SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism?  Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill?  I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it. 

Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.


and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party? 

Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing.  It seems like the order should be vacated. 

differing opinions on this.

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism?  Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill?  I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it. 

Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.


and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party? 

Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing.  It seems like the order should be vacated. 

differing opinions on this.

That's weird. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism?  Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill?  I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it. 

Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.


and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party? 

Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing.  It seems like the order should be vacated. 

differing opinions on this.

That's weird. 

Some of the arguments I've read about this has to do with how Colorado wrote that law. Apparently this opened the door for this type of ruling or lawsuit to begin with

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/JimOleske/status/1675853711250452480?t=7qR7r5HEIEprrjvHS7664w&s=19

cincybearcat

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

gimmesometruth27 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.

maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.

I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath. 

It was ridiculous to not allow BO to sit a judge. Awful.

but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.

Halifax2TheMax

Here’s how I see it, for what it’s worth, as it relates to the gay wedding website case:

the “pre-emptive” acceptance by SCOTUS, arguing that the “potential” for a violation of 1st amendment rights is total bullshit. Arguing that the “law” as written, in the “absence” of direct harm, is a violation is specious at best. In the past, SCOTUS, evaluated actual harm, “merit”, and compared it against “common” law, “precedent” and “intent.” This court, to the contrary, skipped over all of it and came to a decision based upon their “moral” interpretation of the three, a “coup” some might say.

Now, typically, in a case of “harm”, in this instance, a gay couple would have approached the shop, requested services and been denied. Okay. Now, it would have been up to the gay couple to file suit. That neither happened is astounding. The gay couple would have claimed “discrimination” and the shop owner would have claimed, “‘religious’ freedumb.” That didn’t happen. In fact, the shop owner could have exercised their “right,” and the gay couple or future gay couple shoppers would have kept moving on. No harm, no foul. But even if there had been a “legitimate” case, gay couple wants service, been denied, filed suit, the SCOTUS decision would have standing and legitimacy. Sadly, it’s imposing its will on spooky boogeyman cases.

Further, and I’m not a lawyer, but as a plaintiff filing suit, I’d think there’d be an affidavit stating that your filing is, “true” and that everything you claim is true to the best of your knowledge?” Under penalty of perjury? If not, it should be changed but if so, case should be vacated for lacking “merit.” Remember “facts” and “merit?” Anyone?

Otherwise, what’s to prevent a restaurant owner from claiming they don’t want to serve Muslims because they don’t prepare Hallal and they’re afraid of being sued (harm)?

Now this fucking SCOTUS. They are corrupted and have been bought. They claim “legitimacy” but they know where and how their bread has been buttered. They are there not for “independent” jurisprudence, open with a keen eye and brilliant legal mind, but rather, to impose the will of their billionaire patrons, Koch’s, et. Al. Read up on senator Whitehouse’s corruption of the SCOTUS by right wing billionaires. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, bought and paid for. But hey, both sides, right? Here’s where I’d ask the other side to point out how both sides are the same but the collective stupidity would give me buh buh buh hunter’s laptop.

Now, backtracking to Moscow Mitchy Baby and SCOTUS appointments. We know he changed the rules. We know he has no “integrity” for denying Obama’s nomination and fast tracking POOTWH’s. Let’s call it “moving the goal posts” or “tilting the playing field,” shall we? The claim or to posit that libs want “to change the rules” or “stack the court”, because “we don’t like the decisions” is utter and total bullshit. Us libs can live with “legitimacy” and “fairness” and the rule of law. But if the repubs keep fucking with it, delegitimizing the constitution and our history, basically cheating by constantly changing the rules, there’s going to Be a shit ton of dissent. This is about where I expect to hear about all the guns, white supremacy and how “god” knows.

