SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mickeyrat

to a justice,   adherance to stare decisis

Definition of stare decisis

: a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

impeach all those that lied under questioning during confirmation hearings. 

I don’t see how that is possible. For one, don’t they discuss and debate these topics? All they’d have to say is that is what they believed when questioned, but changed their opinion during the process of the case.

all of them spoke of respecting the precedent. this decision does the opposite and based on flawed history.

so yeah. they lied.

I’m sure they did lie, and that they thought if this case ever came before them they’d vote this way.
But my point was it’s impossible to prove that when all the defense needs to be was they changed their mind during the deliberations of this case. How could you prove that isn’t the case?

mace1229

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?

mickeyrat

mace1229 said:

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.

cblock4life

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

Exactly 

Halifax2TheMax

The lengths some will go to defend the indefensible. It’s partly why POOTWH was elected and why we have so many nut jobs in congress. And on the courts.

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.  

static111

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.  

Join the church of Scientology and star in military propaganda films?

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.  

Join the church of Scientology and star in military propaganda films?

Well if you want to be a drag about it,  yeah. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.  

Join the church of Scientology and star in military propaganda films?

Well if you want to be a drag about it,  yeah. 

You can’t handle the truth!

Merkin Baller

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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. 

Merkin Baller

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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. 

I’m aware nothing can be done. 

They would lie about having lied, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. These lying Christo-fascists justices have lifetime appointments and there’s nothing that can be done about it. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.  

Hide in the closet?

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote.
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.

I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.  

Hide in the closet?

Haha, love that episode. 

Lerxst1992

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

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.

What they can do is win elections every year, eliminate the filibuster, and add justices to the court. Only problem is Dems don’t like voting, and like minded independents would rather treat elections like a popularity contest.

looking at some of the protests outside the Court yesterday, especially the picture posted here earlier with AP article, it’ll never happen. When there is more crowd density at a Marlins batting practice than a SCOTUS protest, you know you are on the perpetually losing side. #SorryHilary.

brianlux

Elizabeth Warren is promoting the idea expanding the Supreme Court.  Biden is against the idea.  WHY???

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/elizabeth-warren-democrats-question-supreme-court-legitimacy

mrussel1

brianlux said:

Elizabeth Warren is promoting the idea expanding the Supreme Court.  Biden is against the idea.  WHY???

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/elizabeth-warren-democrats-question-supreme-court-legitimacy

Where does the expansion end?