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

Breaking News - Steely_D - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:39am
 
The Obituary Page - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - Alchemist - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:03am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:29am
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:25am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:44am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:36am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 7:40pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 27, 2024 - 5:08pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - miamizsun - Mar 27, 2024 - 2:44pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - miamizsun - Mar 26, 2024 - 4:10pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 26, 2024 - 12:24pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 12:04pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 25, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 24, 2024 - 9:42am
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 21, 2024 - 7:11am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Proclivities - Mar 20, 2024 - 9:33am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - jarro - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:15am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
Irony 101 - Proclivities - Mar 19, 2024 - 6:02am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Uploading Music - dischuckin - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:55am
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Apple Computer - GeneP59 - Mar 16, 2024 - 12:02pm
 
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