And to all of it, I say, burn it all down.

mickeyrat

https://twitter.com/marla_vous/status/1676034360611315712?t=u4oSpmDDEw5dbdH1yoiySA&s=19

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

Here’s how I see it, for what it’s worth, as it relates to the gay wedding website case:

the “pre-emptive” acceptance by SCOTUS, arguing that the “potential” for a violation of 1st amendment rights is total bullshit. Arguing that the “law” as written, in the “absence” of direct harm, is a violation is specious at best. In the past, SCOTUS, evaluated actual harm, “merit”, and compared it against “common” law, “precedent” and “intent.” This court, to the contrary, skipped over all of it and came to a decision based upon their “moral” interpretation of the three, a “coup” some might say.

Now, typically, in a case of “harm”, in this instance, a gay couple would have approached the shop, requested services and been denied. Okay. Now, it would have been up to the gay couple to file suit. That neither happened is astounding. The gay couple would have claimed “discrimination” and the shop owner would have claimed, “‘religious’ freedumb.” That didn’t happen. In fact, the shop owner could have exercised their “right,” and the gay couple or future gay couple shoppers would have kept moving on. No harm, no foul. But even if there had been a “legitimate” case, gay couple wants service, been denied, filed suit, the SCOTUS decision would have standing and legitimacy. Sadly, it’s imposing its will on spooky boogeyman cases.

Further, and I’m not a lawyer, but as a plaintiff filing suit, I’d think there’d be an affidavit stating that your filing is, “true” and that everything you claim is true to the best of your knowledge?” Under penalty of perjury? If not, it should be changed but if so, case should be vacated for lacking “merit.” Remember “facts” and “merit?” Anyone?

Otherwise, what’s to prevent a restaurant owner from claiming they don’t want to serve Muslims because they don’t prepare Hallal and they’re afraid of being sued (harm)?

Now this fucking SCOTUS. They are corrupted and have been bought. They claim “legitimacy” but they know where and how their bread has been buttered. They are there not for “independent” jurisprudence, open with a keen eye and brilliant legal mind, but rather, to impose the will of their billionaire patrons, Koch’s, et. Al. Read up on senator Whitehouse’s corruption of the SCOTUS by right wing billionaires. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, bought and paid for. But hey, both sides, right? Here’s where I’d ask the other side to point out how both sides are the same but the collective stupidity would give me buh buh buh hunter’s laptop.

Now, backtracking to Moscow Mitchy Baby and SCOTUS appointments. We know he changed the rules. We know he has no “integrity” for denying Obama’s nomination and fast tracking POOTWH’s. Let’s call it “moving the goal posts” or “tilting the playing field,” shall we? The claim or to posit that libs want “to change the rules” or “stack the court”, because “we don’t like the decisions” is utter and total bullshit. Us libs can live with “legitimacy” and “fairness” and the rule of law. But if the repubs keep fucking with it, delegitimizing the constitution and our history, basically cheating by constantly changing the rules, there’s going to Be a shit ton of dissent. This is about where I expect to hear about all the guns, white supremacy and how “god” knows.

And to all of it, I say, burn it all down.

Sounds about right! For anyone to keep saying the left wants to stack the courts Biden himself said he’s not in favor of it! So that argument should just be dropped it’s dead on arrival. 

Lerxst1992

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

gimmesometruth27 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.

maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.

I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath. 

It was ridiculous to not allow BO to sit a judge. Awful.

but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.

It’s not about “not liking” a court. The court is unrepresentative of the population it has power over. This court is the result of a series of an unprecedented manipulation of rules- creating an election year rule to deny BO right to fill Scalia’s seat while not enforcing that rule to fill RBGs seat immediately before an election

Also, when McConnell dropped the required votes needed to confirm from 60 to 50, it allows more extremist jurists to get confirmed, which is exactly what has occurred.

This is evidenced by a court aggressively claiming more power for itself, whether it chooses to decide cases with no aggrieved party, whether it chooses to overturn long established laws. These are moves that either never before occurred or were extremely rare. Now it’s common and not in the interest of close to sixty percent of Americans 

It’s unfortunate independents see all this as “typical democrats don’t like the politics of THIS court.” This court’s actions are extreme and mostly unprecedented.

cincybearcat

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

gimmesometruth27

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

gimmesometruth27 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.

maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.

I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath. 

