional to define terms of art in the Constitution for clarity? e.g., defining that advise and consent is a positive duty and not a negative one, and that the Senate is certainly within its rights to vote down a nomine, but cannot simply refuse to consider one.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
Re: SCOTUS
If stare decisis is not a judicial precedent any longer, then why not reverse it for Marbury v. Madison? Congruence means something, no?
I just think that these justices are blind and deaf to one of the oldest laws extant: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just cuz this law ain't in any fancy law book, or etched into the minds of the legal profession, does not mean that it is not relevant or timely.
I just think that these justices are blind and deaf to one of the oldest laws extant: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just cuz this law ain't in any fancy law book, or etched into the minds of the legal profession, does not mean that it is not relevant or timely.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
- keith
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
- Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
- Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
- Verified: ✅lunatic
Re: SCOTUS
Not necessarily with this court.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Would scarcely get your feet wet
Re: SCOTUS
Why in the world would they do that? There isn’t a chance in hell they’re going to decide anything in a way that limits their own power. I wasn’t alive when that happened (obvs), but I imagine a lot of folks at the time saw it as an unwarranted power grab. But they’ve never backed down from it and I doubt they would now.humblescribe wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 5:51 pm If stare decisis is not a judicial precedent any longer, then why not reverse it for Marbury v. Madison? Congruence means something, no?
I just think that these justices are blind and deaf to one of the oldest laws extant: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just cuz this law ain't in any fancy law book, or etched into the minds of the legal profession, does not mean that it is not relevant or timely.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
You really want me to order that testicle vise, don't you?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS
Yeah, that one pisses me off, still, too. There needs to be SOMETHING done to prevent any one person from having that much power.
-
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
- Occupation: Dude
- Verified: ✅
Re: SCOTUS
That was my anger talking, Maybenaut. It was sarcasm; I am fully aware that they would never reverse that case. (But I would pay good money to hear arguments for said overturning, just for the theater!)Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:43 pmWhy in the world would they do that? There isn’t a chance in hell they’re going to decide anything in a way that limits their own power. I wasn’t alive when that happened (obvs), but I imagine a lot of folks at the time saw it as an unwarranted power grab. But they’ve never backed down from it and I doubt they would now.humblescribe wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 5:51 pm If stare decisis is not a judicial precedent any longer, then why not reverse it for Marbury v. Madison? Congruence means something, no?
I just think that these justices are blind and deaf to one of the oldest laws extant: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just cuz this law ain't in any fancy law book, or etched into the minds of the legal profession, does not mean that it is not relevant or timely.
It seems to this uneducated person that many justices have their minds made up before they hear a case. It would not surprise me in the least if they have their clerks drafting skeletal opinions weeks, if not months, before the hearing. The actual hearing is merely a means to insert the arguments made by counsel into the final opinion that gets tweaked to address the issues raised.
Ya gotta remember that I am trained as an accountant. Perceived independence is just as important as actual independence. I think our system that permits powerful people and their families to be members in organizations that have specific agendas that wind up in important litigation and not recuse themselves is not the definition of "an independent judiciary." It is irrelevant that they resign from these entities when they don the robes. I remain skeptical that many judges are truly able to eliminate their inculcation from childhood through their early professional lives.
Alea iacta est.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
Re: SCOTUS
That is exactly how many appellate courts do it: Cases are assigned to a justice when first docketed (either to the whole court or the smaller argument panel) and the opinion is then drafted. Hence the common criticism, "appellate arguments are just theater."humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:46 pmIt seems to this uneducated person that many justices have their minds made up before they hear a case. It would not surprise me in the least if they have their clerks drafting skeletal opinions weeks, if not months, before the hearing. The actual hearing is merely a means to insert the arguments made by counsel into the final opinion that gets tweaked to address the issues raised.
SCOTUS, notably, does not assign authorship until the justices vote at the conference following oral argument. But for many cases, it is not difficult to predict on which side a particular justice would land. And for that subset of cases, perhaps drafting an opinion might persuade the Chief (or senior justice, if the Chief was in the minority) to assign that case to this "eager" justice.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: SCOTUS
Pfft, I think in the last 20 years the arguments and conclusions of an opinion are part of drafting the law to begin with. Conservative states made sport of seeing how much of their batshit crazy they could get a court to agree with, and then a little bite becomes settled law. Then they write another batshit crazy and most of it might get struck down but they get a little bit... and before long the whole "precedent" thing becomes an intellectual discussion but not really law anymore.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- MN-Skeptic
- Posts: 3933
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
- Location: Twin Cities
Re: SCOTUS
Tim Walz’ Golden Rule: Mind your own damn business!
- Tiredretiredlawyer
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
- Location: Rescue Pets Land
- Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
- Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting
Re: SCOTUS
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
Re: SCOTUS
Herein Roberts tells of how the Supreme Court is apolitical and other fairy tales.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto ... t-89632809Chief Justice John Roberts defends legitimacy of court
Chief Justice John Roberts is defending the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, saying its role should not be called into question just because people disagree with its decisions
Roberts described the last year as an unusual and difficult one, pointing to the public not be allowed inside the court, closed in 2020 because of the pandemic, as one hardship. He also said it was “gut wrenching” to drive into the Supreme Court that was surrounded by barricades every day.
The barriers were installed in May when protests erupted outside the court and outside the homes of some Supreme Court justices after there was an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion indicating the justices were planning to overturn Roe v. Wade, which provided women constitutional protections for abortion for nearly 50 years. The barriers are gone and the public will be allowed back inside when the court's new session begins in October but an investigation into the leak ordered by Roberts continues.
When asked what the public might not know about how the court work, Roberts emphasized the collegiality among the justices and the court's tradition of shaking hands before starting conferences or taking the bench. After the justices might disagree about a decision, everyone eats together in the court's dining room where they talk about everything but work, he said. He said it's not borne out of “fake affection” but a respect that comes from the push and pull of explaining ideas and listening to the responses to them.
“We have a common calling and we act like it,” he said.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams