Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Supreme Court: "It is a corrupt court"

[struth]

Or like a large number of states do?

Not that many state engage in partisan elections, 7 in fact

It’s really a horrible way, politics shouldn’t play a role in judicial process

 

[postman]

Your first sentence is gobbledegook and incorrect
The illegal package failed

No different than if you filed a lawsuit, but didn't put sufficient postage on the papers you filed with the court. So they get returned for postage, causing delivery by a required date to miss the deadline, And your case is thrown out.

It was thrown out, not on the merits, but on a technicality.

 

[Gary Seven]

If democrats had their way, there would be no supreme court. You just take a poll and the majority rules.

You mean like how voters got to choose Kamala to run against Trump instead of Joe?

 

[struth]

No different than if you filed a lawsuit, but didn't put sufficient postage on the papers you filed with the court. So they get returned for postage, causing delivery by a required date to miss the deadline, And your case is thrown out.

It was thrown out, not on the merits, but on a technicality.

It was thrown out on the merits. The issue was the dems illegally put the referendum on the ballot

The court said yes yes they did

That’s not the same as missing a deadline and getting your case tossed

 

[postman]

Some stare decisis is more equal than others?

Radical mastectomies (Halsted procedures) ceased to be the preferred treatment for breast cancer during the 1970s, with a definitive shift towards less invasive methods occurring by the early 1980s. Clinical trials confirmed that less disfiguring surgeries, such as the modified radical mastectomy, offered the same survival rates.

More doctors agreed on the new procedure than the old decided on procedure.

 

[postman]

Not that many state engage in partisan elections, 7 in fact

It’s really a horrible way, politics shouldn’t play a role in judicial process

Google AI

Approximately 38 states use elections to select at least some of their state supreme court justices,

 

[postman]

It was thrown out on the merits. The issue was the dems illegally put the referendum on the ballot

The court said yes yes they did

That’s not the same as missing a deadline and getting your case tossed

That was a procedural violation. How the referendum was conducted, and it's conclusions were properly done. And would have produced valid results.

 

[task0778]

It's ironic how throughout the 20th century when we saw radical decisions come out of SCOTUS that benefited the left's agenda Democrats never called the court corrupt or illegitimate (nor did the Republicans). Now that we have a court that rules the closest to the original intent of the Constitution in my lifetime it's suddenly corrupt and needs reformed. This is the same kind of rhetoric and proposed actions we see from far-left socialist regimes throughout the world. They get into power and install their own corrupt thugs to destroy the judicial and constitutional institutions to give them everything they want that they can't win through legitimate means.

Cory Booker calls Supreme Court ‘profoundly hypocritical’ after voting rights ruling: Full interview

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) joins Meet the Press after the U.S. Supreme Court imposed new limits on the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a new Democratic-leaning congressional map approved by voters.

www.nbcnews.com

I am not going to listen to Booker run his mouth, so I don't know what he bases his charge of corruption on. I know Thomas was accused of accepting questionable gifts but he is who he always was and his rulings were unaffected. So that's a long way from being corrupt, and it's rich with irony when a democrat talks about corruption.

 

[struth]

That was a procedural violation. How the referendum was conducted, and it's conclusions were properly done. And would have produced valid results.

No they weren’t, because it was illegally placed on the ballot

What part of that don’t you get?

The process was illegally and unconstitutionally done

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What you fail to grasp is that Roberts and Alito have from early in their legal careers wanted to get rid of the voting rights act / roe v wade / etc.
And the rational behind doing so doesn't use prior law (stare decisis) or even a through legal analysis,

What you fail to grasp is that stare decisis does not exist in the Constitution. It's a construct of jurists and lawyers over the centuries.

but instead relies on their own judgement of the state of racism in America. Using the conclusion that racism no longer exists.

Institutionally, it doesn't, unless of course you're including DEI which gives certain people preference over others based on their skin color or chromosomes.

