ACB unanimously advanced to full Senate

[Matt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney- ... 45?mod=mhp

Am I doing this right?

[Rate This]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney- ... 45?mod=mhp

Am I doing this right?

In other news the sun rose in the east and although it’s cloudy today on sunny days the sky is blue.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

So unexpected.

[Matt]

So unexpected.

You expected a UNANIMOUS vote?

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

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.

[Deleted User 14896]

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.

Talk of expanding the court is just a media brain fart.

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.

[Matt]

Maybe RT will have a different response when the dipshits at e-v.com post their drivel tomorrow...

[Rate This]

Maybe RT will have a different response when the dipshits at e-v.com post their drivel tomorrow...

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.

[Matt]

Maybe RT will have a different response when the dipshits at e-v.com post their drivel tomorrow...

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.

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]

Maybe RT will have a different response when the dipshits at e-v.com post their drivel tomorrow...

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User 14896]

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.

Interesting.
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?

[Rate This]

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.

Interesting.
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?

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.

[UP906]

It is done, you've already lost and you don't even know it.

[Rate This]

It is done, you've already lost and you don't even know it.

Lost what exactly?

[UP906]

Everything.

The left is done.