1 1
JoeWeber

The Supreme Court is our biggest problem

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe. On the other hand he might be thinking: "Ginni, baby, I love you but the law is the law."

Or maybe “you’re embarrassing me now and it’d be great to get a no-fault divorce”

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kallend said:

Not sure if that is sarcsm.

RBG's arrogance in hanging on when she should have retired led directly to this.  My wife WAS a huge RBG fan, but now she has nothing good to say for her.

Of course it was sarcasm. And when did your wife wake up? Was it after Ginzburg died of one of the 19 cancers that were killing her? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Jerry, were you angry at her stubbornness and selfishness before she died? Notorious RBG, indeed.

Hi Joe,

No, I did not know just how sick she was.

I also believe that there should be an age limit on SCOTUS members.

While I do not believe in putting old people out on the ice to die, there is some validity to this:  GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY, IF VERY ILL, HAVE 'DUTY TO DIE' - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Four ys ago, when they were wheeling me in for my triple bypass, I had almost no concern should I not survive the operation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Or maybe “you’re embarrassing me now and it’d be great to get a no-fault divorce”

Wendy P. 

My inability to maintain my marriage shows how God never intended for the races to mix.

 

- Thomas

 

(Probably)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

My inability to maintain my marriage shows how God never intended for the races to mix.

 

- Thomas

 

(Probably)

Hi Sky,

IMO the worst SCOTUS app't in my lifetime.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  After he was out of office, Pres. Eisenhower said that the biggest mistake he made as POTUS, was to appoint Earl Warren to Chief Justice.  I thought it turned out great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democrats-roe-v-wade-singing-b2108959.html
 

‘House Democrats called ‘f***ing useless’ for singing God Bless America by Capitol after Roe ruling’

 

‘Leave it to Democratic leadership to bring a sing-along to a gunfight where Republicans are using Bazookas and Jet fuel to torch our rights’ wrote one critic on Twitter’
 

This is what I’ve been saying.

Nice and respectful doesn’t work if the other team isn’t playing by the same set of rules.

 

When your enemy gives you 3 weeks notice where he’s going to hit, you’d better have a damned good counter attack planned.

A singalong doesn’t cut it.

Edited by yoink
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says a lot about the Constitution that 5 justices appointed by two presidents who LOST the popular vote can overturn 50 years of precedent, upheld in a multitude of cases by justices just as qualified as they are, all appointed by presidents who DID win the popular vote.

I used to have respect for the Constitution but I now believe it is a seriously flawed document and a major contributor to the problems facing the USA.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Of course it’s flawed. It was written for a completely different society.

If you tried to interpret and map Stone Age societal values to a space age civilization of course you’re going to run into issues there too…

I’d have no problems with the 2nd amendment if it limited ownership to fucking muskets and black powder.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kallend said:

It says a lot about the Constitution that 5 justices appointed by two presidents who LOST the popular vote can overturn 50 years of precedent, upheld in a multitude of cases by justices just as qualified as they are, all appointed by presidents who DID win the popular vote.

I used to have respect for the Constitution but I now believe it is a seriously flawed document and a major contributor to the problems facing the USA.

Absolutely. And isn't it ironic how constitutional originalists can not see how their backwards looking glass renders them unable to see how very unable that flawed document is to meet the needs of the current times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Absolutely. And isn't it ironic how constitutional originalists can not see how their backwards looking glass renders them unable to see how very unable that flawed document is to meet the needs of the current times.

That, too, is outside the light spectrum they can see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Absolutely. And isn't it ironic how constitutional originalists can not see how their backwards looking glass renders them unable to see how very unable that flawed document is to meet the needs of the current times.