Thus the laws enacted by congress and signed into law, no longer have a compelling government interest, and violate the constitutions equal protection.

Correct. It's 2026, not 1955.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Virginia failed gerrymander was ruled unconstitutional by the Virginia court and not by SCOTUS.

And that's relevant to this discussion how?

 

[Mick2]

The gerrymander wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The procedures to bring about the vote were ruled unconstitutional.

The maps that were drawn would pass constitutional scritiny.

The VA court wasn't ask to rule on whether the maps were unconstitutional. They were asked to rule on the procedural effort to get there. They did rule on that and Dems violated the Constitution.

The first question on whether the maps were Constitutional at all is still open.....
but far from settled.

 

[WEATHER53]

When a more unified court determines that a less decisive decision was wrong, then it is correct to throw out the old judgement.

It's no different then when it happens to scientific theories or best practices. When you convince a greater number of scientists or doctors that the old theory or method was wrong, and more of them agree to replace, than had taken the opposite view, that new judgement was rightly made.

But…but…when when….if…if..

 

[JustAGuy1]

Spartacus is a child.

 

[berg80]

And the rational behind doing so doesn't use prior law (stare decisis) or even a through legal analysis, but instead relies on their own judgement of the state of racism in America. Using the conclusion that racism no longer exists.

Just as was the case when the Roberts Court gutted Sec. 5 of the VRA, the gutting of Sec. 2 has elicited the same response from Repub legislatures. Using the Court's ruling to immediately do what Roberts claimed is a thing of the past. Namely, gerrymander districts with the sole purpose of diluting the demographic advantage black residents had, allowing for the election of a black representative.

The New Jim Crow
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision effectively endorsing gerrymanders that disenfranchise Black voters, an outbreak of racism has spread through Southern state legislatures. Tennessee Republicans are pretending Black voters in Memphis don’t exist. Florida Republicans seem to have forgotten that Floridians voted to adopt a constitutional amendment banning both political and racial gerrymanders. And then, there’s Alabama.

Alabama has been at the center of the gerrymandering wars for years. In a surprise victory for Black voters, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in a case known as Milligan. That case reached the Court after a three-judge panel in Birmingham unanimously concluded that it was not a “close” call whether the maps drawn by the legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and barred the maps from being used.

The initial decision striking down the maps was authored by District Judge Anna Manasco, a Trump appointee. She was joined by another Trump appointee from Alabama, District Judge Terry Moorer, as well as Judge Stanley Marcus, a Reagan appointee to the Eleventh Circuit. You get the point: the maps were bad. They went beyond politics. They were about race.

The New Jim Crow

What happened in Alabama today

joycevance.substack.com

There is a lesson to be learned from what the R's have done. That is, use power ruthlessly when you have it. This time to openly rig elections on a scale and by methods never seen before.

The lesson for D's is, when the wheel turns and you are back in power do the same to R's as they are doing. The days of comity are over. The R's are trying to solidify minority control of the country and that effort should be met with all the force D's can muster when the chance arises.

 

[struth]

Just as was the case when the Roberts Court gutted Sec. 5 of the VRA, the gutting of Sec. 2 has elicited the same response from Repub legislatures. Using the Court's ruling to immediately do what Roberts claimed is a thing of the past. Namely, gerrymander districts with the sole purpose of diluting the demographic advantage black residents had, allowing for the election of a black representative.

The New Jim Crow
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision effectively endorsing gerrymanders that disenfranchise Black voters, an outbreak of racism has spread through Southern state legislatures. Tennessee Republicans are pretending Black voters in Memphis don’t exist. Florida Republicans seem to have forgotten that Floridians voted to adopt a constitutional amendment banning both political and racial gerrymanders. And then, there’s Alabama.

Alabama has been at the center of the gerrymandering wars for years. In a surprise victory for Black voters, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in a case known as Milligan. That case reached the Court after a three-judge panel in Birmingham unanimously concluded that it was not a “close” call whether the maps drawn by the legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and barred the maps from being used.

