Supreme Court of the United States

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

It's not unprecedented.  There's ample precedent for the court ruling for states' rights on a literalist interpretation. 

 

It's called Dred Scott v Sanford.  

The whole argument of being unprecedented is crap anyway. How does something ever become precedent unless first decided on in the first place, then repeatedly upheld? 

[Koko]

On 7/23/2022 at 1:15 PM, Spartacus said:

Now, Seton Hall Law Assistant Dean Brian Sheppard has called for Congress to “buyout” justices by offering them “large sums of money.” If needed, he suggests that President Joe Biden could scrape up the dough to prompt justices to cash in and get out.

 

Wow, not only illegal, but patently stupid and corrupt. I'm sure his university will give him an award or something.

[Koko]

6 hours ago, Cinga said:

The whole argument of being unprecedented is crap anyway. How does something ever become precedent unless first decided on in the first place, then repeatedly upheld? 

 

These are the same morons who can't understand that the concept of 'Federalism' doesn't mean the Democrats can rule by executive and judicial fiat.

[Boyst]

10 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

It's not unprecedented.  There's ample precedent for the court ruling for states' rights on a literalist interpretation. 

 

It's called Dred Scott v Sanford.  

I don't follow your logic because by some standard dred Scott was horrible.

 

What am I missing that you're saying because I know you're not stupid and that sounds stupid. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

19 minutes ago, Boyst said:

I don't follow your logic because by some standard dred Scott was horrible.

 

What am I missing that you're saying because I know you're not stupid and that sounds stupid. 

 

Dred Scott was actually a correct decision by the court under the Constitution and the legal framework of the time.  The laws enabling slavery were themselves reprehensible, but Dred Scott was a correct interpretation of those laws, and ultimately the proper remedy was Constitutional and legislative (i.e. the Thirteenth Amendment), and not judicial.

[Boyst]

10 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Dred Scott was actually a correct decision by the court under the Constitution and the legal framework of the time.  The laws enabling slavery were themselves reprehensible, but Dred Scott was a correct interpretation of those laws, and ultimately the proper remedy was Constitutional and legislative (i.e. the Thirteenth Amendment), and not judicial.

Thank you. I had believed you to be saying this but was concerned because of obvious reasons. It is an easy topic to have a slippery slope.

[Alaska Darin]

 

[Koko]

35 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

 

 

Oh no! What's next, the WNBA refusing to expand?

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, Alaska Darin said:

 

 

That's hysterical.

[IDBillzFan]

 

I'm starting to wonder if it's not unfair to suggest maybe it was leaked by one of the liberal justices. In the early reporting, I heard a number of people who served as interns for SCOTUS comment that it would not take long at all to name the person because there was a very small pool from which to choose.

 

They have to be protecting someone, and maybe the idea that it is actually someone like Sotomayor or Kagan who slipped it out maybe isn't too far fetched.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by IDBillzFan

[B-Man]

25 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

 

They have to be protecting someone, and maybe the idea that it is actually someone like Sotomayor or Kagan who slipped it out maybe isn't too far fetched.

 

 

 

My money is on "Justice Follow Public Opinion "

 

.

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I'm starting to wonder if it's not unfair to suggest maybe it was leaked by one of the liberal justices. In the early reporting, I heard a number of people who served as interns for SCOTUS comment that it would not take long at all to name the person because there was a very small pool from which to choose.

 

They have to be protecting someone, and maybe the idea that it is actually someone like Sotomayor or Kagan who slipped it out maybe isn't too far fetched.

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

My money is on "Justice Follow Public Opinion "

 

.

 

It's what I suspected from day one and if we really think they don't know who did it yet we are deceiving ourselves. The number of staff or justices that had access to it was extremely limited and if the guilty party were one of the interns or staff members, they would have already been fired and disbarred for eternity.

No... it was definitely one of the Justices but consider the consequences of making that public. Impeachment and disbarring of a Supreme would only further diminish the court in the eyes of the public. Roberts wanted his court to be free of controversy and to always stick with precedent, even perceived as in Roe but he got a double whammy because of Dodd and I'm betting is hoping the scandal goes away and probably got a double pinkie promise it wouldn't happen again. But you know how that works... Next controversial decision will also get leaked and then Roberts will have to act. 

[Foxx]

The leak was court sanctioned. 

[Foxx]

This is rich. If it happens, one branch of government will have investigated the other two.

 

Schiff: The Committee Could Subpoena Ginni Thomas About Justice Thomas

[devnull]

56 minutes ago, Foxx said:

This is rich. If it happens, one branch of government will have investigated the other two.

 

Schiff: The Committee Could Subpoena Ginni Thomas About Justice Thomas

 

Again with the precedents.  Democrats investigate Ginni Thomas as a proxy attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, they open the door for Republicans to investigate Paul Pelosi

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

The leak was court sanctioned. 

 

No...not the whole court  But it was sanctioned by at least one Justice.

[Billsandhorns]

2 hours ago, devnull said:

 

Again with the precedents.  Democrats investigate Ginni Thomas as a proxy attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, they open the door for Republicans to investigate Paul Pelosi

Suspicious trades, especially by family members of Congress members should be investigated. 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, devnull said:

 

Again with the precedents.  Democrats investigate Ginni Thomas as a proxy attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, they open the door for Republicans to investigate Paul Pelosi

 

No, no, no.  Democrats throwing tantrums & changing the rules mid-game never ever comes back to bite them (cough, Roe v Wade, cough).  Schiff Fer Brains is merely following his Environtology Creator given rights as a D Congress Critter to hold his breath & get his way.

[Koko]

19 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I'm starting to wonder if it's not unfair to suggest maybe it was leaked by one of the liberal justices. In the early reporting, I heard a number of people who served as interns for SCOTUS comment that it would not take long at all to name the person because there was a very small pool from which to choose.

 

They have to be protecting someone, and maybe the idea that it is actually someone like Sotomayor or Kagan who slipped it out maybe isn't too far fetched.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting theory one person I know had is that it was leaked by the conservative side of the Court to try to keep someone (Kavanaugh or Gorsuch?) from switching their vote (other than Roberts, who will vote for whatever direction the wind is blowing).

[Alaska Darin]

I'd like to say thanks to Harry Reid...