Results 101 to 125 of 406
Thread: RBG is dead
-
09-19-2020, 07:21 AM #101
A sterling example of what it means to be an American has died - Devine Speed
The woman held our country's conscience in her hands with grace
The vacated seat? She remained at her post until her last breath.
Take inspiration - be vigilant
2020 is continuing to be one of life's recent left turns personally.
As a Nation, we are living through the accelerating crux of a galvanizing, historical paradigm shift. C³ompounded by the impact that a pandemic and global warming are having on the human species - should (and could permanently) take your breath away
will we bend like a willow
As sfb might say; if yiant binow woke - u sharked overed
Sent from my SM-T867V using TapatalkLast edited by Gepeto; 09-19-2020 at 08:40 AM.
I am not in your hurry
-
09-19-2020, 09:30 AM #102
-
09-19-2020, 09:48 AM #103Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Posts
- 9,860
-
09-19-2020, 09:54 AM #104
"[T]erm limits are likely to have a substantial detrimental effect on doctrinal stability. A case could go from being a sure winner to a sure loser over the course of a single election. And that doctrinal instability would likely alter the nature of jurisprudential evolution and change the focus of litigants, policy makers and lower-court judges from doctrine to the court’s composition, further politicizing the court. Although there may be good arguments for term limits, we should think long and hard about these dangers before considering such a major change to our judicial system."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/a...t-term-limits/
-
09-19-2020, 10:12 AM #105
Alas, you're right. The "good behaviour" clause means for life apparently. (Just like "a well regulated militia" means that the right to bear arms refers to militias, not individual citizens. Or used to.)
As far as an Amendment--if the term were made long enough, say 20 years, there would still be doctrinal stability without subjecting the makeup of the Court over decades to the vagaries of judicial deaths and retirements.
As it is, there is a very good chance that a woman's right to choose, the law of the land for nearly 50 years, is about to be overturned. The way the 2nd Amendment was reinterpreted after over 200 years. So lifetime appointments don't guarantee stability.
(It wouldn't shock me if the Court not only eliminated the right to abortion but made it illegal nationally by defining a fetus as a person subject to the protections of the 14th Amendment.)
-
09-19-2020, 10:16 AM #106Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 522
regardless of any new appointment shenanigans, this means that the SC as currently constructed is more likely to rule in favor of trump regarding any disputed election matters. democracy being spit-roasted.
-
09-19-2020, 10:19 AM #107
Actually, Congress could impose term limits of a sort on SCOTUS, but it would have to be in a way that after the term was over, the Justice remained an Article III judge. This actually happens, and modern Justices have regularly sat by designation on various courts of appeals after they retired from SCOTUS. So there are a lot of good and defensible arguments for imposing staggered 16- or 18-year SCOTUS term limits, and it can likely be done without an amendment.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/e...t-term-limits/
-
09-19-2020, 10:31 AM #108
Any law passed by Congress re SCOTUS term limits would be subject to review by the current SCOTUS, which is unlikely to pass it. The conservative justices can see the handwriting on the wall--that demographic changes are weakening conservative positions by the day--and they see themselves as the last bulwark of white male privilege.
As far as an Amendment, it would never pass.
The gravest danger of the Court as it now stands is that it will continue to uphold gerrymandering and voter suppression in a way that permanently enthrones a Republican minority--that Democrats will be permanently denied redress at the ballot box, helped along by that relic of slavery--the Electoral College. A majority can only be denied its rights and power for so long, and if the vote is unable to redress grievances, violence is the only alternative.
-
09-19-2020, 10:47 AM #109
Did you read the article? It's not up to the Justices. This is the entirety of what the Constitution says about appoint judges/Justices:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
-
09-19-2020, 10:49 AM #110
One of the best reasons to not impose term limits is Judge Roberts. Roberts, appointed by Bush, has received the scorn of conservatives for upholding gay marriage and the constitutionality of Obamacare's individual mandate. While not directly criticizing Trump (which would be improper for a Supreme Court justice to do), Roberts has made statements directly counter to Trump regarding an impartial judiciary.
If we had term limits, even 20 year term limits, would you see a "Republican" judge cross the aisle, like Roberts, and other judges have done? Trump is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. But Roberts knows he's here for the long haul and deep down, may have more power over the long term future of this country than the orange bozo.
