Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Burgold

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Because it's not one ( a concern) for the Trump GOP? And I suspect he will nominate someone close to his ideology since that's all he has done (employs his people) for 18+ months.

 

Edit..that said I have no idea if Barrett cares about either. I was just saying that the current head of the Catholic Church is a bleeding heart liberal (compared to American neocons) and is pro science. ?

I think he will nominate someone that will gain him the most personally. That may not be an obvious choice and could backfire. Especially with a lady like her who is associated with a groups whose people believe in a personal form of (non-government based) socialism. The People of Praise may not align personally with progressive dogmas on sexuality and marriage, but it doesn't seem to lack on compassion for others, including the poor and suffering. Now, if I could get a GOP congressman who has those qualities. Alas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

3 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 The most likely thing to happen in 2020 is a constitutional amendment abolishing term limits for Presidents followed by some other legislation to make the title of Supreme Lead...I mean President hereditary.

 

Speaking of which...

 

 

Not nice to post their IQs though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 

I know I am responding late to this but honestly I think you are being way too optimistic.  Gerrymandering has been legalized by SCOTUS and the likelihood of the Dems winning anything in the near future is slim to non existant.  The most likely thing to happen in 2020 is a constitutional amendment abolishing term limits for Presidents followed by some other legislation to make the title of Supreme Lead...I mean President hereditary.

There are too many Democrats to let that happen, even in the minority. No way they could get 3/4 majority in favor. That's a Palpatine level feat.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Quote


How is the Constitution amended?
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

We really need people like LKB and/or Predicto to weigh in on the options amongst the final 3-4.

 

 

 

They are busy slamming their heads into the wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, twa said:

If he nominates Lee can he vote for himself?

Most likely yes.  Nothing clearly allowing or not allowing, but those opposed would have little more than improper appearance to argue against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just made an internet purchase and noticed a sale tax being applied. 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

 

I guess Ill put this here. 

 

Justice Kennedy wrote the June 21, 2018, opinion in S Dakota v Wayfair, which now allows states to tax internet sales. Breyer, Soto and Kagan dissented. 

 

Apparently Maryland has quickly acted. While it will take some money out of my pocket, I think its fair and reasonable. States should see a boon in budget. This is a huge money injection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

So she can't think critically. 

Good to know. ?

The tweet doesn't say she would adhere to that line of thought, only that if someone did, that is the logical path it would lead down. If anything, at least it shows she's not afraid to say what she thinks. And I think it does show she thinks carefully. You may not agree with her conclusion, but that doesn't mean she's stupid.

 

I read the first few pages of the paper, and she seems to be making the case that it is harder for an Originist Congress person to support super precedents that may be unconstitutional than it is for a judge. This is because a Congress person is voting based on politics, not law theory or right and wrong. If a judge over turns SS for instance, there will be chaos, not order, so they may rule against their originalist belief to maintain social order. A politician however, they are beholden to the electorate, and their re-election will determine which way they go. Thus legislators may have a harder time maintaining that position.

 

I don't have time to read it all though, so I could be wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tshile said:

I'll put a $ down on Trump nominating himself

 

 

I'll see that and raise you Trump saying "We don't need a Supreme Court, I can decide these cases all by myself. I can do the work of 9 judges. I am the only one, perhaps, ever.....EVER, to be able to decide these cases."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...