[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Today in History - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2024 - 7:08am
 
Wordle - daily game - ptooey - May 18, 2024 - 7:05am
 
NY Times Strands - ptooey - May 18, 2024 - 7:01am
 
NYTimes Connections - Bill_J - May 18, 2024 - 6:40am
 
The Obituary Page - DaveInSaoMiguel - May 18, 2024 - 4:18am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:12am
 
Paul McCartney - miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:06am
 
Virginia News - Steely_D - May 18, 2024 - 2:51am
 
Gnomad here. Who farking deleted my thread? - Red_Dragon - May 17, 2024 - 5:59pm
 
Israel - R_P - May 17, 2024 - 4:08pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:04pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:01pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - Beaker - May 17, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Name My Band - Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 10:56am
 
DIY - black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
 
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful - Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 9:02am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 9:00am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 8:44am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - May 17, 2024 - 6:24am
 
TV shows you watch - Steely_D - May 17, 2024 - 3:14am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - ScottN - May 16, 2024 - 7:00pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - RPnate1 - May 16, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Your Local News - Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
 
Alexa Show - thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
What can you hear right now? - thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Things You Thought Today - thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 10:25am
 
Joe Biden - Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
 
Climate Change - R_P - May 15, 2024 - 9:38pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
 
how do you feel right now? - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
 
China - R_P - May 15, 2024 - 1:40pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:48am
 
Science is bullsh*t - oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:44am
 
NASA & other news from space - Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - May 15, 2024 - 8:25am
 
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way) - miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
 
Play the Blues - Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Music library - mbellenberg - May 15, 2024 - 1:01am
 
Animal Resistance - R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
 
Fascism In America - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
 
Social Media Are Changing Everything - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
 
Internet connection - ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
 
Congress - Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
 
Surfing! - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
 
What Did You See Today? - kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
 
See This Film - Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
 
Podcast recommendations??? - ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
 
News of the Weird - Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
 
Trump - Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
 
Beer - ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
 
It's the economy stupid. - thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
 
Oh dear god, BEES! - R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
 
Tornado! - miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
 
The 1960s - kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
 
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat - thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
 
Living in America - Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
 
Outstanding Covers - Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
 
Democratic Party - R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
RP on HomePod mini - RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
 
Interesting Words - Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
 
Breaking News - maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court: Who's Next? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 37, 38, 39  Next
Post to this Topic
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:48pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 
Republicans are only playing with the rules as inherited from Reid's term.  They didn't change the rules, Harry Reid & his Dem majority did.  Why should Republicans give back what Reid handed them?  

Court packing isn't right either, but the Democrats are threatening it - if they win.  Many Dem voters understand that court packing also isn't right.  Court packing is not necessarily a guaranteed vote getter - Dems are once again playing with fire.

 
what part of right (and wrong for that matter) do you not understand? 

KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:44pm



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
 

Hahahahahaha!

Blame Harry Reid.


Can't say he and the Dems weren't warned that his actions would come back to haunt them.
 

Indeed, but it still doesn't make it right, does it?
 
Republicans are only playing with the rules as inherited from Reid's term.  They didn't change the rules, Harry Reid & his Dem majority did.  Why should Republicans give back what Reid handed them?  

Court packing isn't right either, but the Democrats are threatening it - if they win.  Many Dem voters understand that court packing also isn't right.  Court packing is not necessarily a guaranteed vote getter - Dems are once again playing with fire.

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:37pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 R_P wrote:
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
 
Or, with possible obstruction, so impossible.
 
Other countries seem to manage it

 
Indeed, they do.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:34pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
 

Hahahahahaha!

Blame Harry Reid.


Can't say he and the Dems weren't warned that his actions would come back to haunt them.
 

Indeed, but it still doesn't make it right, does it?
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:30pm



 R_P wrote:
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
 
Or, with possible obstruction, so impossible.

 

Other countries seem to manage it

KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:28pm



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
 

Hahahahahaha!

Blame Harry Reid.


Can't say he and the Dems weren't warned that his actions would come back to haunt them.
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:15pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
 
Or, with possible obstruction, so impossible.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:10pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 

why on earth don't the two main parties agree on the need for a majority vote for each new member to the SC?  Like 75%? It would make life so easy. 
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 12:05pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:
Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
 


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Oct 13, 2020 - 11:57am

Since 1969 Democratic presidents have appointed 4 Supreme Court justices, Republican presidents have appointed 15 (4 of them by presidents who lost the popular vote).

Who's "packing" the court?
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 28, 2020 - 3:55pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:

 

I saved time by not caring what James Woods or Chuck Woolery or Jon Voight think. For that matter, all the other celebrities don't matter much to me.

What does matter? how about someone who understands how the government works (when it worked well during a crisis): The Secretary of Labor...


KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Sep 28, 2020 - 3:33pm


R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 26, 2020 - 5:02pm

What would Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, mean for abortion rights in the US?

