Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court

#101
#101
RockyTop85 said:
Garland was pretty moderate and the right threw away their dignity over him.

The hysteria is caused by the shift in the court’s dynamic. Scalia->Moderate is a shift. Ginsburg -> Conservative is a shift. The amendment process is overly difficult so the only way to amend the constitution is to get the court to rule on something. It has created a system in which there is too much at stake for these confirmations.
Click to expand...
Politics.

That's all you got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, NorthDallas40, TN-POSSUM and 2 others
#107
#107
Tyler Durden said:
The two things I've seen are that she'll be the deciding vote to repeal the ACA and that if confirmed before the election is over she (along with Trump's beer drinking lap dog Brett) will act as a mindless rubber stamp for Trump if the election is decided in the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I got news for you: The ACA is unconstitutional. Sorry.

I actually think Roberts will go along with booting it this time, thus I think it'll go down 6-3 if ACB is sworn in. Politically this is good for the country. It'll force our pols to actually give us a good health care bill
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#108
#108
McDad said:
That's all you offered.

Offer something beyond political posturing, and I will be delighted to consider it.
Click to expand...
What reason do I have to care what you’re willing to consider, again?

You asked a remedial question, I gave you the correct answer.

This isn’t my circus. Not my monkeys. I like her more than Kavanaugh. She’s fair on the bill of rights. You sprang your gotcha on the wrong person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#110
#110
RockyTop85 said:
Garland was pretty moderate and the right threw away their dignity over him.

The hysteria is caused by the shift in the court’s dynamic. Scalia->Moderate is a shift. Ginsburg -> Conservative is a shift. The amendment process is overly difficult so the only way to amend the constitution is to get the court to rule on something. It has created a system in which there is too much at stake for these confirmations.
Click to expand...

It should be overly difficult to amend the Constitution. That's exactly how our Founding Fathers wrote it. You don't get to circumvent that just because you disagree. Kudos for your honesty in admitting that you want the SCOTUS to amend our constitution 'cause it's too much hassle to do it as it's written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#111
#111
Sea Ray said:
I got news for you: The ACA is unconstitutional. Sorry.

I actually think Roberts will go along with booting it this time, thus I think it'll go down 6-3 if ACB is sworn in. Politically this is good for the country. It'll force our pols to actually give us a good health care bill
Click to expand...

Nope, Roberts will not rule to boot ACA. It shouldn't be a SCOTUS issue anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard and McDad
#112
#112
Sea Ray said:
It should be overly difficult to amend the Constitution. That's exactly how our Founding Fathers wrote it. You don't get to circumvent that just because you disagree. Kudos for your honesty in admitting that you want the SCOTUS to amend our constitution 'cause it's too much hassle to do it as it's written.
Click to expand...
Lol. Didn’t you claim to have a doctorate degree? How did you manage that without being able to read?
 
#114
#114
RockyTop85 said:
What reason do I have to care what you’re willing to consider, again?

You asked a remedial question, I gave you the correct answer.
Click to expand...
You know, I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I agree with what you posted as an answer.

SCOTUS is no longer being viewed, or conducting its business, as an independent third branch of government as it was designed to be. Because of this we are now seeing a "knives out" approach to the nomination process. It depends on what lens you are looking through to determine when this started. When really doesn't matter, unless one is looking for something/someone to blame. Where we are now is all that really matters because one cannot unring the bell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, NorthDallas40, McDad and 1 other person
#115
#115
hog88 said:
Nope, Roberts will not rule to boot ACA. It shouldn't be a SCOTUS issue anyway.
Click to expand...

If Congress writes a law that violates the Constitution then yeah, it should be sent to the SCOTUS. I'll walk you through this:

Originally the ACA had a Constitutional question as to whether it could force people to buy something. John Roberts said that it was legal because they were levying a tax. Well now that "tax" has been repealed, thus his argument is no longer relevant. This is why it's back on their agenda.
 
#116
#116
37L1 said:
You know, I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I agree with what you posted as an answer.

