The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,476
#9,476
hog88 said:
I'm glad that they are finally talking about term limits for justices I don't know if I like this particular plan of 18 year terms and a president getting to appoint a new justice every 24 months, might be a good thing IDK. I don't see how simple congressional legislation could pass constitutional muster though, wouldn't it take an amendment?

Democrats introduce bill requiring term limits for US supreme court justices
Click to expand...

If Democrats wanna change the rules, amend the Constitution. Anyone think this court will allow such a law as this to stand? No damn way

Can Congress Put Term Limits On Supreme Court? | wusa9.com
 
#9,477
#9,477
hog88 said:
I'm glad that they are finally talking about term limits for justices I don't know if I like this particular plan of 18 year terms and a president getting to appoint a new justice every 24 months, might be a good thing IDK. I don't see how simple congressional legislation could pass constitutional muster though, wouldn't it take an amendment?

Democrats introduce bill requiring term limits for US supreme court justices
Click to expand...

So one president gets to pick all 9? I can't imagine what could ever go wrong....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, StarRaider and Caculator
#9,484
#9,484
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and Vol8188
#9,485
#9,485
Vol423 said:
What a worthless article...not even a hint on where the investigation is concentrated since the list of suspects has narrowed. Don't waste your time clicking through to the article to read it. The description on the link is as detailed as it gets.
Click to expand...


Barr on Epstein..ad nauseam. Out gov is transparent as mud. And I am beginning (sarcasm off) to think they are not a "We the People"
 
#9,488
#9,488
IluvdoubleD's said:
Ladies and Gentlemen. I give you Supreme Justice Jackson's first comments. Superstar.
Click to expand...


A dissenting view:
"Justice Jackson, who used much of her question time to test her own theories rather than to elucidate responses from counsel, tried to argue that because the legislators who drafted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War had intended to help black people, an originalist interpretation of those amendments would approve the use of race-conscious policies to create equality.

That defies the common understanding of the Equal Protection Clause, and Alabama pointed out that the way the 14th Amendment was meant to help black people was by ending racial discrimination, not by creating new race-based policies. Alabama also argued that the only situation in which the use of race to redraw maps was allowed was when race had been improperly used to draw them."
Ketanji Brown Jackson Tries Bogus 'Originalist' Argument for Racial Discrimination

That sounds like a superstar argument, eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, StarRaider, davethevol and 1 other person
#9,492
#9,492
I have read the actual Congressional debate. I have read the academic research.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed right after the Civil War. Without question. Each was focused on race and due process and was designed to break up what was then racial Democratic control of the South. (The parties have switched over time, as you know).
 
Last edited:
#9,493
#9,493
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I briefed this very issue to the US Supreme Court in a case 20 years ago (they didn't take the case). I have read the actual Congressional debate. I have read the academic research.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed right after the Civil War. Without question. Each was focused on race and due process and was designed to break up what was then racial Democratic control of the South. (The parties have switched over time, as you know).
Click to expand...

And none of it was remotely meant as race based “equity”. It was simply about equality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol
#9,494
#9,494
C-south said:
And none of it was remotely meant as race based “equity”. It was simply about equality.
Click to expand...

Right, but if a state legislature, with the goal of thinning the power of black votes to the point they have no effect, acts to that end, that is both unconstitutional AND a violation of the VRA.

It's a sad comment on the country that 160 years later there are arms of State government, almost entirely in the South, that have the very goal of diluting any political power of blacks because the current structure feels threatened by it.
 
#9,495
#9,495
lawgator1 said:
Right, but if a state legislature, with the goal of thinning the power of black votes to the point they have no effect, acts to that end, that is both unconstitutional AND a violation of the VRA.

It's a sad comment on the country that 160 years later there are arms of State government, almost entirely in the South, that have the very goal of diluting any political power of blacks because the current structure feels threatened by it.
Click to expand...

Voting shouldn’t be easy. It should mean something to make an effort to get out and vote. That is if you even care. Maybe that’s the issue. If you’re referring to gerrymandering I hope you’re in a well sheltered area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#9,496
#9,496
C-south said:
Voting shouldn’t be easy. It should mean something to make an effort to get out and vote. That is if you even care. Maybe that’s the issue. If you’re referring to gerrymandering I hope you’re in a well sheltered area.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is what I'm talking about.

Why is it that when a Southern GOP legislature creates a "safe" district for a GOP candidate, that looks like a jigsaw piece, the GOP champions that as simply a state legislature's prerogative, but when such a district is drawn to group black voters it's a travesty of justice !!
 
#9,497
#9,497
lawgator1 said:
Gerrymandering is what I'm talking about.

Why is it that when a Southern GOP legislature creates a "safe" district for a GOP candidate, that looks like a jigsaw piece, the GOP champions that as simply a state legislature's prerogative, but when such a district is drawn to group black voters it's a travesty of justice !!
Click to expand...

We can do it straight by county lines as far as I care. We can also bring back some of the old racist requirements and many more but for for all races.
 
#9,498
#9,498
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I briefed this very issue to the US Supreme Court in a case 20 years ago (they didn't take the case). I have read the actual Congressional debate. I have read the academic research.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed right after the Civil War. Without question. Each was focused on race and due process and was designed to break up what was then racial Democratic control of the South. (The parties have switched over time, as you know).
Click to expand...
Impressive.
 
#9,500
#9,500
lawgator1 said:
I probably should not have said that. Just frustrated by the oversimplification of the subject. Suffice it to say I've really studied the original Congressional record on it and in context of Reconstruction it's not really debatable.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top