Jump to content

SCOTUS and whatnot


pfife
 Share

Recommended Posts

The SCOTUS Commission is supposed to meet today.  Their initial findings are against expanding the court.  They thought term could address the issues the democrats have.   The problem I have with doing anything to the SCOTUS is that Court is supposed to be non-political and with a couple exceptions they currently are.  If the democrats pack the court with their people it will turn it into another political body. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution and the law not rule on personal or political feelings.  Most of the rulings show that.  RBG was influenced the most by politics as was Alito. I find it funny that Sotomayor accused the court to be political when she is most politically influenced on the bench. 

I guessing the democrats will ignore this report if it doesn't fit their agenda.  

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/10/biden-supreme-court-reform-commission-releases-initial-report-here-it-is/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConnell and his cohorts have already turned the court into a political body. In fact your side could argue that the court turned political with a couple of appointments made by Eisenhower. Possibly as far back as FDR.

Since people are generally living longer than they did in 1790 it kind of makes sense not to have jurors on the bench when they are old and senile 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

McConnell and his cohorts have already turned the court into a political body. In fact your side could argue that the court turned political with a couple of appointments made by Eisenhower. Possibly as far back as FDR.

Not to nitpick, but his side DID argue that exact thing for decades.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
5 hours ago, oblong said:

But isn't this just a procedural thing?  It doesn't kill the bill it just kicks it around some and will come back to them as the lower courts do their thing and the losing side appeals.

In other words this isn't the end of it.

I'd be curious to hear Buddha's take, but my layman interpretation is that they're pretty hostile to the enforcement mechanism in the Texas law (for good reason).

Archie is correct in that the Mississippi law is probably the big game in town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oblong said:

But isn't this just a procedural thing?  It doesn't kill the bill it just kicks it around some and will come back to them as the lower courts do their thing and the losing side appeals.

In other words this isn't the end of it.

the law itself is very very very likely unconstitutional.  the issue with this law is the ability to enforce it is relegated to private individuals rather than the state.  therefore, the question became "who can you sue to enjoin the law from taking effect if you cant sue the state or a state official" like you usually would do.

its a way to get around the usual way one would challenge the constitutionality of the law.  the majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow the law to be enjoined (as in, temporarily stopping the law from being passed so the court can address the constitutional aspects of it in a separate hearing).

now, this is all going on at the same time there is another case pending before the court on abortion.  that's the mississippi case.  that case challenges the casey roe line of cases as wrongly decided.  the mississippi case is the more important one for abortion law moving forward.  the court could overrule roe/casey and basically send the issue back to the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...
On 12/5/2021 at 6:39 AM, pfife said:

I'm glad I've never argued these wingers operate in good faith.

 

Anyone religious enough not to recognize the supremacy of secular law in a republic that guarantees freedom of and from religion  should be all rights be barred from judicial service and if they were intellectually honest they would not seek the role. Religious zealots like like Scalia and Barrett are a scourge on the 1st amendment.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Anyone religious enough not to recognize the supremacy of secular law in a republic that guarantees freedom of and from religion  should be all rights be barred from judicial service and if they were intellectually honest they would not seek the role. Religious zealots like like Scalia and Barrett are a scourge on the 1st amendment.

no catholics allowed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, buddha said:

no catholics allowed!

If they will not recognize the supremacy of secular democratic authority over that of the their church, I would have no problem with baring anyone on that grounds. They take an oath to support the Constitution which includes the 1st amendment and there are at least 3 of them on a given day that that are more than happy to violate it. It defies logic to me that they construe constraining the authority of the state to preserve life through public health actions as an example of free exercise. When you are willing to constrain the democratic action of the state for the benefit all in the interest of some religion, you are establishing that religion. That is prohibited. I doubt seriously that they would be so solicitous if the petitioners were not of their same sectarian bent. 

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If they will not recognize the supremacy of secular democratic authority over that of the their church, I would have no problem with baring anyone on that grounds. They take an oath to support the Constitution which includes the 1st amendment and there are at least 3 of them on a given day that that are more than happy to violate it. It defies logic to me that they construe constraining the authority of the state to preserve life through public health actions as an example of free exercise. I doubt seriously that they would be so solicitous if the petitioners were not of their same sectarian bent. 

right, no catholics allowed.  they take orders from the pope and can't be trusted to obey our secular laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

right, no catholics allowed.  they take orders from the pope and can't be trusted to obey our secular laws.

you have a choice to make as to where you look for "supreme law". It's institutional Catholicism which creates the issue with threats to deny sacraments to or excommunicate  those in political power if they don't toe the doctrinal line, so don't act like this isn't an issue of their own making.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...