Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 29 at 11:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
In other news the sun rose in the east and although it’s cloudy today on sunny days the sky is blue.Matt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:31 amhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney- ... 45?mod=mhp
Am I doing this right?
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 6532
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
So unexpected.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
You expected a UNANIMOUS vote?
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 6532
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
Yes, it's a show of good faith. If she's going to pass anyways, why not? It won't matter when we expand the court.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
Talk of expanding the court is just a media brain fart.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:59 pmYes, it's a show of good faith. If she's going to pass anyways, why not? It won't matter when we expand the court.
With the exception of a few hotheads, nobody on either side of the aisle, including Biden, want to open that can of worms.
The level headed Democrats know if they stuff it on their watch, the Republicans will stuff it more when they come back in power. Neither side wants 34 justices.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
Maybe RT will have a different response when the dipshits at e-v.com post their drivel tomorrow...
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
How about this:
All 189 appellate judges are made Supreme Court Justices on a rotating basis. So if a case is accepted to the court a random lottery drawing of 9 will hear the case. That eliminates any need to stack the court of fight wildly over ideology everytime one of the justices croaks.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
No, the system we have works fine. The democrat appointees are typically the ideologues, hard stop. Republican appointees are more likely not to be politically tied.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:28 amHow about this:
All 189 appellate judges are made Supreme Court Justices on a rotating basis. So if a case is accepted to the court a random lottery drawing of 9 will hear the case. That eliminates any need to stack the court of fight wildly over ideology everytime one of the justices croaks.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
Bullshit. Anyone who claims to be an originalist and can interpret the constitution to give answers that the founding fathers could never have fathomed because the subject matter didn’t exist is an ideological hack. Hard stop. Clarance Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the biggest examples.Matt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:17 amNo, the system we have works fine. The democrat appointees are typically the ideologues, hard stop. Republican appointees are more likely not to be politically tied.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:28 amHow about this:
All 189 appellate judges are made Supreme Court Justices on a rotating basis. So if a case is accepted to the court a random lottery drawing of 9 will hear the case. That eliminates any need to stack the court of fight wildly over ideology everytime one of the justices croaks.
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
Interesting.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:44 amBullshit. Anyone who claims to be an originalist and can interpret the constitution to give answers that the founding fathers could never have fathomed because the subject matter didn’t exist is an ideological hack. Hard stop. Clarance Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the biggest examples.
What exactly is the role of the Supreme Court in these modern times. Is it to interpret the Constitution as an Originalist?
Is it to interpret modern times and make judgements that don't necessarily reflect what the Constitution says?
I agree, the Constitution is 230 years old. A lot in the world has changed.
But is it a slippery slope to not follow original meaning as the exclusive guide to interpretation in cases?
It would seem to me that by not being an Originalist, bias would be more likely.
I'm not saying I know the answer to that question. We both agree we are basically down to one Originalist on the bench, that being Thomas. And that's not likely to change, even with Amy Coney joining the fray.
But I go back to my first question. What is the role of the Supreme Court? Are they truly relevant? Maybe what I should say, are they making themselves irrelevant? My personally, they need to be passing on at least a third of the cases they hear. If it's not interpreting the Constitution, Originalist or otherwise, why hear it?
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
The hearing of cases and striking down of laws isn’t even in the constitution. It’s a precedent established in 1803 when they decided to do it and nobody bothered to stop them.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 1:51 pmInteresting.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:44 amBullshit. Anyone who claims to be an originalist and can interpret the constitution to give answers that the founding fathers could never have fathomed because the subject matter didn’t exist is an ideological hack. Hard stop. Clarance Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the biggest examples.
What exactly is the role of the Supreme Court in these modern times. Is it to interpret the Constitution as an Originalist?
Is it to interpret modern times and make judgements that don't necessarily reflect what the Constitution says?
I agree, the Constitution is 230 years old. A lot in the world has changed.
But is it a slippery slope to not follow original meaning as the exclusive guide to interpretation in cases?
It would seem to me that by not being an Originalist, bias would be more likely.
I'm not saying I know the answer to that question. We both agree we are basically down to one Originalist on the bench, that being Thomas. And that's not likely to change, even with Amy Coney joining the fray.
But I go back to my first question. What is the role of the Supreme Court? Are they truly relevant? Maybe what I should say, are they making themselves irrelevant? My personally, they need to be passing on at least a third of the cases they hear. If it's not interpreting the Constitution, Originalist or otherwise, why hear it?
Re: ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate
It is done, you've already lost and you don't even know it.
Thread Killer