The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#11,152
#11,152
Vol423 said:
The only shocking thing about this is that even the liberals on the Court struck this leftist crap down.
Click to expand...
they haven't fully struck it down. This is just a hold while the courts make a final determination on the entire argument.

it does typically indicate that the SC judges believe there is a decent case to be made, but it isn't a guaranteed win.
 
#11,157
#11,157
#11,159
#11,159
OrangeTsar said:
Interesting non partisan constitutional law question here. Maybe some of you attorneys can chime in. If Congress passes a law purporting to restructure or reform the Supreme Court, and the Court declares said law unconstitutional; what in the heck happens next?
Click to expand...
The law is thrown out. In the case of term limits that Biden has suggested, it should be thrown out as it's clearly unconstitutional
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#11,160
#11,160
OrangeTsar said:
Interesting non partisan constitutional law question here. Maybe some of you attorneys can chime in. If Congress passes a law purporting to restructure or reform the Supreme Court, and the Court declares said law unconstitutional; what in the heck happens next?
Click to expand...

I’d be skeptical of anybody giving a simple answer with any real certainty.

This bill would never pass. But it is a package of reforms. Based on recent treatment of various bills, the court would consider each reform individually and only cut out those bits that are unconstitutional.

Changing the size of the court is constitutional.

Term limits depend on how it’s done. You can’t kick a justice out of office at the end of a term. Reassigning them other duties than serving on the panel that considers what we think of as Supreme Court cases is an existing theory of “term limits” from people with more knowledge and experience than what you’ll find here. I think it was discussed in this thread, recently.

The idea of changing what is needed to strike down a statute is new to me. If the court considered a law that says they have to have a super majority to strike down a statute, I think they would likely only strike down the statute with a super majority.

The parts that were struck down could then be processed as a constitutional amendment, as always.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and McDad
#11,161
#11,161
RockyTop85 said:
I’d be skeptical of anybody giving a simple answer with any real certainty.

This bill would never pass. But it is a package of reforms. Based on recent treatment of various bills, the court would consider each reform individually and only cut out those bits that are unconstitutional.

Changing the size of the court is constitutional.

Term limits depend on how it’s done. You can’t kick a justice out of office at the end of a term. Reassigning them other duties than serving on the panel that considers what we think of as Supreme Court cases is an existing theory of “term limits” from people with more knowledge and experience than what you’ll find here. I think it was discussed in this thread, recently.

The idea of changing what is needed to strike down a statute is new to me. If the court considered a law that says they have to have a super majority to strike down a statute, I think they would likely only strike down the statute with a super majority.

The parts that were struck down could then be processed as a constitutional amendment, as always.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the outcome, that would be a veritable circus to watch that move through the courts
 
#11,162
#11,162
OrangeTsar said:
Regardless of the outcome, that would be a veritable circus to watch that move through the courts
Click to expand...
There would definitely be hyperventilating on the front end.

I think the concerns about the court are somewhat overblown. Although I’m less confident after the 14th amendment ballot decision.

I haven’t seen much to make me believe that they would have five votes to torpedo bipartisan legislation that wasn’t clearly unconstitutional and which made the court less of a political body.
 
#11,163
#11,163
RockyTop85 said:
There would definitely be hyperventilating on the front end.

I think the concerns about the court are somewhat overblown. Although I’m less confident after the 14th amendment ballot decision.

I haven’t seen much to make me believe that they would have five votes to torpedo bipartisan legislation that wasn’t clearly unconstitutional and which made the court less of a political body.
Click to expand...
The Court was the Golden Child to the left once. Apolitical, noble, and above reproach.
That is, during the Warren years and up until recently (as long as it made rulings that they agreed with)
Now suddenly when a few decisions go against them; the court is suddenly illegitimate, partisan, and corrupt and in need of immediate restructuring.
If it were to go back to a 5-4 liberal majority overnight it would instantly become sacred once again.
We all know how the game is played
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol, InVOLuntary, GroverCleveland and 2 others
#11,164
#11,164
OrangeTsar said:
The Court was the Golden Child to the left once. Apolitical, noble, and above reproach.
That is, during the Warren years and up until recently (as long as it made rulings that they agreed with)
Now suddenly when a few decisions go against them; the court is suddenly illegitimate, partisan, and corrupt and in need of immediate restructuring.
If it were to go back to a 5-4 liberal majority overnight it would instantly become sacred once again.
We all know how the game is played
Click to expand...
I think that’s probably all fair for the vast majority of the criticism, particularly the hyperventilating ones.

