Supreme Court of the United States

[Hedge]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:45 AM, Alaska Darin said:

 

 

I doubt there is anything that women's pro soccer can do that will decrease it's number of spectators.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

10 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

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

 

Is there any Democratic belief that doesn't amount to, essentially, instant gratification with no consideration of long-term effects?

[Spartacus]

6 hours ago, Koko said:

 

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).

it was Roberts

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

it was Roberts

 

media driven diversionary tactics

 

CNN: Draft Opinion Leak Killed Roberts’ Efforts To Convince Conservative Justices To Save Roe (msn.com)

 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts tried to persuade his fellow conservative justices against fully dismantling Roe v. Wade, but the infamous opinion leak in May thwarted his already long-shot efforts, CNN reported on Tuesday.

 

[Foxx]

Breaking!

 

[Spartacus]

it seems they glossed over Congressional term limits

 

Democrats introduce bill requiring term limits for US supreme court justices (msn.com)

 

The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act (Term), would establish 18-year terms for supreme court justices and establish a process for the president to appoint a new justice every two years. After an 18-year term, justices would be retired from active judicial service.

If the bill were to take effect, the nine justices now on the court would essentially be forced into senior status in order of reverse seniority, as jurists were appointed under the new mechanism.

 

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

it seems they glossed over Congressional term limits

 

Democrats introduce bill requiring term limits for US supreme court justices (msn.com)

 

The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act (Term), would establish 18-year terms for supreme court justices and establish a process for the president to appoint a new justice every two years. After an 18-year term, justices would be retired from active judicial service.

If the bill were to take effect, the nine justices now on the court would essentially be forced into senior status in order of reverse seniority, as jurists were appointed under the new mechanism.

 

will need to change some definitions the Constitution

 

https://bigthink.com/the-present/why-supreme-court-lifetime-tenure/

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t specifically grant Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment. Instead, Article III, Section 1, states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” and… that’s it. As long as federal judges don’t commit a crime — and remember their pleases and thank yous — they keep their seat.

The phrase “during good Behavior” translates to a lifetime appointment because the Founders set no specific term or age limit for service. This means that the only actions that can remove a federal judge are death, resignation, or impeachment by Congress.

 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Article III.

Section. 1.

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.

 

[Spartacus]

typical lib-tard thought process

Congress attempting to ignore the Constitution to impose term linmits on SC

yet hiding behind Constitution as reason the SC can't retatliate and impeach Pelosi

 

Fact check: Supreme Court did not, cannot rule to impeach Nancy Pelosi (msn.com)

 

A Facebook video post claims the Supreme Court has taken steps to impeach House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

 

 

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the "sole power to impeach an official," according to the House of Representatives website, while the Senate serves as the only court for impeachment trials.

[Spartacus]

in case you missed Kagan's attack on the Court last week

 

'That doesn’t seem like law': Supreme Court justices going public with grievances after contentious session (msn.com)

 

Case in point: Justice Elana Kagan questioned the future of the court in a speech in Montana last week that was remarkably critical as well as candid.

[Cinga]

We learn something new everyday under the Xiden Dynasty

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/karine-jean-pierre-roasted-calling-overturning-roe-wade-unconstitutional

 

Quote

 

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre took heat Wednesday after she claimed that the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade was an "unconstitutional action."

"From day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by them," she said

................

Last month President Biden hinted that the court’s decision was unconstitutional during his remarks given on an executive order to protect abortion access in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s reversal. "Let’s be clear about something from the very start, this was not a decision driven by the Constitution," he said, adding that the court’s conservative majority was "playing fast and loose with the facts."

 

 

[Cinga]

On 7/29/2022 at 11:04 AM, Spartacus said:

in case you missed Kagan's attack on the Court last week

 

'That doesn’t seem like law': Supreme Court justices going public with grievances after contentious session (msn.com)

 

Case in point: Justice Elana Kagan questioned the future of the court in a speech in Montana last week that was remarkably critical as well as candid.

 

What a bunch of crap! 

Quote

“If over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for a democracy,” Kagan claimed. "I think people are rightly suspicious if one justice leaves the court or dies and another justice takes his or her place and all of a sudden the law changes. It’s like: What’s going on here? That doesn’t seem like law.”

