Jape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,734
I suppose that is one way to view the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, the bill of rights, the separation of powers, etc...
#enlightening
A Complete Sentence: The Second Amendment
- Thread starter Phaseolus
- Start date
#enlightening
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
What's funny is you hear lawyers on here complain about the 9th circuit at nauseum but then the supreme court is sacrosanct.I suppose that is one way to view the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, the bill of rights, the separation of powers, etc...
#enlightening
All I'm saying is everyone is full of shit (biased) no exceptions... there are degrees to it like everything, but no one is clean.
Jape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,734
I donāt think Iāve ever said anything on here about the ninth circuit, but not sure about others.
As for bias, I thought I established that about 20 posts ago when I said nobody is perfect. We couldāve saved ourselves a lot of trouble by just agreeing on that point
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Wasn't trying to imply you had, more it's a thing.I donāt think Iāve ever said anything on here about the ninth circuit, but not sure about others.
As for bias, I thought I established that about 20 posts ago when I said nobody is perfect. We couldāve saved ourselves a lot of trouble by just agreeing on that point
No one is perfect, and Scalia liked guns and hunting
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The Supreme Courtās Big Rulings Were Surprisingly Mainstream This Year
The courtās much-anticipated conservative revolution didnāt really happen this year. To be sure, the last few weeks of the term were full of consequential decisions that hinged on just one vote. But even though there were some fierce disagreements among the justices, the courtās final rulings...
I sure see a lot of flip flopping... I side with @Jape even with their warts the SCOTUS is the only thin plastic veneer holding this pile of steaming poo together.
MTGomer
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Agreed
but it's piss not rain, calling it rain doesn't help me sleep better YMMV
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,267
I don't think anyone will change another's mindset.
Mine is that the court is nakedly political. The other branches of government have shown that to be the case. You can begin wherever you choose. To be more fair I'll start with the Bork nomination. Both the nomination and the Democrats no hold barred resistance to it.
The Bush vs Gore decision left many in the country feeling like they were holding a burning bag of dog $hit.
McConnell blocking the nomination of Garland citing some made up rationale then reversing himself when Bader died. That maneuver alone convinced me that the politicians know the importance of packing the court with their ideology.
It was likely always so, but now if you don't see it, it is a willful denial of reality.
If all that is all that is holding the steaming pile together, we're pretty well phucked.
Mine is that the court is nakedly political. The other branches of government have shown that to be the case. You can begin wherever you choose. To be more fair I'll start with the Bork nomination. Both the nomination and the Democrats no hold barred resistance to it.
The Bush vs Gore decision left many in the country feeling like they were holding a burning bag of dog $hit.
McConnell blocking the nomination of Garland citing some made up rationale then reversing himself when Bader died. That maneuver alone convinced me that the politicians know the importance of packing the court with their ideology.
It was likely always so, but now if you don't see it, it is a willful denial of reality.
If all that is all that is holding the steaming pile together, we're pretty well phucked.
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The media wants you to believe that the court is more political than it really is. Also "law" is more complicated than you guys are giving it credit for.
the nikster
Well-known member
Admittedly I have not read every post.
I cannot tell you what my wife or children think or meant and I live with them every day.
any attempt by me to clarify what founding fathers meant is a wild guess on my part, perhaps educated but wild nonetheless.
I have high level, multimillion dollar conversations monthly, I always cover myself via follow up emails and STILL, there can be confusion about what exactly was said and what was intended.
I feel pretty good that we have kept the train on the tracks this long.
I cannot tell you what my wife or children think or meant and I live with them every day.
any attempt by me to clarify what founding fathers meant is a wild guess on my part, perhaps educated but wild nonetheless.
I have high level, multimillion dollar conversations monthly, I always cover myself via follow up emails and STILL, there can be confusion about what exactly was said and what was intended.
I feel pretty good that we have kept the train on the tracks this long.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
It's constitutional hump day folks, turn to page 6 . . .
honestly, it hasn't been very long.
mountainlaurel3
Well-known member
FIFY.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,267
Speaking of the Dobbs decision. The only logical source of the leak is someone looking to lock in the justices votes, imo.
There is nothing really to be gained from the minority to do it. There was going to be a backlash whenever the decision was announced. It certainly would not work to swing another vote or two their way.
It also does not surprise me at all that the investigation into the leak could not find the leaker. It also does not surprise me that the justices weren't compelled to take an oath to tell the truth. That saves them from any legal recourse over false statements.
I think Alito is very likely the the leaker, not that anything could be done about it.
There is nothing really to be gained from the minority to do it. There was going to be a backlash whenever the decision was announced. It certainly would not work to swing another vote or two their way.
It also does not surprise me at all that the investigation into the leak could not find the leaker. It also does not surprise me that the justices weren't compelled to take an oath to tell the truth. That saves them from any legal recourse over false statements.
I think Alito is very likely the the leaker, not that anything could be done about it.
Jape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,734
Either Alito or a disgruntled clerk for the minority that was trying to inflame the masses more than they already were.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Midterm strategery.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,267
My understanding is that everyone other than the justices had to swear to tell the truth. So, there would be legal exposure, and the ruining of a person's career. So they would have much to lose, the justices are pretty well protected.
We will likely never know exactly who or why. My speculation, totally conjecture, is that it was done because the decision was fairly strong, and one or more of the justices were a little wobbly about that.