There are legitimate improvements that could be made but there’s a reason that the commission Biden put together in 2021 advised against expanding the court.
 
#11,165
#11,165
RockyTop85 said:
I think that’s probably all fair for the vast majority of the criticism, particularly the hyperventilating ones.

There are legitimate improvements that could be made but there’s a reason that the commission Biden put together in 2021 advised against expanding the court.
Click to expand...
The result of expanding the Court one time would be that it becomes a political tit for tat. Each side upon assuming power would immediately expand the court to the degree need to ensure a majority for the other side and the math would be exponential. In a few decades, the Supreme Court would be 200 Justices holding court in a basketball arena sized chamber
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#11,166
#11,166
OrangeTsar said:
The Court was the Golden Child to the left once. Apolitical, noble, and above reproach.
That is, during the Warren years and up until recently (as long as it made rulings that they agreed with)
Now suddenly when a few decisions go against them; the court is suddenly illegitimate, partisan, and corrupt and in need of immediate restructuring.
If it were to go back to a 5-4 liberal majority overnight it would instantly become sacred once again.
We all know how the game is played
Click to expand...

en.m.wikipedia.org

Kannon Shanmugam - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Some really smart people pretty much agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and OrangeTsar
#11,168
#11,168
85SugarVol said:
Interesting. Do you have any idea how those remarks were received at Duke?
Click to expand...
I think he was speaking to their federalist society chapter so probably okay at the time.
No idea about the faculty.

It’s been reprinted in the Volokh Conspiracy, WSJ, and a couple other places.

I had some disagreements with it:
He only addresses the Barrett/Gorsuch confirmation shenanigans to refute the hyperbole that the court is illegitimate and doesn’t seem to attribute some of the court’s drop in credibility to that.
I also don’t know that he discussed the elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointments?
Those were both constitutional acts but I think they both contributed more to the current situation than a bunch of bad faith op-Eds and shrieking of senators that tbh not that many people listen to.
Speaking of bad faith op-Ed’s, I thought he cherry picked the most ridiculous of those.

I think he lives in Kansas City, but it’s a very “inside the beltway” mindset to think that that kind of stuff is responsible for national confidence in institutions.

I think the appearance of a cause and effect are more significant

The Supreme Court became a bone that politicians fought over and one side won the bone and started getting what it wanted. Ergo, the court looks partisan.
I think the media are following that trend more than driving it. I’m sure there’s some feedback loop effect.

It’s going to get worse with no filibuster. If Trump gets a second term, he’ll likely appoint Jim Ho from the second circuit will replace Thomas and liberals probably be Kavanaugh level big mad about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#11,169
#11,169
RockyTop85 said:
I think he was speaking to their federalist society chapter so probably okay at the time.
No idea about the faculty.

It’s been reprinted in the Volokh Conspiracy, WSJ, and a couple other places.

I had some disagreements with it:
He only addresses the Barrett/Gorsuch confirmation shenanigans to refute the hyperbole that the court is illegitimate and doesn’t seem to attribute some of the court’s drop in credibility to that.
I also don’t know that he discussed the elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointments?
Those were both constitutional acts but I think they both contributed more to the current situation than a bunch of bad faith op-Eds and shrieking of senators that tbh not that many people listen to.
Speaking of bad faith op-Ed’s, I thought he cherry picked the most ridiculous of those.

I think he lives in Kansas City, but it’s a very “inside the beltway” mindset to think that that kind of stuff is responsible for national confidence in institutions.

I think the appearance of a cause and effect are more significant

The Supreme Court became a bone that politicians fought over and one side won the bone and started getting what it wanted. Ergo, the court looks partisan.
I think the media are following that trend more than driving it. I’m sure there’s some feedback loop effect.

It’s going to get worse with no filibuster. If Trump gets a second term, he’ll likely appoint Jim Ho from the second circuit will replace Thomas and liberals probably be Kavanaugh level big mad about it.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it Harry Reid & Democrats that scrapped the filibuster for judicial appointments?