It was ridiculous to not allow BO to sit a judge. Awful.

but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.

It’s not about “not liking” a court. The court is unrepresentative of the population it has power over. This court is the result of a series of an unprecedented manipulation of rules- creating an election year rule to deny BO right to fill Scalia’s seat while not enforcing that rule to fill RBGs seat immediately before an election

Also, when McConnell dropped the required votes needed to confirm from 60 to 50, it allows more extremist jurists to get confirmed, which is exactly what has occurred.

This is evidenced by a court aggressively claiming more power for itself, whether it chooses to decide cases with no aggrieved party, whether it chooses to overturn long established laws. These are moves that either never before occurred or were extremely rare. Now it’s common and not in the interest of close to sixty percent of Americans 

It’s unfortunate independents see all this as “typical democrats don’t like the politics of THIS court.” This court’s actions are extreme and mostly unprecedented.

don't forget that trump's 3 appointees lied in their hearings all saying roe was settled law and established precedent. then they fucking overturn it.

mrussel1

gimmesometruth27 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

gimmesometruth27 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

Out of My Mind and Time said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.

So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak

are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.

maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.

I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath. 

It was ridiculous to not allow BO to sit a judge. Awful.

but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.

It’s not about “not liking” a court. The court is unrepresentative of the population it has power over. This court is the result of a series of an unprecedented manipulation of rules- creating an election year rule to deny BO right to fill Scalia’s seat while not enforcing that rule to fill RBGs seat immediately before an election

Also, when McConnell dropped the required votes needed to confirm from 60 to 50, it allows more extremist jurists to get confirmed, which is exactly what has occurred.

This is evidenced by a court aggressively claiming more power for itself, whether it chooses to decide cases with no aggrieved party, whether it chooses to overturn long established laws. These are moves that either never before occurred or were extremely rare. Now it’s common and not in the interest of close to sixty percent of Americans 

It’s unfortunate independents see all this as “typical democrats don’t like the politics of THIS court.” This court’s actions are extreme and mostly unprecedented.

don't forget that trump's 3 appointees lied in their hearings all saying roe was settled law and established precedent. then they fucking overturn it.

This is a very important point and the key reason why I am disgusted.  They knew where they stood on teh issue.  There's no way the Federalist Society puts up a justice that wasn't anti-Roe. 

brianlux

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

Since the court doesn't represent the will of the people (thinking abortion issues in particular), maybe we should get to vote in (or out) judges.  We do that in most states and counties.

cblock4life

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

I think what’s going on right now can be defined as drastic.  If dems controlled the SC and guns were on the chopping block Reps would consider that drastic, no?  You do realize that what we’re seeing is the elimination of minorities and women seen but not heard?  If trump wins and the house and senate are both R the rules to change a term limit for the president will be inevitable.  Then we’re really fucked. 

josevolution

cblock4life said:

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

I think what’s going on right now can be defined as drastic.  If dems controlled the SC and guns were on the chopping block Reps would consider that drastic, no?  You do realize that what we’re seeing is the elimination of minorities and women seen but not heard?  If trump wins and the house and senate are both R the rules to change a term limit for the president will be inevitable.  Then we’re really fucked. 

Then it would be time to get the fuck out of dodge! There’s no way I’d stay in a country where a dick wad like Trumpolinni gets total power for life! And I bet some here will come on and say that could never happen here. 

benjs

josevolution said:

cblock4life said:

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

I think what’s going on right now can be defined as drastic.  If dems controlled the SC and guns were on the chopping block Reps would consider that drastic, no?  You do realize that what we’re seeing is the elimination of minorities and women seen but not heard?  If trump wins and the house and senate are both R the rules to change a term limit for the president will be inevitable.  Then we’re really fucked. 

Then it would be time to get the fuck out of dodge! There’s no way I’d stay in a country where a dick wad like Trumpolinni gets total power for life! And I bet some here will come on and say that could never happen here. 