-
09-19-2020, 11:04 AM #111Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
09-19-2020, 11:20 AM #112
I think they view the coming brown majority as the biggest threat to their existence or to entrenched white power and wealth. That justifies all of these desperate and mostly successful attempts to subvert our democracy.
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
-
09-19-2020, 11:22 AM #113
-
09-19-2020, 11:37 AM #114
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!
-
09-19-2020, 11:40 AM #115lysterine
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 670
A minority-rule president should acknowledge that his power comes from a portion of the population that is smaller than his opponent's. He should seek a middle ground in governance and policies that acknowledges the lack of depth of support for his position. Rather, what we have is a narcissistic president that seeks to satiate the extremist wing of his minority base along with his own personal benefits. That doesn't bode well for trust in civil compromises and accommodations in a democratic system.
It really doesn't help when his catchphrase Law & Order is nothing more than a dog-whistle for supporting excessive force by our law enforcement, including "retribution" killings. The violence has already started on the right-wing side (putting aside the property burnings during the protests). Will the rightwing and state-sponsored violence de-escalate in time?
-
09-19-2020, 11:41 AM #116Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
09-19-2020, 11:44 AM #117
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government!
-
09-19-2020, 11:44 AM #118
-
09-19-2020, 11:56 AM #119
Yes, I read the article. And that remark was unnecessary. "Good behaviour" is an old British common law term that means "for life, if you don't rape small children or do something else heinous". If Congress were to pass a law imposing a term limit--any of the proposals in the webinar or any other--that law, like all laws since Madison vs Marbury, would be subject to review by the SCOTUS for constitutionality, providing suit was brought by someone with standing to sue--another issue the Court itself would decide. Now the Court could decide that "good behaviour" means something other than "for life" and uphold a term limit or it could decide that it means what it's always meant and reject the term limit. You tell me which way it is likely to rule.
I am well aware that Justices and other federal judges can be rotated to lower courts, given senior status, etc--voluntarily upon their retirement from full active status. I know a judge on the Court of Appeals in SF who did that--went to senior status which she intends to keep until a Democrat can nominate a replacement for her. (Senior status judges still occupy one of the openings on the court until they completely retire.) Doing that voluntarily is much different than Congress making it mandatory after a certain number of years.
I would love to see it happen, but I don't see how it will.
-
09-19-2020, 12:04 PM #120
-
09-19-2020, 12:19 PM #121
i found this piece by nina totenberg to be be very moving and i can’t stop reading these things.
https://apple.news/Aw1nU2KLgRIKVVJSggUh0Zgj'ai des grands instants de lucididididididididi
-
09-19-2020, 12:29 PM #122
This is incorrect. When judges take senior status it opens their seat for a new appointment. This is true regardless of whether they are a district court judge or a court of appeals judge.
But judges will often take senior status when they want their seat to be filled by the current president. They still can participate in the court but the president gets a new life appointment.
-
09-19-2020, 12:40 PM #123
I misremembered what she told me. I guess she wanted to keep working but wanted Obama to be able to fill her seat. Thanks for the correction. The point is still that senior status is a choice, not required by law.
In the same spirit as Clarence Thomas being nominated to succeed Thurgood Marshall, I propose that RBG be succeeded by Marjorie Taylor Greene.
-
09-19-2020, 01:20 PM #124
I wonder if the subject of increasing the size of SCOTUS will resurface. If Mitchy the bitchy gets a justice seated then dems take the White House and congress after the election it might be the only path to a right wing court not being in power for decades.
I do agree - with deep sadness - that the dems need to play dirty. I sure wish I didn't have to say that because the erosion of longstanding protocols of behavior in government since 2016 is, to me, one of the most deeply disturbing symtpoms of trumpism.
But I guess if there are new rules (or it has become acceptable to make them up as we go) the dems are gonna have to get on board. What fucking bummer.
-
09-19-2020, 01:27 PM #125
RBG is dead
https://www.axios.com/actblue-record...9c4da9a63.html
For two hours, more than $100,000 per minute was being donated to Democratic causes leading to $30MM
Bookmarks