Justice Ginsberg passed away at 97.

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
After the BS the GOP pulled in 2016, there sure as hell better not be an appointment prior to November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
23,276
4,052
113
Going to entertaining seeing the Pubs and Dems argue completely different sides than they did four years ago. Gotta love politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenCaneKC

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Going to entertaining seeing the Pubs and Dems argue completely different sides than they did four years ago. Gotta love politics.
I’m not on a different side, I just want things to be fair. Trump should technically get this appointment. But he shouldn’t have had the one in 2017.. also, this is much, much closer to Election Day than Scalia was.

I still remember arguing with Bernie bro’s on Reddit 4 years ago about how big a mistake sitting out the election would be for their ideals considering the court seats that were at stake. They laughed. Idiots.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
23,276
4,052
113
I’m not on a different side, I just want things to be fair. Trump should technically get this appointment. But he shouldn’t have had the one in 2017.. also, this is much, much closer to Election Day than Scalia was.

I still remember arguing with Bernie bro’s on Reddit 4 years ago about how big a mistake sitting out the election would be for their ideals considering the court seats that were at stake. They laughed. Idiots.
Wasn’t really talking about you but instead the Senators and to a lesser degree the members of the House. They will almost certainly be on different sides than they were four years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Liberals better vote like their lives depended on it if they want to achieve any significant agenda in the next 20-30 years.

This is going to shift the idealism of the race. I’m not sure who it willfavor though
 

Gold*

Serious Cat Circle of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2003
33,635
7,369
113
The majority of the country is pro-choice. They just don’t vote.

This is a weird issue that shouldn’t be politicized. Gorsuch was a legitimately great pick. He’s smart AF. Even liberal friends of mine who run in these circles actually were happy with it.

Kavanagh is predictably not great. He spent his whole life gambling he would get this. He’s not very interesting and votes predictably. That’s not all bad either.

I just don’t think people really understand how the court works. There are a lot of issues that aren’t right or left, up or down. You want good judges deciding those because they end up mattering a lot. Cases like Daubert or Sullivan decide national procedural and substantive issues much more for the good of law than Roe. You want smart people deciding those cases. Janine Pirro ain’t smart.

Roe probably shouldn’t be decided by a court, but 50 years of precedent makes it hard to meaningfully challenge. It’s not Congress. They are supposed to adhere to precedent.

well, except that $h!tstain who just cited Lochner.
 
Last edited:

aTUfan

I.T.S. Head Coach
Apr 18, 2011
6,245
397
83
la la land
The Executive branch is political. The Legislative branch is political.

In a perfect world, the Judicial branch would be apolitical. With the judges decisions based solely on the constitution.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Head Coach
Feb 25, 2002
7,440
1,443
113
And this is why our constitution is broken... because it allow scenarios like this one.
Its not the constitution thats broken.. its the supreme court that is broken. The court has become the defacto legislative branch of the govt as the left uses it to push an agenda that voters would never have approved. Congress no longer makes law they merely rely on the court. It used to be that major structural changes to our country required a constitutional amendment, now an activist court can make it happen in a 5-4 decision. And congress does nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okie51

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Its not the constitution thats broken.. its the supreme court that is broken. The court has become the defacto legislative branch of the govt as the left uses it to push an agenda that voters would never have approved. Congress no longer makes law they merely rely on the court. It used to be that major structural changes to our country required a constitutional amendment, now an activist court can make it happen in a 5-4 decision. And congress does nothing.
No the constitution is broken. There was never an intent for this type of crap to happen when it was written.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Head Coach
Feb 25, 2002
7,440
1,443
113
No the constitution is broken. There was never an intent for this type of crap to happen when it was written.
You said it yourself in a previous post.. the left agenda would be set back 30 yrs if a conservative was put on the court.

The court is broken.

It needs to go back to ruling on laws.. not making them.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Head Coach
Feb 25, 2002
7,440
1,443
113
Liberals better vote like their lives depended on it if they want to achieve any significant agenda in the next 20-30 years.

This is going to shift the idealism of the race. I’m not sure who it willfavor though
Why should the court be an arm of the liberal agenda?

Cant they legislate an agenda?
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
You said it yourself in a previous post.. the left agenda would be set back 30 yrs if a conservative was put on the court.

The court is broken.

It needs to go back to ruling on laws.. not making them.
How it reviews and rules on laws is fine. They don’t create laws.
The problem is the people being appointed to the court have by and large been appointed by presidents who never represented a majority of Americans... it’s a case of a political minority gaming the system repeatedly to dictate how the majority should be governed which is just wrong.

At least the majority has the opportunity to change things every 4 years when it comes to the electoral college, when it comes to court appointments the political minority gets their guys for decades.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Head Coach
Feb 25, 2002
7,440
1,443
113
How it reviews and rules on laws is fine. They don’t create laws.
The problem is the people being appointed to the court have by and large been appointed by presidents who never represented a majority of Americans... it’s a case of a political minority gaming the system repeatedly to dictate how the majority should be governed which is just wrong.

At least the majority has the opportunity to change things every 4 years when it comes to the electoral college, when it comes to court appointments the political minority gets their guys for decades.
Appointees are supposed to represent the constitution.. not a majority of the voters. They are supposed to prevent mob rule.. not encourage it.
 

Clong83a

I.T.S. Junior
Nov 15, 2014
748
605
93
The majority of the country is pro-choice. They just don’t vote.

This is a weird issue that shouldn’t be politicized. Gorsuch was a legitimately great pick. He’s smart AF. Even liberal friends of mine who run in these circles actually were happy with it.

Kavanagh is predictably not great. He spent his whole life gambling he would get this. He’s not very interesting and votes predictably. That’s not all bad either.

I just don’t think people really understand how the court works. There are a lot of issues that aren’t right or left, up or down. You want good judges deciding those because they end up mattering a lot. Cases like Daubert or Sullivan decide national procedural and substantive issues much more for the good of law than Roe. You want smart people deciding those cases. Janine Pirro ain’t smart.

Roe probably shouldn’t be decided by a court, but 50 years of precedent makes it hard to meaningfully challenge. It’s not Congress. They are supposed to adhere to precedent.

well, except that $h!tstain who just cited Lochner.
Kyden somehow knows Gorsuch. And while Kyden is GOP, I trust his judgement and even donated to his campaign this year. Anyhow, I was in DC meeting with some DoD sponsors for a project I was working on when Gorsuch was appointed. I got dinner with Kyden, and he told me that Gorsuch was a legit good pick which eased my mind considerably. I have not seen anything since then to dispel that. I believe he is a sincere jurist.
 

Gold*

Serious Cat Circle of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2003
33,635
7,369
113
Exactly.

Lots of stupid things said by others above. Judicial review has been a thing since Marbury v. Madison. It has been used in all sorts of ways since then. Dred Scott much?

This allegation that the court all of a sudden became activist in the last 30 years is hilarious. It’s been a conservative Court since Rehnquist took over in 1986. And it was activist (Lopez, etc.) on conservative causes. Noble just doesn’t have any business commenting on this.

The Court has always been relied on to make big decisions. It’s the Supreme Court. Again, Dred Scott. And let’s not forget the lengthy discussion about Lochner several months back.

People get angry when the court makes decisions on issues they don’t think it should make. But it’s not some-mini legislature. Rather, a lot of stage legislatures have written idiotic laws throughout our history. You can disagree about Roe, but everyone supports the line of cases that lead to it which dealt with state statutes that tried to bar any form of contraception. Then again, there is evidence that several of the repeat offender idiots on here don’t need to worry about that issue, either. Maybe y’all are incels.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Appointees are supposed to represent the constitution.. not a majority of the voters. They are supposed to prevent mob rule.. not encourage it.
THEY REPRESENT A CONSTITUTION THAT IS FLAWED AS TO THEIR OWN APPOINTMENT.

That would be like the president of the university saying his main duty is to uphold the university's charter, but the charter states nothing about him having to have actually attended school in his life, so we the board keeps electing high school dropouts with no qualifications to be President just to benefit their wallets.

I would agree with you that mob rule is a bad thing if it allows uneducated / unknowledgeable / unsavory / unethical voters to vote... but our system lets that happen now too an one side really appears to have more of those these days and it just so happens that it's the side that's in the minority. So, not only are you allowing the worst quality of voters vote, but also you're allowing them to control the government with a smaller number of votes.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
If Trump does this and then loses the election or even if he gets another four years, look for Democrats to pack the courts with more justices as soon as they control the three branches. Nothing in the constitution says they can’t and there’s precedent for the number of justices having been changed (up and down) in the past.
 

Latest posts