 

This is the type of utter stupidity that has created this Feelz justice system we now have. NO you idiot! Your job is to rule on the very law itself, not how you think people might feelz about the ruling!

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

 

What a bunch of crap! 

 

This is the type of utter stupidity that has created this Feelz justice system we now have. NO you idiot! Your job is to rule on the very law itself, not how you think people might feelz about the ruling!

 

Everything I've heard or read from Kagan and Sotomayor, right from their confirmation, convinces me that they are two of the least qualified people on the planet to be on the court.

[Cinga]

49 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Everything I've heard or read from Kagan and Sotomayor, right from their confirmation, convinces me that they are two of the least qualified people on the planet to be on the court.

 

And to make it worse, I'd be willing to bet the leaked Dobbs opinion came from one of them (my money is on Sotomayor) and Roberts knows it by now and decided he didn't want the scandal that would come with the impeachment of a justice while he is chief. No one will ever convince me that they hadn't figured it out even before the real decision was handed down. 

Come to think of it, doesn't that make the leaker an accessory to a plot to murder 3 justices? But Roberts inaction on the leak may doom this court

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

8 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Come to think of it, doesn't that make the leaker an accessory to a plot to murder 3 justices? 

 

Technically, no, since there's no real plot to murder three justices.

 

But there was no plot to overthrow the government on January 6, either.  So I'll allow it.

[devnull]

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/22/the-point-of-no-return

[Koko]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:06 AM, devnull said:

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/22/the-point-of-no-return

 

Even at his age, Mr. Sowell is still an absolutely brilliant man. Too bad the mouthbreathers refuse to understand simple concepts like 'limited government', and will disregard his eloquent and logical explanation.

[Spartacus]

we don't care what that stinkin Supreme Court said about state's right

 

There’s a bipartisan bill to codify Roe — and abortion rights groups can’t stand it (msn.com)

 

The bill, known as the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, is a bipartisan effort, sponsored by Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine and Kyrsten Sinema. It has sparked outrage among the leaders of abortion rights groups: They argue it would not actually codify key Supreme Court decisions and could even be a step backward from what Americans had before Dobbs. The measure does much less to protect abortion rights than the Women’s Health Protection Act, abortion rights groups’ favored bill, which passed the House but has failed twice in the Senate.

 

Their reaction underscores a key debate over Democrats’ legislative strategy in post-Roe America. Even as Democrats say they want to codify Roe, national reproductive rights groups and their allies in Congress see a political window to move beyond Roe’s weak framework and more meaningfully protect abortion access.

[Ann]

Wow

 

Justices Reject Yeshiva University Over LGBTQ Group, For Now (1)

 

 

 

 

 

[Cinga]

14 minutes ago, Ann said:

Wow

 

Justices Reject Yeshiva University Over LGBTQ Group, For Now (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya know, I get the proper procedure argument, but I also see this as a case they know is going to end up on their desk anyway, so why waste the time in the lower courts? And then when it is in fact thrown out, we'll hear once again the wailing about how the court is taking away their rights.... 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

14 hours ago, Cinga said:

 

Ya know, I get the proper procedure argument, but I also see this as a case they know is going to end up on their desk anyway, so why waste the time in the lower courts? And then when it is in fact thrown out, we'll hear once again the wailing about how the court is taking away their rights.... 

 

The procedural argument in this case is very strong, though.  SCOTUS gets 7000-8000 cert. petitions per session, and grants hearings to less than 100.  Using the state, district, and appellate courts as de facto gatekeepers keeps the Supreme Court docket from getting overwhelmed...not just from the perspective of maintaining the docket, but for performing a lot of the legal analysis (in this case, for example, I have to believe there's ample precedent for a lower court to consider.  Let them do the majority of the leg work, and send the paperwork off to SCOTUS only if the precedent is unclear or conflicting, rather than waste SCOTUS' time doing that grunt work.)

 

Plus, this wasn't a cert. petition, it was a request for a stay of a decision.  Technically, there's no case to hear, since there was no petition to hear the case.