BigRedBuster

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

I think 18 years max on the SC.  2 full presidential terms plus 2 years.    Like any job, it is hard to keep the creative, intellectual juices flowing after a number of years.  The challenge to think creativity is often lost and ruts are formed.   Culture changes much in 18 years but of course, we want decisions to be tied to the constitutionality of the an issue and not by flippant cultural changes.  

I'm beginning to become OK with term limits.  However, I think it needs to coincide with Presidential terms somehow.  In my perfect world, a justice would leave the court every 4 years.  So, a Presidential election is in 2024, so in 2025, that President gets to nominate one justice.  It's early in his/her term and not in an election year.  The only way one party can stack the court is if, for some reason, a second justice also leaves in that term.  OR....one party maintains the White House for an extended period of time.

The problem with that is, that means a justice is on the bench for 36 years.  So, maybe my idea needs to be modified so that a justice steps down every two years, so in 2025 and again in 2027, giving that president two nominations. (your 18 years)

Also with my idea, each justice would know exactly when their term is up.  There would be much less game playing on when they are going to "retire".  That is, unless the justice wants to retire early....which, I don't know how to fix.

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

How do you know this? 

I don't.  I'm saying that's what I've seen some people predicting.

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Some have written that the ruling will not come until the end of the court calendar - end of June    This should be an emergency decision.  

Yeah, I've seen that.  The conservative justices want to delay it as long as possible so it further delays some of his trials so they aren't decided before the election.

Yes, this should be the most important decision they are deciding and it should be done immediately.  

Watching the SCOTUS recently drills home the opinion I've had for a long time.  The SC is best when it's a 5-4 split.  One side having a large majority on the SC is a really bad thing.

10 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Last year, teams knew we couldn't throw the ball effectively.  I think Rhule wants to use the spring game to send a message to early opponents that, that's not the case this year.

So, I wonder if we are going to get a ruling on this today.

Hmmmm…..my son in law just graduated from there. 
 

57 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you even understand what a defense attorney does?  
 

Does this mean the argument is going to win?  Hopefully not, but that is their job when they take the job. 
 

 

There are examples all the time where defense attorneys either turn down cases or refuse to make a certain argument that the client wants because it's just wrong.

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Isn’t it his lawyers job to make these arguments on his behalf?  Even if they end of losing said arguments.  

Republicans in congress are his personal lawyers?  Sure, his actual lawyer can make that case during the impeachment hearings, but MAGA congressmen were making the case right along with them.....it was all total BS.

1 minute ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Thse college students were 9-11 years old 10 years ago.

That doesn't excuse them from falling into a pile of crap supporting a terrorist group by protesting on US campuses against jews now.

10 minutes ago, nic said:

And why not pile it on. I do feel for the kids a bit. They have been duped. 

 

 

 

After the last 10 years, I fail at feeling sorry for people who fall for pathetic frauds and political scams.

Open your f#&%ing eyes and wake up.

6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Yep - a president become DeFacto king, ruler for life if he so desire.   I wish that escalator had swallowed him up in 2015.  A decade of chaos because of one bad man. 

That man and millions of people who fell for a complete fraud.

1 minute ago, Scarlet said:

We're witnessing the death of American democracy.  Everything else that is argued about on this board is moot if the executive branch is granted complete immunity.  

And to think, if that's the way the SCOTUS goes, it's all in the name of protecting Trump.....nothing else.

I'm old enough to remember Republicans arguing that they shouldn't impeach Trump because it's a legal issue and we should all let the courts decide this after he leaves office.

NOW....they argue that he can't be held accountable in court unless he was impeached.

Amazing how this works.

26 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Not that there was any doubt left but just to add to the body of evidence that the GOP is now a full fledged authoritarian party, here's the ridiculous and fascistic argument being put forth at the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

And, that ex President has a hand picked court to hear the argument.

I'm holding out some hope that these arguments are so absurdly ridiculous that even the right wing court realizes it and rules against it.

But, I question my sanity for holding out that hope.

34 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Huge victory for Orange Man Bad. This is why they stacked the court. 

 

 

Absolutely baffling.  What these blubbering idiots don't realize is that if they give Trump this freedom, they ALSO give a Democrat that same freedom.

Reading some of the arguments that Trump's lawyers are making are amazingly laughable....well....if it wasn't actually such a serious issue.  These people are f#&%ing nuts.