Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 407

Thread: RBG is dead

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    137
    May her memory be a blessing.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    flatland
    Posts
    3,066
    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. C≥ompounded 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 Tapatalk
    Last edited by Gepeto; 09-19-2020 at 08:40 AM.
    "knowledgeable in escapades of the flesh"

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    General Sherman's Favorite City
    Posts
    21,695
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    It would take 4 Republican no votes to deny Trump a nominee--Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Alexander were the 4 Jeff Toobin named.
    If the Dems take the Senate and the Senate manages to confirm a nominee in a lame duck session, Congress can pack the court. It can also limit the terms of all sitting and future justices. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent either action.
    If the Republicans hold the Senate it is quite possible McConnell would refuse to confirm a Biden nominated justice for as long as the Republicans hold the Senate.


    The Democrats should make it clear that after the Merrit Garland fiasco, they will play as hard and as dirty as necessary to keep a reasonably balanced court--the prospect of court packing and term limits may give enough Republicans pause to vote against a Trump nominee--or make it clear to McConnell that they would do so. Especially any Senators who have lost their seats and have nothing to lose. The fear of civil disorder bordering on insurrection may change a few minds as well

    If Trump wins this is all moot.
    Need a Constitutional amendment for term limits on SCOTUS.

    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    How can someone who uses the abbreviation SML for Senate Majority Leader claim to not be talking politics. : )
    Pecking away on the iPhone, trying to conserve keystrokes I guess.
    I still call it The Jake.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadman View Post
    Trump isn't going to let McConnell choose the SCOTUS nominee this time around. Trump won't listen to his advisors. He will pick someone who will, in his warped, mob mentality mind, be loyal to him.
    Holy crap; this would mean Jared, Ivanka and Stone are at the top of the list. I actually kind of hope he tries this, just to see all the enablers squirm.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by BmillsSkier View Post
    Need a Constitutional amendment for term limits on SCOTUS.
    "[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/

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    14,505
    Quote Originally Posted by BmillsSkier View Post
    Need a Constitutional amendment for term limits on SCOTUS.
    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.)

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    434
    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.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    12,470
    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/

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    14,505
    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.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    12,470
    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.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    1,388
    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.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    22,262
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    . 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.
    This is the reason I fail to understand the current Republican platforms enabling gerrymandering, voter suppression and erosion of Roe v Wade. It will inevitably lead to the destruction of America. Do they really think that the BLM protests are just a passing fancy?
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    6,468
    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

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    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.
    2016 was 48% for Clinton, 46% for Trump. Yes, the electoral college is fucked and should be changed, but is a 48/46 split really a mandate for violence?

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    on the banks of Fish Creek
    Posts
    2,999
    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    2016 was 48% for Clinton, 46% for Trump. Yes, the electoral college is fucked and should be changed, but is a 48/46 split really a mandate for violence?
    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?

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    22,262
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    ...but is a 48/46 split really a mandate for violence?
    Depends on the resulting policies and leadership.
    Currently, the difference between the two is so extreme that a 2% statistical difference misrepresents the functional difference.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    I smell poutine!!!
    Posts
    12,019
    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government!

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    12,470
    Quote Originally Posted by tetzen View Post
    A minority-rule president should acknowledge that his power comes from a portion of the population that is smaller than his opponent's.
    I don't disagree, but now do the Senate. States with 18% of the population control 50% of it.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    14,505
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier View Post
    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.
    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.

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    14,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    This is the reason I fail to understand the current Republican platforms enabling gerrymandering, voter suppression and erosion of Roe v Wade. It will inevitably lead to the destruction of America. Do they really think that the BLM protests are just a passing fancy?
    If it hasn't been said, they would welcome open (shooting) conflicts with the libtards as they will own their dead asses or so they think.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,980
    i found this piece by nina totenberg to be be very moving and i canít stop reading these things.

    https://apple.news/Aw1nU2KLgRIKVVJSggUh0Zg
    They got a name for the winners in the world

    http://procatinator.com/?cat=80

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    12,470
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    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.) .
    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.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    14,505
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier View Post
    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.
    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.

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,100
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles View Post
    If I lived in WA, Oft would be my realtor. Seriously.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •