The Unmaking Of The Supreme Court

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,222
Reaction score
11,962
Points
940
It will be amazing to see this new and better supreme court throw the democrat fraudster votes to trash.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
Just phone and pen it ...no big deal
Nope.
Oh yeah ........Trump busting loose and running wild.......
:huh1:
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
I'm sure the Democrats will make every attempt to do that. Look at the mockery they made of the Impeachment process.
If they have the WH and Senate and House, it's a done deal.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,030
Reaction score
15,481
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
The number of seats will be increased by exactly zero
Yeah, they will, and you will not be happy about it.
Jake, one would think after a decade of you making failed prediction after failed prediction you'd stop making an ass out of yourself, but I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

I assure you, the Republican Party would love for nothing more than for the Democrats to attempt what you suggest.
 

The Irish Ram

LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
17,145
Reaction score
5,021
Points
280
Location
diagonally parked in a parallel universe
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Which is why we will be electing Trump again, to prevent that from happening...
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
After more than a decade of making righties look silly, that will only continue.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
598
Reaction score
594
Points
493
Location
Arizona
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
congress could only do that if the SCOTUS allowed it. Anyone could challenge a law restricting the authority of SCOTUS and the case would have to work its way up to the SCOTUS for a final ruling. Do you honestly think the justices would rule against their own authority? My prediction on that case would be a nine to zero ruling against congress.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
SCOTUS will not interfere with Congress's constitutional right to configure the Court.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,047
Reaction score
9,323
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.

More like 5.5-3.5, Roberts has been a big disappointment.

.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
50,047
Reaction score
9,323
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
And therein lies your problem. This isn't about winning and losing. The court is supposed to be nonpartisan.

Your statement proves the authors point. You have politicized the court, thus taking away it's credibility.

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the power to regulate the court.

Trump and McConnell have destroyed any credibility they have, and because Trump does not have support of the majority of America, he and McConnell have violated the most fundamental of all American values, as written in the Declaration of Independence:

" Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

McConnell violated that oath by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, as an appointee from the man who was given that consent by the voters. Twice elected popularly with over 50% of the vote.

Trump was not popularly elected, and has never had the consent of the majority his entire first term.

Rubin was right in the article that because of these facts, the Democrats have, and will have the consent of the governed to dissolve the tyranny of the minority, by any means necessary, all of which the Constitution gives them the unambiguous power to do so.


That nonpartisan fantasy vanished decades ago with activist judges like RBG.

.
 

buckeye45_73

Lakhota's my *****
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
30,429
Reaction score
4,569
Points
1,130
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
See that's where you're missing the point......the democrats haven't passed much into law, all of their decisions were very unpopular and they used the courts do it.....that's why they freak out about the court so much.....Go ahead pass a nation wide abortion bill....first that would be more constitutional than Roe V Wade....second enjoy the consequences of doing that.


Funny how you're worried about judicial power now and haven't in the past 60 years.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,777
Reaction score
11,090
Points
2,040
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
And therein lies your problem. This isn't about winning and losing. The court is supposed to be nonpartisan.

Your statement proves the authors point. You have politicized the court, thus taking away it's credibility.

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the power to regulate the court.

Trump and McConnell have destroyed any credibility they have, and because Trump does not have support of the majority of America, he and McConnell have violated the most fundamental of all American values, as written in the Declaration of Independence:

" Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

McConnell violated that oath by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, as an appointee from the man who was given that consent by the voters. Twice elected popularly with over 50% of the vote.

Trump was not popularly elected, and has never had the consent of the majority his entire first term.

Rubin was right in the article that because of these facts, the Democrats have, and will have the consent of the governed to dissolve the tyranny of the minority, by any means necessary, all of which the Constitution gives them the unambiguous power to do so.
It's amazing how you call for nonpartisanship only when your side is about to lose some power. Ginsberg was as partisan as can be.

LOL, Progressives started using the court to get what they couldn't at the ballot box in the 70's. It started with Roe.

Useless point.

More blathering, and the Declaration of Independence was not about the concept of a new government, but of leaving the old.

McConnell didn't violate anything. Popular vote for President is meaningless, like hits in a baseball game with regards to the winner

See my point above

progressive twats like you are the minority, and are the source of most of the tyranny out there, Bake the fucking cake peasant, let that boy compete with the girls neanderthal, etc.

I hope you enjoyed your point by point fisking.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
30,493
Reaction score
9,500
Points
1,410
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
Now that's funny.

Kill checks and balances.

Congress can't take the court out of it.

You have your head so far up your ass, you are looking out your nipples.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
30,493
Reaction score
9,500
Points
1,410
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
No, we'll ignore the house.

Which is as stupid as you saying congress can tell the court it has no juristiction.

How fucking stupid can you be.
 

Sun Devil 92

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
30,493
Reaction score
9,500
Points
1,410
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
The only way you keep the court out is pass amendments.

You don't enshrine anything.

The day congress tries to enforce that is the day I start shooting left wingers in the street.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
128,533
Reaction score
21,990
Points
2,180
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
Just phone and pen it ...no big deal
Nope.
Yep. Obama set the precedent, moron.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
128,533
Reaction score
21,990
Points
2,180
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
The number of seats will be increased by exactly zero
Yeah, they will, and you will not be happy about it.
No they won't.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
SCOTUS will not interfere with Congress's constitutional right to configure the Court.
Riiiiight. And I suppose you still believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny and Santa Claus as well.
You may believe in your childhood heroes all you want, but a Roberts court will not interfere with the constitutional responsibility of Congress to regulate the courts.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top