ICE suffers triple legal blow within hours

[postman]

Non response noted and laughed at.

You kinda jumped the gun with that one.
I answered you.

 

[martybegan]

You mean like all the republican appointed judges being RINO's.

I didn't say all, you room temperature IQ nitwit.

Once again posters like you show you have to lie to make your attempted points.

 

[postman]

I didn't say all, you room temperature IQ nitwit.

Once again posters like you show you have to lie to make your attempted points.

All except those appointed by Trump 47.
Which isn't many.

In 2025, during the first year of his second term, Donald Trump had 26 judicial nominees confirmed by the U.S. Senate,

As of early 2026, there are 870 authorized Article III federal judgeships,

 

[martybegan]

All except those appointed by Trump 47.
Which isn't many.

When the left has no actual point to make, they go with chickenshit.

it's tiring.

 

[Lockback]

More lefty idiot district judges making up bullshit as they go.

More fodder for the appeals courts.

These hack judges are despicable. They continue to clog the system with appeals that we shouldn't have if they followed the damn Constitution to begin with. It's all politics, not the law.

 

[postman]

These hack judges are despicable. They continue to clog the system with appeals that we shouldn't have if they followed the damn Constitution to begin with. It's all politics, not the law.

It's politics when it goes against your views, but the law when you agree with it.

Actually the despicable judges are the one's who claim they will follow stare decisis, and then overturn settled law at the first opportunity.

 

[martybegan]

It's politics when it goes against your views, but the law when you agree with it.

Actually the despicable judges are the one's who claim they will follow stare decisis, and then overturn settled law at the first opportunity.

Stare decisis is not absolute. if it were, we would still have Plessey in effect.

The concept is to give weight to previous decisions, not to prevent them from being overturned.

 

[pknopp]

Stare decisis is not absolute. if it were, we would still have Plessey in effect.

Which should have been their answer but it wasn't.

 

[martybegan]

Which should have been their answer but it wasn't.

Actually if you read their actual answers, they usually say exactly what I said.

 

[pknopp]

Actually if you read their actual answers, they usually say exactly what I said.

Except they didn't.

 

[martybegan]

Except they didn't.

You have actual quotes?

 

[pknopp]

You have actual quotes?

It's been covered many times.

Did SCOTUS judges lie about Roe v. Wade — or just use 'careful lawyerly phrasing'?

The sharpest opinions on the debate from around the web

theweek.com

 

[martybegan]

It's been covered many times.

Did SCOTUS judges lie about Roe v. Wade — or just use 'careful lawyerly phrasing'?

The sharpest opinions on the debate from around the web

theweek.com

From your own link, you idiot.

The Justices didn't lie​

Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch didn't lie during their confirmation hearings, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, and "we'd be stunned if either Justice came close to making a pledge about Roe" in their private meetings with Collins and Manchin. "The reason is that the first rule of judging is that you can't pre-judge a case." The late progressive icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said in 1993 that justices "sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts" on how they'll rule on any matter, because to do so "would display disdain for the entire judicial process." Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the recently confirmed liberal newcomer to the high court, dodged direct answers about precedent in the same way. She would probably "vote to overturn all of last week's rulings on religious liberty, guns, and abortion if she gets the chance. But that doesn't mean she lied to the Senate."

 

[postman]

Stare decisis is not absolute. if it were, we would still have Plessey in effect.

The concept is to give weight to previous decisions, not to prevent them from being overturned.

The cases you site are where a new supreme court overturned the previous decision by a GREATER MAJORITY than decided the previous case.

Republicans are overturning stare decisis by fewer votes than the prior decision

Maybe that should sink in.

 

[martybegan]

The cases you site are where a new supreme court overturned the previous decision by a GREATER MAJORITY than decided the previous case.

Republicans are overturning stare decisis by fewer votes than the prior decision

Maybe that should sink in.

A bad case is a bad case regardless of how many idiot justices decided on it.

Plessey was 7-1.

Brown was unanimous, so off by 1.

Wow, big difference.

 

[westwall]

That's what you always say.
And it rarely happens.

You're probably still waiting for the SC to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump's win rate is much higher than your propagandist media will tell you.

And you're too stupid to figure out alternative news sources.

 

[postman]

A bad case is a bad case regardless of how many idiot justices decided on it.

Plessey was 7-1.

Brown was unanimous, so off by 1.

Wow, big difference.

Even your math is bad.
9-0 vs 7-1

That's TWO more judges (and unanimous) to overturn the prior decision.

 

[postman]

Trump's win rate is much higher than your propagandist media will tell you.

In 2020 Trumps "win rate" was one in sixty.

 

[martybegan]

Even your math is bad.
9-0 vs 7-1

That's TWO more judges (and unanimous) to overturn the prior decision.

One was recused in Plessy.

Only one dissenter in Plessy, zero in Brown.

Brown would have been correct at 5-4, never mind 9-0. Plessey would have been wrong at 9-0 as well.

 

[postman]

Brown would have been correct at 5-4, never mind 9-0. Plessey would have been wrong at 9-0 as well.

This where I disagree. That to overturn a prior precedent, it should require an equal or greater unanimity than the prior decision.