The initial decision striking down the maps was authored by District Judge Anna Manasco, a Trump appointee. She was joined by another Trump appointee from Alabama, District Judge Terry Moorer, as well as Judge Stanley Marcus, a Reagan appointee to the Eleventh Circuit. You get the point: the maps were bad. They went beyond politics. They were about race.

The New Jim Crow

What happened in Alabama today

joycevance.substack.com

There is a lesson to be learned from what the R's have done. That is, use power ruthlessly when you have it. This time to openly rig elections on a scale and by methods never seen before.

The lesson for D's is, when the wheel turns and you are back in power do the same to R's as they are doing. The days of comity are over. The R's are trying to solidify minority control of the country and that effort should be met with all the force D's can muster when the chance arises.




https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...80ab-9bf4-4edb-9579-d89767425708_1024x788.png

Dems can no longer engage in racial gerrymandering

Now it looks like a old white guy us gonna lose his seat in TN to an African American woman

 

[berg80]

I recall when McConnell effectively stole two SC seats, one from Obama then Biden. The second time using a pretense that was a 180 degree reversal from the first time. The criticism was deafening.

But he got his way. He didn't care that he had to make a mockery of a prez's constitutional authority to nominate a SC justice while in office. He had the power to block two nominations so he did.

That is the kind of a ruthless abuse of power D's need to consider in the future before it's too late to even try and even the scales.

 

[struth]

I recall when McConnell effectively stole two SC seats, one from Obama then Biden. The second time using a pretense that was a 180 degree reversal from the first time. The criticism was deafening.

But he got his way. He didn't care that he had to make a mockery of a prez's constitutional authority to nominate a SC justice while in office. He had the power to block two nominations so he did.

That is the kind of a ruthless abuse of power D's need to consider in the future before it's too late to even try and even the scales.

McConnell follows the Biden Rule, and then after Dems whined about the rule, decided not to use it anymore? You guys just whine

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I recall when McConnell effectively stole two SC seats, one from Obama then Biden. The second time using a pretense that was a 180 degree reversal from the first time. The criticism was deafening.

But he got his way. He didn't care that he had to make a mockery of a prez's constitutional authority to nominate a SC justice while in office. He had the power to block two nominations so he did.

That is the kind of a ruthless abuse of power D's need to consider in the future before it's too late to even try and even the scales.

I recall when McConnell effectively stole two SC seats, one from Obama then Biden.

That was awesome!

The second time using a pretense that was a 180 degree reversal from the first time.

The first time, a Republican Senate didn't vote on a Dem nominee.
The second time, a Republican Senate did vote on a Republican nominee.

He didn't care that he had to make a mockery of a prez's constitutional authority to nominate a SC justice while in office.

What are you mumbling about? Both presidents nominated a SC justice.

He had the power to block two nominations so he did.

He only blocked Garland. And it was magnificant.

 

[postman]

What you fail to grasp is that stare decisis does not exist in the Constitution. It's a construct of jurists and lawyers over the centuries.

Actually, stare decisis is a concept rooted in the US Constitution, where under Article 3,

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In placing all the judicial power into a single court, and establishing all courts to be inferior to that court, means that all the lower courts have to obey the decisions of the one constitutional court. And it would throw those courts into a tailspin if the one Constitutional court kept changing it's interpretation of the constitution and the laws of the US, with every change of the court.

So stare decisis is an important part of law, and like the rights granted by the Constitution itself, is not absolute. As everything in the bill of rights is not absolute. And even the clear text is subject to a "compelling government interest".

In the case of the court, the "compelling government interest" would include where a superior judgement is rendered.
Where Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was decided by the judgement of 7 jurists
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) was decided by the superior judgement of 9 jurists.

Compare to the Radical Roberts court, who ignored stare decisis in
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) by the judgement of 6 jurists
To overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) which was on the judgement of 7 jurists.