Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#676

Post by Gregg »

Well, darn....

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
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#677

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Gregg wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:09 pm Well, darn....

I guess we're just gonna have to put Mitch's testicles in a vice if he blocks another appointment.
Can't we do it just on general principles, with the promise of much longer session if he blocks again?
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#678

Post by Gregg »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:59 pm
Gregg wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:09 pm Well, darn....

I guess we're just gonna have to put Mitch's testicles in a vice if he blocks another appointment.
Can't we do it just on general principles, with the promise of much longer session if he blocks again?
As a prophylactic's exercise?

:rimshot:
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#679

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Gregg wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 5:47 am
Kriselda Gray wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:59 pm
Gregg wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:09 pm Well, darn....

I guess we're just gonna have to put Mitch's testicles in a vice if he blocks another appointment.
Can't we do it just on general principles, with the promise of much longer session if he blocks again?
As a prophylactic's exercise?

:rimshot:
:mrgreen:
Danraft
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#680

Post by Danraft »

Turtle testicles are thought to reach!
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#681

Post by Gregg »

The Dachshunds have special tools.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: SCOTUS

#682

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

sugar magnolia wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:40 am What the fuck does "religious liberty" have to do with abortion?
That's what it's all about. HIS religious liberty to impose upon you.
"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.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: SCOTUS

#683

Post by Maybenaut »

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.
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.
"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
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#684

Post by Gregg »

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
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#685

Post by bob »

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?
Such a law would be unconditional. Amendment required.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Re: SCOTUS

#686

Post by Ben-Prime »

bob wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:00 pm
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?
Such a law would be unconditional. Amendment required.
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"
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: SCOTUS

#687

Post by Maybenaut »

Ben-Prime wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 3:44 pm
bob wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:00 pm
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?
Such a law would be unconditional. Amendment required.
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.
Nope. The Supreme Court is the official interpreter the Constitution. It said so in Marbury v Madison.
"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
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#688

Post by bob »

Maybenaut wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 4:09 pm Nope. The Supreme Court is the official interpreter the Constitution. It said so in Marbury v Madison.
:yeahthat:

Just like any law trying to define "natural born citizen" also would fail.
Image ImageImage
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#689

Post by humblescribe »

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.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

#690

Post by p0rtia »

Gregg wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:57 pm 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
:yeahthat:

:yeahthat:
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
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

#691

Post by keith »

bob wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 4:21 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 4:09 pm Nope. The Supreme Court is the official interpreter the Constitution. It said so in Marbury v Madison.
:yeahthat:

Just like any law trying to define "natural born citizen" also would fail.
Not necessarily with this court.
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: SCOTUS

#692

Post by Maybenaut »

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.
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.
"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
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#693

Post by Gregg »

bob wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:00 pm
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?
Such a law would be unconditional. Amendment required.
You really want me to order that testicle vise, don't you?
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#694

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Gregg wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:57 pm 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
Yeah, that one pisses me off, still, too. There needs to be SOMETHING done to prevent any one person from having that much power.
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#695

Post by humblescribe »

Maybenaut wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:43 pm
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.
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.
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!)

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
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#696

Post by bob »

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.
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."

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.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS

#697

Post by Gregg »

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
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3000
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: SCOTUS

#698

Post by MN-Skeptic »

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: SCOTUS

#699

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

:clap:
"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.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#700

Post by raison de arizona »

Herein Roberts tells of how the Supreme Court is apolitical and other fairy tales.
Chief 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
:snippity:
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.
:snippity:
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.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto ... t-89632809
“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
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”