Issues / Matters Pending before the SCOTUS

[Wry Catcher]

Considering the issues pending and how they effect many of our citizens, it is my (biased, I admit) opinion that the current even number of court members is in sufficient to resolve most of these issues and matters.

To delay the possible replacement until after the oath of office by the next POTUS is to put too many issues on over a year away, even if the President-Elect were to make the unusual decision to put the nomination before he selects his cabinet.

Petitions We're Watching

 

[Iceweasel]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i feel everyone should shut up for a month and let the guy be buried......but thats just me....

 

[martybegan]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

 

[Jackson]

Yes, O will nominate a new justice. It's the law. That is one law he will not break!

 

[martybegan]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

i feel everyone should shut up for a month and let the guy be buried......but thats just me....

The Court has too much power these days for that. The fact that one death can cause such a conundrum shows that Court has too much power, and the balance/separation of power espoused in the constitution has been sent out of kilter.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Considering the issues pending and how they effect many of our citizens, it is my (biased, I admit) opinion that the current even number of court members is in sufficient to resolve most of these issues and matters.

To delay the possible replacement until after the oath of office by the next POTUS is to put too many issues on over a year away, even if the President-Elect were to make the unusual decision to put the nomination before he selects his cabinet.

Petitions We're Watching

He should because it's his job. But whoever he nominates will probably be blocked because he'll want his guy and republicans will want theirs, and whether or not the nominee is worthy of the position is secondary. And it will probably become a political circus because that's what America is all about.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

 

[martybegan]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

 

[Harry Dresden]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

i feel everyone should shut up for a month and let the guy be buried......but thats just me....

The Court has too much power these days for that. The fact that one death can cause such a conundrum shows that Court has too much power, and the balance/separation of power espoused in the constitution has been sent out of kilter.

it would only be a few weeks marty....the court and the issues before it are not going anywhere.......

 

[Iceweasel]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

When it was written the average life expectancy was 55. Now at 70 you die too soon. We need something like 10 year terms and accountable to the people.

 

[martybegan]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

 

[martybegan]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

i feel everyone should shut up for a month and let the guy be buried......but thats just me....

The Court has too much power these days for that. The fact that one death can cause such a conundrum shows that Court has too much power, and the balance/separation of power espoused in the constitution has been sent out of kilter.

it would only be a few weeks marty....the court and the issues before it are not going anywhere.......

The ability of our country to do that is long past, its sad but true.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

 

[martybegan]

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

 

[TheOldSchool]

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

 

[martybegan]

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

 

[TheOldSchool]

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

Wrong? Irrelevant. Constitutional? Yes. Americans were fucked back then and thought humans could be property and that certain minorities did not deserve rights. That was corrected through amendments, and minorities were granted access to rights. And lo and behold, teh ghey's just happen to be a minority that was granted their rights based on the language of those amendments.

As for citizens united, sadly it is constitutional. If our lawmakers are halfway decent they'll pass a law addressing it.