Canada would be lucky to have you

josevolution

benjs said:

josevolution said:

cblock4life said:

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

I think what’s going on right now can be defined as drastic.  If dems controlled the SC and guns were on the chopping block Reps would consider that drastic, no?  You do realize that what we’re seeing is the elimination of minorities and women seen but not heard?  If trump wins and the house and senate are both R the rules to change a term limit for the president will be inevitable.  Then we’re really fucked. 

Then it would be time to get the fuck out of dodge! There’s no way I’d stay in a country where a dick wad like Trumpolinni gets total power for life! And I bet some here will come on and say that could never happen here. 

Canada would be lucky to have you

Ah thanks my friend! At this stage of my life Chile is my destination but Canada would not be out of the question 🙋‍♂️ 

curmudgeoness

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

cblock4life said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/srl/status/1674795201708314625?t=Yg3TkivC62F0UD5TJdpiqw&s=19

The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.

Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 

I disagree.
For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.

I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.

That's just mindblowing -- the amount of sloppiness and negligence, be it willful or accidental, to miss these basic facts, I can't comprehend. So we have a SCOTUS ruling on a fabricated case, plaintiff might not even have had standing to bring the suit. Wow.

Lerxst1992

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

Well as we’ve seen there is no power like the SCOTUS. It’s completely unchecked. They’re grabbing more and more power, and there is no balancing power to offset. Every other govt power has a check and balance.

the court is supposed to be balanced, that’s what he key difference here. As an example I’ll say something very startling. Fifty years ago when Roe became the law of the land, the courts ideology was also 6-3 conservative. 

But the huge difference was that five of the seven votes supporting the Roe decision were republican appointed jurists. That’s seems impossible in the current world.

Also, consider all of the ethically shady stories coming out lately and many posted on this forum. It’s very clear there is zero balance coming from the conservative justices. They are now political beings with their minds made up before cases come to their court, and they exist in a political machine. 

The framers didn’t give them term limits in the thought that they’d be independent deciders of constitutional issues. This has become perhaps the biggest fail of the constitution. And it gets drowned out in party politics. Independents, key voters who often swing elections, do not think of govt power abuse in this manner. But reading these ethically challenging stories of late, it’s clearly abuse of power by the conservative justices.


They are they exact opposite of what a balanced jurist is supposed to be. The legal system symbol is a scale. Just not in the American Supreme Court.


The Scales of Justice are perhaps the most familiar symbol associated with the law, symbolizing the impartial deliberation, or "weighing" of two sides in a legal dispute. The Book of Judgment or Law represents learning, written knowledge and judgments.



https://www.upworthy.com/roe-vs-wade-majority-opinion-written-by-lifelong-republican

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader.  And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.  

Well as we’ve seen there is no power like the SCOTUS. It’s completely unchecked. They’re grabbing more and more power, and there is no balancing power to offset. Every other govt power has a check and balance.

the court is supposed to be balanced, that’s what he key difference here. As an example I’ll say something very startling. Fifty years ago when Roe became the law of the land, the courts ideology was also 6-3 conservative. 

But the huge difference was that five of the seven votes supporting the Roe decision were republican appointed jurists. That’s seems impossible in the current world.

Also, consider all of the ethically shady stories coming out lately and many posted on this forum. It’s very clear there is zero balance coming from the conservative justices. They are now political beings with their minds made up before cases come to their court, and they exist in a political machine. 

The framers didn’t give them term limits in the thought that they’d be independent deciders of constitutional issues. This has become perhaps the biggest fail of the constitution. And it gets drowned out in party politics. Independents, key voters who often swing elections, do not think of govt power abuse in this manner. But reading these ethically challenging stories of late, it’s clearly abuse of power by the conservative justices.


They are they exact opposite of what a balanced jurist is supposed to be. The legal system symbol is a scale. Just not in the American Supreme Court.


The Scales of Justice are perhaps the most familiar symbol associated with the law, symbolizing the impartial deliberation, or "weighing" of two sides in a legal dispute. The Book of Judgment or Law represents learning, written knowledge and judgments.



https://www.upworthy.com/roe-vs-wade-majority-opinion-written-by-lifelong-republican

They are “corrupt” political beings, bought and paid for. But yea, both sides.