GOP senators confronted by past comments on Supreme Court nomination

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Sep 25, 2020 - 11:51am

More on US exceptionalism in matters of the highest court of the land. -w



September 25, 2020

Author HeadshotBy David Leonhardt

Good morning. Congressional Republicans say they will respect election results. The Pac-12 will play football. And you can expect a heated debate over “judicial supremacy.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg lying in repose at the Supreme Court on Thursday.Oliver Contreras for The New York Times

The other Supreme Court fight

The idea of an all-powerful Supreme Court — a court where justices with lifetime tenure have ultimate authority to resolve society’s toughest questions — has come to seem normal in today’s United States.

It’s not normal anywhere else. In no other democracy do judges serve for as long as they like. In most other democracies, the highest courts are less aggressive about striking down entire laws, as Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School told me. The courts instead tend to direct legislators to fix specific parts of a law.

An all-powerful Supreme Court has also not been constant in American history, largely because the Constitution does not establish it. The balance of power between the judiciary and the other branches of government has oscillated. The past two decades, when the court has intervened to decide an election, legalize same-sex marriage and throw out multiple laws, represent a high point for what scholars call “judicial supremacy.”

All of which suggests that the future of the Supreme Court does not depend only on who the justices are. It also depends on whether future presidents and Congresses choose to accept judicial supremacy.

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved that question to the center of American politics.

The Constitution certainly gives Congress and the president ways to reclaim authority. Jamelle Bouie, a Times Opinion columnist, has explained how Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both fought their political opponents’ attempts to lock in power through the courts.

“If the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court,” Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

In recent years, conservatives were often the ones criticizing judicial supremacy, especially after Roe v. Wade restricted voters’ ability to decide abortion policy. Today, liberals are alarmed: The Republican Party, despite having lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, may use the judiciary to dictate policy on climate change, voting rights, economic inequality and more, for decades to come.

The option for Democrats that has received the most attention is an expansion of the number of justices. But there are other options that seem less radical, Richard Pildes of New York University notes. Democrats could also pass a law restricting the court from reviewing some areas of the law — a power that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress. Or Congress could pass a law requiring six or seven justices’ votes for any decision striking down federal or state laws.

If Democrats choose any of these options, Republicans may retaliate in the future, setting off a destabilizing political arms race. On the other hand, the acceptance of judicial supremacy brings big downsides, as well. It may be tantamount to forfeiting political power for the majority of Americans.

“If protecting the right of the people to govern for themselves means curbing judicial power and the Supreme Court’s claim to judicial supremacy, then Democrats should act without hesitation,” Jamelle argues. “If anything, they’ll be in good historical company.” Of course, it’s all academic if Democrats don’t win the White House and both houses of Congress.

Other ideas: The historian Julian Zelizer has made the case against court expansion. The Economist magazine favors term limits for justices (which may require a constitutional amendment), and Maya Sen of Harvard has summarized the arguments for term limits.


R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 24, 2020 - 4:05pm

Unlike US, Europe picks top judges with bipartisan approval to create ideologically balanced high courts
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 23, 2020 - 12:33pm

“It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds.”
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 23, 2020 - 12:04pm

 rgio wrote:
 kurtster wrote:
...
 You're being played.
...
 
Says the pot to the kettle...

 
But can't win without Evangelical nutjobs. Expediency wins the day...

“He has no principles. None. (...) All he wants to do is appeal to his base .... And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this.”
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 23, 2020 - 11:48am



 kurtster wrote:
...
 You're being played.
...
 
Says the pot to the kettle...

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Sep 23, 2020 - 11:32am



 kurtster wrote:
And for all of you who vote based on the issue of abortion ...

Since 2010,the SCOTUS has been comprised of two religions, Catholicism and Judaism with Catholics in the majority.

Roe v. Wade still stands even with a pro life Catholic majority.  You're being played.

I bring this up because the front runner for the nomination is already being attacked just for being Catholic.

Funny with all the Catholics already there ...
.
The shift to a Catholic majority, and non-Protestant Court
 
Of course, whether a Justice is pro-choice on the issue of abortion, as many Catholics may be, should not have a bearing on that Justice’s determination of whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even if a Justice believes Roe v. Wade should have been decided differently, there still is the matter of stare decisis. Roe v, Wade was decided in 1973.  47 years as precedent.

Still, as we all know too well, people like Senator Hawley are stating openly that committing to overturning Roe v. Wade is, and should be,  a litmus test for a nominee. Hawley  (a Federalist Society member) says he will not confirm a nominee unless he is convinced that the nominee has made it plain that the nominee will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says Amy Coney Barrett passes that test.

This fervor has little or nothing to do with appointing federal judges who will follow the Constitution, respect the rule of law, and not legislate from the bench.

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 23, 2020 - 10:49am

 kurtster wrote:
And for all of you who vote based on the issue of abortion ...

Since 2010,the SCOTUS has been comprised of two religions, Catholicism and Judaism with Catholics in the majority.

Roe v. Wade still stands even with a pro life Catholic majority.  You're being played.

I bring this up because the front runner for the nomination is already being attacked just for being Catholic.

Funny with all the Catholics already there ...
.
The shift to a Catholic majority, and non-Protestant Court
 
Time to add some atheists...
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 37, 38, 39  Next