Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Burgold

By Burgold,
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

AT LEAST enact a mandatory retirement age.

 

The danger of that is politicizing the SCOTUS to the point where the GOP would appoint super young people that simply don't have enough experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

Cases like this are why I don't agree with merely reading old documents to form a decision about today's world. I think you can definitely use the "original intent" as a basic guideline and try to apply it to today's world without straying beyond the principles, but the problem with the conservatives views of the original documents being this holy untouchable grail, is that what happens when you run into situations like this where it is not plainly written out one way or another.   

 

I think it is fair to say that issues such as gender & sexual orientation are not specifically addressed by the founders, but you have to apply common sense and say it is because that was not even being considered in the first place back then and you can't just allow this legal gray area to remain that more times than not hurts people in their pursuit of happiness.

 

From a common sense angle, the gender you choose to sleep with should not matter to anyone but the two people sleeping together.  It should have zero bearing on where I can/can't work.  If it wasn't written plainly written out in the original documents, then that is a flaw in the original documents and people in 2020 should not have to live with that flaw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
On 6/15/2020 at 8:43 PM, NoCalMike said:

From a common sense angle, the gender you choose to sleep with should not matter to anyone but the two people sleeping together.  It should have zero bearing on where I can/can't work.  If it wasn't written plainly written out in the original documents, then that is a flaw in the original documents and people in 2020 should not have to live with that flaw. 

 

 

I’m of the opposite opinion of you and I’m liberal.  I think the courts have NOT done enough to safeguard our rights as written in the constitution.  The government ignores our protected rights all the time.  Speedy trial?  The satisfy this with a technicality and then the poor languish in prison waiting for their actual trial.  Illegal search?  What does this even mean at this point.  The government can outright steal your property by claiming it was involved in a crime without proving anything in court. 
 

The constitution can be changed, and new laws can be written.  it’s not treated like a holy book, it’s just difficult to change by design.  Having rights that law makers must respect and can’t easily change is a great way to do things imo.  The problem is getting courts to enforce it, which they’ve failed consistently to do in several areas.
 


 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
The Sisko

The Sisko

Posted
Posted
On 6/15/2020 at 7:07 PM, Hersh said:

 

The danger of that is politicizing the SCOTUS to the point where the GOP would appoint super young people that simply don't have enough experience. 

Phew! Good thing they haven't thought of that already.😉

 

As for the recent DACA/Roe v. Wade rulings, is it just me or does it look like SCOTUS (i.e. Roberts) is trying to make it appear that they're centrist? After all the current hubub winds down, I expect they'll resume their march to fascism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

#badlegaltakes

 

#1, Kraninger has not been terrible, at least not by Trump appointee standards.  She's been remarkably average, which puts her in the top echelon of Trump appointees. 

 

#2, and far more importantly, this tweeter does not appear to understand how this will work, functionally.  The statute creating the Bureau and the position of Director defines "cause" as "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."  The CFPB is very politicized, Democrats love it, Republicans hate it.  The statute implementing it says the Director has certain powers and has to do certain things.  A Democrat-appointed Director will do those things and so it would be difficult for a Republican President to fire that person "for cause" under the current state of affairs.  A Republican Director (like Mulvaney when he was Acting Director), will not do those things and will try to actively gut the Bureau, which would allow an newly-elected POTUS to fire them "for cause" with the cause being a complete neglect of their responsibilities.  

 

Here is the case:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf

 

 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...