The Courts (not specific to either party)

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 Then why is he mentioned?

Don’t know, haven’t followed the case outside of the SCOTUS ruling.   Just passing along info.  

[nic]

On 7/4/2023 at 8:58 AM, BigRedBuster said:

There should be backlash if they are based on fake cases.  

Fake? How does a fake case make it that far? Maybe through appeal if lost in lower courts, but wouldn't one of the lower courts have thrown it out along the way, or was everyone fooled?

[BigRedBuster]

17 hours ago, nic said:

Fake? How does a fake case make it that far? Maybe through appeal if lost in lower courts, but wouldn't one of the lower courts have thrown it out along the way, or was everyone fooled?

Don't know.  But, somehow, someone was claimed to be involved with the case when they had nothing to do with it.

[nic]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Don't know.  But, somehow, someone was claimed to be involved with the case when they had nothing to do with it.

I heard a talking head on MSNBC mention the web designer case from Colorado was bogus, but I didn't catch the details. Only that she was never forced to do anything against her beliefs. Given Colorado aggressiveness for going after businesses on this religious freedom issue I wouldn't be surprised if she had been contacted by the state. 

[nic]

We continue to go down. This does not surprise me.

 

Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin penned "An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism" to respond to what Biden has called "not a normal court" following high-profile cases.

"We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations," they wrote.

The letter continued, "We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage."

[Decked]

Translation: the court rulings didn’t go in our favor so we will want to try and add Democrat backed nominees to “restore democracy”. Please spare me the constitution junk. It’s about control. Both parties want your money, your vote, and control of you. 

8 hours ago, nic said:

We continue to go down. This does not surprise me.

 

Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin penned "An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism" to respond to what Biden has called "not a normal court" following high-profile cases.

"We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations," they wrote.

The letter continued, "We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage."

 

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, Decked said:

Translation: the court rulings didn’t go in our favor so we will want to try and add Democrat backed nominees to “restore democracy”. Please spare me the constitution junk. It’s about control. Both parties want your money, your vote, and control of you. 

 

In this case yes, but that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done with the Supreme Court. Political parties should't be able to stack the court in their favor, and further more, the court should be a neutral entity that is free of politics. A pipedream I know... But that's how it should be.

[Decked]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

In this case yes, but that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done with the Supreme Court. Political parties should't be able to stack the court in their favor, and further more, the court should be a neutral entity that is free of politics. A pipedream I know... But that's how it should be.

I just don’t see how this is unfortunately feasible. Both sides will try and get their own. Numbers be damned it does not matter. And everyone has bias. It will just change hands. 

[ZRod]

7 minutes ago, Decked said:

I just don’t see how this is unfortunately feasible. Both sides will try and get their own. Numbers be damned it does not matter. And everyone has bias. It will just change hands. 

Well, there's plenty of proposals out there to do something different... Remove life time appointments, maybe have each president appoint a justice, actually have some ethical requirements/consequences for the justices (see the Thomas fiascos), etc.

[Decked]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Well, there's plenty of proposals out there to do something different... Remove life time appointments, maybe have each president appoint a justice, actually have some ethical requirements/consequences for the justices (see the Thomas fiascos), etc.

All pretty sensical minus requirements/consequences as that requires accountability which from top to bottom does not exist under government. Otherwise they would all be in jail. 

[nic]

9 hours ago, Decked said:

Translation: the court rulings didn’t go in our favor so we will want to try and add Democrat backed nominees to “restore democracy”. Please spare me the constitution junk. It’s about control. Both parties want your money, your vote, and control of you. 

 

The interesting side bar is that Israel is enacting laws to "rebalance" the separation powers because they didn'tlike the court rulings. The people are throwing a fit and calling it the fall of democracy. We may be headed for the same thing. The potential reaction in the US may have been why the administration never moved forward with court packing, or it was just because they knew they couldn't get it past Manchin.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/middleeast/israel-supreme-court-power-stripped-intl/index.html

 

...and yet there all calls to reshape the court here. It is about power. Maybe we are headed for an internal collapse.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/politics/american-political-divisions-july-fourth/index.html

 

[funhusker]

32 minutes ago, nic said:

The interesting side bar is that Israel is enacting laws to "rebalance" the separation powers because they didn'tlike the court rulings. The people are throwing a fit and calling it the fall of democracy. We may be headed for the same thing. The potential reaction in the US may have been why the administration never moved forward with court packing, or it was just because they knew they couldn't get it past Manchin.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/middleeast/israel-supreme-court-power-stripped-intl/index.html

 

...and yet there all calls to reshape the court here. It is about power. Maybe we are headed for an internal collapse.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/politics/american-political-divisions-july-fourth/index.html

 

Packing the court is just a small symptom of the current collapse this nation is in danger of…

[Scarlet]

30 minutes ago, nic said:

The interesting side bar is that Israel is enacting laws to "rebalance" the separation powers because they didn'tlike the court rulings. The people are throwing a fit and calling it the fall of democracy. We may be headed for the same thing. The potential reaction in the US may have been why the administration never moved forward with court packing, or it was just because they knew they couldn't get it past Manchin.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/middleeast/israel-supreme-court-power-stripped-intl/index.html

 

...and yet there all calls to reshape the court here. It is about power. Maybe we are headed for an internal collapse.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/politics/american-political-divisions-july-fourth/index.html

 

Go figure far-right politicians like Netanyahu would try to neuter judicial oversight and expand the executive branch's power.   It's what you get when you elect wannabe autocrats.  Trump's promising to expand his powers if he's reelected.  

[nic]

7 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Go figure far-right politicians like Netanyahu would try to neuter judicial oversight and expand the executive branch's power.   It's what you get when you elect wannabe autocrats.  Trump's promising to expand his powers if he's reelected.  

And the right would be calling for court changes if the left nominated and dominated SCOTUS. The real question is whether their rulings follow the constitution. Even then, the opinions of “legal scholars” and talking heads depend on what side of the aisle they are on. 

[nic]

20 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Packing the court is just a small symptom of the current collapse this nation is in danger of…

Agreed. Twitter (sorry X) will end up conservative, Meta’s platform liberal. Disney and the new park in Oklahoma celebrating America will be divided. News channels were just the beginning. Secession of parts of Oregon to Idaho. Budweiser, Yuengling beer. Some fools are trying to create a nonWoke version of Amazon…good luck. There are symptoms all over the place and if anyone thinks they can strictly blame one side or the other they are full of crap. It started around 2000 and has only gotten worse. It might have even started during the Clinton reign.