And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
He could simply say at the time that was his opinion. Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators. It's wishful thinking. There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have.
The house could hold impeachment hearings and impeach them to sully their reputations and their legacies but there’s not enough time. The house could subpoena any documents related to their views on abortion, call witnesses and pore through their statements, expressed views in public on the issue and previous legal opinions. The idea that they suddenly changed their opinion after what they said during their confirmation hearings and personal interviews because of the arguments put before the court and the legal opinion they signed onto is poppycock and disingenuous. If you believe what Mace is selling, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.
I’m not selling the idea they changed their mind. Just saying that is all their defense needs to be and it’s up to the house or whoever is impeaching the judges to prove otherwise. And someone’s mind is a very difficult thing to prove.
If such documents existed where they planned to overturn Roe, I’m sure someone would have found them and exposed them a long time ago. I don’t know how pointing that out is being disingenuous. Impeaching a judge on this is a near impossible task.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
He could simply say at the time that was his opinion. Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators. It's wishful thinking. There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have.
The house could hold impeachment hearings and impeach them to sully their reputations and their legacies but there’s not enough time. The house could subpoena any documents related to their views on abortion, call witnesses and pore through their statements, expressed views in public on the issue and previous legal opinions. The idea that they suddenly changed their opinion after what they said during their confirmation hearings and personal interviews because of the arguments put before the court and the legal opinion they signed onto is poppycock and disingenuous. If you believe what Mace is selling, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.
I’m not selling the idea they changed their mind. Just saying that is all their defense needs to be and it’s up to the house or whoever is impeaching the judges to prove otherwise. And someone’s mind is a very difficult thing to prove.
If such documents existed where they planned to overturn Roe, I’m sure someone would have found them and exposed them a long time ago. I don’t know how pointing that out is being disingenuous. Impeaching a judge on this is a near impossible task.
Impeachment happens in the House. With a current dem majority. Conviction and removal from the bench happens in the senate. There’s enough evidence to impeach. Not enough to convict.
Further, to argue that the justices don’t have biases or agendas and are swayed by oral arguments is what is disingenuous. If that were the case then so much effort in creating a list of potential nominees wouldn’t be what it is. You’d be able to put qualified names in a hat and draw one. Repubs have politicized the courts like never before, and that politicization and partisanship is bought and paid for.
If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters.
Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want.
They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.
They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.
The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.
So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.
I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.
If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters.
Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want.
They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.
They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.
The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.
So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.
I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.
I don't understand. Overriding a filibuster simply means you don't need 60 votes to advance a bill to the executive for signature. It has nothing to do with overriding a veto. You need 2/3 in the House and Senate to override a veto.
Yeah, I think the more I think about the filibuster the more I question it. There are already so many things to ensure fair representation (or even unfair depending on how you look at it)....it seems to me the House and Senate should simply be majority rule.
If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters.
Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want.
They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.
They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.
The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.
So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.
I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.
I don't understand. Overriding a filibuster simply means you don't need 60 votes to advance a bill to the executive for signature. It has nothing to do with overriding a veto. You need 2/3 in the House and Senate to override a veto.
I misunderstood. I guess the point was Biden would veto legislation passing senate and house to expand the court. If Dems win midterms and get solid 51 votes to expand court and carve out filibuster, and Biden vetoes the bill, he probably gets primaried and loses the nomination.
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
that's the reasoning. and it's a band aid. I'll admit, I was advocating for it when I was emotional. But now I agree...it's not a viable solution.
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
right. you would have to get a case to wind its way through the various lower courts to even get to a potential scotus case.
rather than expanding the court, I'd prefer setting term limits on them. OR and age cap for the "lifetime" appointment.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
that's the reasoning. and it's a band aid. I'll admit, I was advocating for it when I was emotional. But now I agree...it's not a viable solution.
Not only is it not viable, but what ever loopholes Democrats can find to exploit in the short-term, you can bet good money that Republicans will exploit it better (and usually less reversibly) when it's their turn. For example - one party stacks the courts but cares about democracy, and the other stacks the courts but only cares about power - I see way more downside potential than upside potential.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
I think it may be an improvement because we might not see so much weight placed on a single appointment, and so much hand wringing about when/if a justice retires or dies. In theory it could water it down. But then you look at the Senate and its just 51-49 all the time along party lines maybe it wouldnt matter. Supreme Court isn't quite so polarized all the time though as people like Roberts are sometimes able to see reason and a moral obligation to actually do the job.
The amount of emphasis placed on a one-term president who lost the popular vote, to pick 40% of the Supreme Court for-life with a friendly congress is just silly.
IMO the whole selection process should be overhauled, as well as some sort of term-limit.
i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.
Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem.
If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters.
Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want.
They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.
They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.
The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.
So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.
I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.
I don't understand. Overriding a filibuster simply means you don't need 60 votes to advance a bill to the executive for signature. It has nothing to do with overriding a veto. You need 2/3 in the House and Senate to override a veto.
I misunderstood. I guess the point was Biden would veto legislation passing senate and house to expand the court. If Dems win midterms and get solid 51 votes to expand court and carve out filibuster, and Biden vetoes the bill, he probably gets primaried and loses the nomination.