Jim Ho huh? We don’t think Liberals would celebrate the diversity brought by the first Asian-American to sit the Court?
 
#11,171
#11,171
85SugarVol said:
Wasn’t it Harry Reid & Democrats that scrapped the filibuster for judicial appointments?

Jim Ho huh? We don’t think Liberals would celebrate the diversity brought by the first Asian-American to sit the Court?
Click to expand...

Does that make a difference in the effect it has had? Im confused.

Ho is like the ideological love child of Clarence Thomas and Ron DeSantis. If he gets nominated it will be the Kavanaugh/Thomas confirmations all over again.
 
#11,172
#11,172
RockyTop85 said:
Does that make a difference in the effect it has had? Im confused.

Ho is like the ideological love child of Clarence Thomas and Ron DeSantis. If he gets nominated it will be the Kavanaugh/Thomas confirmations all over again.
Click to expand...
Not in the grand scheme of things I guess.
But it seemed he was addressing things Republicans “did” that brought about this illegitimate court.

The RadKav confirmation hearings were lit.
 
#11,173
#11,173
85SugarVol said:
Not in the grand scheme of things I guess.
But it seemed he was addressing things Republicans “did” that brought about this illegitimate court.

The RadKav confirmation hearings were lit.
Click to expand...
I understand.

I don’t think he was exclusively addressing things Republicans have done, although he was addressing things that mostly liberals have said, which tends to give the same gloss.

What he’s saying is that the criticisms about the way the court is appointed are actually criticisms of the senate that people are trying to fix by reforming the court.

That’s the tl;dr of the first of three sections where he deals with the appointments process.

I agree that “the court is illegitimate” is hysterical hyperbole. I agree that “the court is purely acting politically” is hyperbole (see 5th circuit’s 3-8 record and being the most overturned circuit each of the last two terms). I agree that it’s the senate’s fault, and I agree that the process for appointing all of the nine justices was constitutional.

I would go further and add that abuses and repeals of the filibuster rules has done more to erode the credibility of the entire judiciary.

But the hyperbole isn’t landing on the court because it’s super persuasive, or solely because of things the senate did. It’s landing on the court because of things the court has done, which he doesn’t address.

I have more thoughts, but my browser keeps resetting me back to a prior version of the post.
 
#11,174
#11,174
RockyTop85 said:
I understand.

I don’t think he was exclusively addressing things Republicans have done, although he was addressing things that mostly liberals have said, which tends to give the same gloss.

What he’s saying is that the criticisms about the way the court is appointed are actually criticisms of the senate that people are trying to fix by reforming the court.

That’s the tl;dr of the first of three sections where he deals with the appointments process.

I agree that “the court is illegitimate” is hysterical hyperbole. I agree that “the court is purely acting politically” is hyperbole (see 5th circuit’s 3-8 record and being the most overturned circuit each of the last two terms). I agree that it’s the senate’s fault, and I agree that the process for appointing all of the nine justices was constitutional.

I would go further and add that abuses and repeals of the filibuster rules has done more to erode the credibility of the entire judiciary.

But the hyperbole isn’t landing on the court because it’s super persuasive, or solely because of things the senate did. It’s landing on the court because of things the court has done, which he doesn’t address.

I have more thoughts, but my browser keeps resetting me back to a prior version of the post.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the filibuster returned for judicial appointments, and then enshrined.

What things has the court done that he didn’t address?
 
#11,175
#11,175
SpaceCoastVol said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm not sure what he is referring to. Federal judges can be impeach even the Supreme Court, which is what the nutjobs like Rocky were advocating.

The issue with Rocky is the same as really LG. For instance, he is using words like "hyperventilating" to describe what being not only spoken about but even the reasons why they would do it. He isn't providing anything new, he is trying to justify the actions (or potential future actions) and trying to act like there isn't some bad intentions for it.

Literally, Rocky was saying how silly it was that people didn't wear masks, iirc he even called people idiots. Now he is providing his great wisdom that all this is "overblown" without really addressing the problem or what the end game is.

Its always the same ones over and over.

Next, Rocky is going to give his great insight into how voting for three murderers was a great thing for all of us.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top