This portion of a transcript of an interview with a UCLA law professor sums up how selective they are with the originalist and historical context:

"

Most notable is that the Court says it is going to look to history and tradition, but then ignores history and tradition. The Court says that only gun laws which have historical precedent are constitutionally permissible, and then the Court dismisses all of the historical precedents for heavy restrictions on concealed-carry laws as outliers. The Court says that it is going to look to history, but dismisses early English common law as too old. The Court says that it is going to look to history, but dismisses any laws that were adopted after the mid-eighteen-hundreds as too young. The Court says that it is looking to history, but also says that shall-issue permitting is constitutional, even though shall-issue permitting is a twentieth-century invention. So the Court says that it is doing history and tradition analysis, but conveniently ignores any history it doesn’t like.

In terms of picking and choosing historical precedents, is that out of the norm or a common feature of Court decisions?

 

This is singular. The Court says that history and tradition analysis is the way that constitutional rights should be analyzed. But all you have to do is go back to Tuesday’s decision on the funding of religious schools. The Court didn’t do any history and tradition analysis to show that there is a First Amendment requirement that states finance religious schools. [In the gun case,] the Court rejects the kind of interest-balancing that is commonplace in constitutional law more generally.'

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-historical-cherry-picking-at-the-heart-of-the-supreme-courts-gun-rights-expansion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

It says a lot about the Constitution that 5 justices appointed by two presidents who LOST the popular vote can overturn 50 years of precedent, upheld in a multitude of cases by justices just as qualified as they are, all appointed by presidents who DID win the popular vote.

I used to have respect for the Constitution but I now believe it is a seriously flawed document and a major contributor to the problems facing the USA.

Hi John,

I feel exactly the same way.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans- gerrymandering      Democrats- zzzzzzzzzzz

republicans- voting roadblocks     democrats zzzzzzzzzzzz

republicans-laws to suppress vote  democrats crying and moaning

republicans sell their souls to get SC appointments  democrats, run around in circles crying about rules and precedent. Completely bamboozled about the idea that lawyers and judges will lie to get a leg up in a court proceeding..Especially one that will immediately put them in a unimpeachable position for life.

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yoink said:

Of course it’s flawed. It was written for a completely different society.

If you tried to interpret and map Stone Age societal values to a space age civilization of course you’re going to run into issues there too…

I’d have no problems with the 2nd amendment if it limited ownership to fucking muskets and black powder.

Hi Will,

I'm with you, 100%.  I don't care if their fucking or not.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Absolutely. And isn't it ironic how constitutional originalists can not see how their backwards looking glass renders them unable to see how very unable that flawed document is to meet the needs of the current times.

Well, not exactly. It meets THEIR needs.

It gives the rich and powerful control over everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following up on my ‘I’m pissed with the democrats rant’, this article hits the nail on the head:

 

https://www.joshbarro.com/p/republicans-are-willing-to-pay-a

 

There is the opportunity for the Republican Party to pay a significant political price here, if only the democrats are aggressive enough (without being foaming-at-the-mouth extreme) to capitalize on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
53 minutes ago, yoink said:

Following up on my ‘I’m pissed with the democrats rant’, this article hits the nail on the head:

 

https://www.joshbarro.com/p/republicans-are-willing-to-pay-a

 

There is the opportunity for the Republican Party to pay a significant political price here, if only the democrats are aggressive enough (without being foaming-at-the-mouth extreme) to capitalize on it.

 

Sure, like Manchin and Sinema voting to end the filibuster to codify Roe? The power to win is in the hands of the Democrats now and Manchin is believing he can get 10 R Senators, (and Sinema), to give up voluntarily what they spent 50 years fighting to get. The situation is all but hopeless.

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors on midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the door of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass., 1987)

Now we have 5 Borks on the SCOTUS.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure, like Manchin and Sinema voting to end the filibuster to codify Roe? The power to win is in the hands of the Democrats now and Manchin is believing he can get 10 R Senators, (and Sinema), to give up voluntarily what they spent 50 years fighting to get. The situation is all but hopeless.

Remember that Manchin is a centreist, and your plan for the Dems to succeed is to elect more centreists. I suppose what you're really after is people who campaign as centreists but flip to supporting more liberal policies once they're elected, but they're going to be tricky to find.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

1 1