SCOTUS is no longer being viewed, or conducting its business, as an independent third branch of government as it was designed to be. Because of this we are now seeing a "knives out" approach to the nomination process. It depends on what lens you are looking through to determine when this started. When really doesn't matter, unless one is looking for something/someone to blame. Where we are now is all that really matters because one cannot unring the bell.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The question is how/can it it be fixed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#118
#118
hog88 said:
Sure seems like there are are an awful lot of people on this board that have trouble understanding you so maybe, just maybe it is a YOU problem.
Click to expand...

If you can point out where I said I wanted SCOTUS to amend the constitution, I’ll agree with you.
 
#119
#119
Sea Ray said:
If Congress writes a law that violates the Constitution then yeah, it should be sent to the SCOTUS. I'll walk you through this:

Originally the ACA had a Constitutional question as to whether it could force people to buy something. John Roberts said that it was legal because they were levying a tax. Well now that "tax" has been repealed, thus his argument is no longer relevant. This is why it's back on their agenda.
Click to expand...

Roberts ruling on the tax vs penalty was completely pulled out of thin air and no way in hell will he go back on it. That will be his legacy forever.

What I'm saying is congress should repeal it and if they do it shouldn't be a SCOTUS issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#121
#121
RockyTop85 said:
What reason do I have to care what you’re willing to consider, again?

You asked a remedial question, I gave you the correct answer.

This isn’t my circus. Not my monkeys. I like her more than Kavanaugh. She’s fair on the bill of rights. You sprang your gotcha on the wrong person.
Click to expand...
Let me back up.

First, please accept my apology. My post wasn't meant as a dig or slight against you or your reply. Like you, i don't have a dog in the fight. I am a conscientious objector and do not vote (likely unlike you and many others).

Now to the nominee. I haven't seen anything grossly negative about her. So, I am curious what some folks would fear about her on SCOTUS. There was nothing of substance in your reply. So, to me, the 'fear' mentioned earlier in the thread is simply deriving from politics.

Hope this clears the air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and hog88
#122
#122
RockyTop85 said:
Garland was pretty moderate and the right threw away their dignity over him.

The hysteria is caused by the shift in the court’s dynamic. Scalia->Moderate is a shift. Ginsburg -> Conservative is a shift. The amendment process is overly difficult so the only way to amend the constitution is to get the court to rule on something. It has created a system in which there is too much at stake for these confirmations.
Click to expand...
What is the qualification for overly difficult?

There are 27. Over 244 years. That's one every 9 years.

Even if you want to remove the BOR that's one every 14.3 years.

Neither of those seem overly constrained. The last was passed within my relatively short life span.

The ruling document shouldnt change every election. That makes no sense. There has to be some level of consistency and then general backing for any change. And since it applies to everyone a simple majority isnt enough.

Small changes via laws are allowed, and considering how very infrequently those laws are challenged or removed it's not like we have no other option for change. The consitution backs those changes unless they are challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and hog88
#123
#123
37L1 said:
You know, I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I agree with what you posted as an answer.

SCOTUS is no longer being viewed, or conducting its business, as an independent third branch of government as it was designed to be. Because of this we are now seeing a "knives out" approach to the nomination process. It depends on what lens you are looking through to determine when this started. When really doesn't matter, unless one is looking for something/someone to blame. Where we are now is all that really matters because one cannot unring the bell.
Click to expand...
Articulated much better than me.

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#125
#125
37L1 said:
You know, I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I agree with what you posted as an answer.

SCOTUS is no longer being viewed, or conducting its business, as an independent third branch of government as it was designed to be. Because of this we are now seeing a "knives out" approach to the nomination process. It depends on what lens you are looking through to determine when this started. When really doesn't matter, unless one is looking for something/someone to blame. Where we are now is all that really matters because one cannot unring the bell.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reading it as written, and not trying to turn it into a misguided gotcha.

This particular slippery slope started with Roe v. Wade, IMO. We might agree on that, I’m not sure. I think overturning Roe outright would be a mistake at this juncture, but narrowing Casey somewhat and letting the federalist structure of government do it’s thing on a limited basis might actually be cathartic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top