That wasn't quite my point. I am saying that if the GOP wins the midterms, that doesn't mean that a bunch of draconian anti-Roe type bills will get passed. They wouldn't get through a veto by Biden.
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
Didn’t the writers of the constitution want to separate the court from political influence? Why else have non elected lifetime appointments?
Regarding the two big rulings, guns and abortion bans, has anything in the constitution changed in the last fifty years to warrant a change in interpretation, or is it a result of political activism from the bench? Is there anything more political these days than the court?
Not only is the court not operating in the design intended, it has become more powerful than congress. I recall fifty years ago, the court would reverse itself once or twice every hundred years. Now it’s happening all the time.
it’s fairly well know that the American Wild West had restrictions on carrying weapons. But if you read alito, he talks like of course the constitution wanted everyone the right to carry weapons. To hell with settle law. Not enough precedent from Tombstone, AZ.
So why keep the status quo if the court is not operating as intended? Maybe if alito realizes the court makeup is not set in stone and subject to change, he would be less interested in being emperor?
i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.
It’s always the Cristian prayer cases.
I would have preferred a Muslim coach doing Muslim prayers before games and getting fired after the parents freak out and assume he is improperly using his influence to convert Christian kids to Islam and that going to the supreme court.
they are protecting Christian prayer, not prayer generally as it doesn’t work out that way in practice unless you are a Christian
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. The Judges, both
of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
Office.
Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party;--to
Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens
of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between
Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different
States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign
States, Citizens or Subjects.
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. 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 Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have
directed.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act,
or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Now make your argument its a lifetime appt.....
to use verbiage from the very court its not EXPRESSLY stated lifetime......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court? This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue.
Didn’t the writers of the constitution want to separate the court from political influence? Why else have non elected lifetime appointments?
Regarding the two big rulings, guns and abortion bans, has anything in the constitution changed in the last fifty years to warrant a change in interpretation, or is it a result of political activism from the bench? Is there anything more political these days than the court?
Not only is the court not operating in the design intended, it has become more powerful than congress. I recall fifty years ago, the court would reverse itself once or twice every hundred years. Now it’s happening all the time.
it’s fairly well know that the American Wild West had restrictions on carrying weapons. But if you read alito, he talks like of course the constitution wanted everyone the right to carry weapons. To hell with settle law. Not enough precedent from Tombstone, AZ.
So why keep the status quo if the court is not operating as intended? Maybe if alito realizes the court makeup is not set in stone and subject to change, he would be less interested in being emperor?
Stare decisis is the concept that has historically governed the court. But there are cases where the court reversed itself. The most historic have been Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott. I was thinking that what was unusual was that Roe was overturned only 49 years after it was 'settled' but in looking, Plessy was 1896 and Brown overturned it in 1954. So it was a handful of years longer.
i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.
Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem.
And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.
regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.
many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.
i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.
Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem.
And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.
regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.
many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.
of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals.
no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires.
i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.
Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem.
And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.
regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.
many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.
of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals.
no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires.
This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians
my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian
prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church
i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.
Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem.
And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.
regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.
many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.
of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals.
no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires.
This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians
my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian
prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church
Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good
I agree that in schools, where a student doesn't have the option to leave, should not be allowed (I remember a classmate of my sister's had to stand outside in the hallway during the singing of Oh Canada and bible readings because of her/her parent's religion-I can't imagine how she must have felt).
even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that.
this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight.
Comments
I don’t know how pointing that out is being disingenuous. Impeaching a judge on this is a near impossible task.
Further, to argue that the justices don’t have biases or agendas and are swayed by oral arguments is what is disingenuous. If that were the case then so much effort in creating a list of potential nominees wouldn’t be what it is. You’d be able to put qualified names in a hat and draw one. Repubs have politicized the courts like never before, and that politicization and partisanship is bought and paid for.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.
So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
seriously. what the fuck are we doing here?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The amount of emphasis placed on a one-term president who lost the popular vote, to pick 40% of the Supreme Court for-life with a friendly congress is just silly.
IMO the whole selection process should be overhauled, as well as some sort of term-limit.
www.headstonesband.com
Regarding the two big rulings, guns and abortion bans, has anything in the constitution changed in the last fifty years to warrant a change in interpretation, or is it a result of political activism from the bench? Is there anything more political these days than the court?
Not only is the court not operating in the design intended, it has become more powerful than congress. I recall fifty years ago, the court would reverse itself once or twice every hundred years. Now it’s happening all the time.
it’s fairly well know that the American Wild West had restrictions on carrying weapons. But if you read alito, he talks like of course the constitution wanted everyone the right to carry weapons. To hell with settle law. Not enough precedent from Tombstone, AZ.
So why keep the status quo if the court is not operating as intended? Maybe if alito realizes the court makeup is not set in stone and subject to change, he would be less interested in being emperor?
they are protecting Christian prayer, not prayer generally as it doesn’t work out that way in practice unless you are a Christian
Article III
Section 1
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
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. 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 Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.
many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.
no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires.
www.headstonesband.com
my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian
prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church
even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that.
this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight.
www.headstonesband.com