What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joecct

Well-known member
Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Continue(ance)

Our last thread ended with Handy saying:
Dude your little love affair with the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. There are way more important issues and standards than what a Justice thinks about guns.

Garland was a guy Republicans liked until Obama liked him. Just because he doesnt get alll tingly when he strokes an Uzi should have zero to do with whether he can be on the SC.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The only reason Garland didn't get a vote was because he was nominated by Blackpoleon Blackaparte.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

dxmnkd316 said:
The only reason Garland didn't get a vote was because he was nominated by Blackpoleon Blackaparte.
Click to expand...

What happened to Blackula?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

First term
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

dxmnkd316 said:
The only reason Garland didn't get a vote was because he was nominated by Blackpoleon Blackaparte.
Click to expand...

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...partisanship.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

dxmnkd316 said:
The only reason Garland didn't get a vote was because he was nominated by Blackpoleon Blackaparte.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the next Hamilton to me! Mike Pence should probably not attend :p
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Last I heard, this was still going to be blocked by the Senate...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Putting Garland's nomination aside, would anyone on here be very upset with the balance if Gorsuch is confirmed?
 
Drew S. said:
Putting Garland's nomination aside, would anyone on here be very upset with the balance if Gorsuch is confirmed?
Click to expand...

What is with you and this balance? Nothing says it has to be 5-4 conservative for Christ sake. As someone already said, Scalia replaced burger. You'd have no issue with a fundie zealot replacing Ginsburg
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
What is with you and this balance? Nothing says it has to be 5-4 conservative for Christ sake. As someone already said, Scalia replaced burger. You'd have no issue with a fundie zealot replacing Ginsburg
Click to expand...

That's actually a good test. If a liberal dies, would Drew oppose a conservative judge?

Well, Drew?
 
dxmnkd316 said:
That's actually a good test. If a liberal dies, would Drew oppose a conservative judge?

Well, Drew?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I actually think Garland would be a good replacement for Ginsburg or Breyer if they were to get done during Trump's administration. I don't want to see Roe V Wade overturned.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Drew S. said:
Absolutely. I actually think Garland would be a good replacement for Ginsburg or Breyer if they were to get done during Trump's administration. I don't want to see Roe V Wade overturned.
Click to expand...

your president and GOP congress does, and I don't think they will nominate someone like Garland to replace Ginsburg (May she live to be 120, Flying Spaghetti Monster willing). They won't be happy until they have a one sided court.

Garland wasn't going to take your guns away. At some point you need to step back into reality and give a **** about something else besides guns.
 
BassAle said:
your president and GOP congress does, and I don't think they will nominate someone like Garland to replace Ginsburg (May she live to be 120, Flying Spaghetti Monster willing). They won't be happy until they have a one sided court.

Garland wasn't going to take your guns away. At some point you need to step back into reality and give a **** about something else besides guns.
Click to expand...

Trump could care less and it's not going to happen. He's pro abortion anyway. I don't want a one sided court, either way. If Garland replaced Scalia it would very much have been one sided.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The makeup is 4-4 anyone would unbalance the Court.

Garland, who was named by GOP Senators as a good candidate up until the rumor started he would be nominated by Obama, would have unbalanced the court liberal though...that is your contention? Besides guns how can you possibly justify that belief?

I have a question for Rube if he reads this thread. Leaving aside the "two wrongs dont make a right" idea, if the Senate Dems decided to block the nomination (GOP style) and obstruct would you defend their right to do so? Obstructionism, as we have seen for the last 6 years is a perfectly legal method to gum up the works and make sure nothing gets done and even though it is annoying as hell.
 
Handyman said:
The makeup is 4-4 anyone would unbalance the Court.

Garland, who was named by GOP Senators as a good candidate up until the rumor started he would be nominated by Obama, would have unbalanced the court liberal though...that is your contention? Besides guns how can you possibly justify that belief?

I have a question for Rube if he reads this thread. Leaving aside the "two wrongs dont make a right" idea, if the Senate Dems decided to block the nomination (GOP style) and obstruct would you defend their right to do so? Obstructionism, as we have seen for the last 6 years is a perfectly legal method to gum up the works and make sure nothing gets done and even though it is annoying as hell.
Click to expand...

It's very borderline 4-4 though. It is by no means a given Kennedy will side with the conservatives, and Roberts can flip as well. The four liberal judges almost never flip.

I believe there is nothing that says there needs to be nine justices. Trump could let it get down to five or nominate 10 new justices right now if he wanted to.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

And this is why elections matter and it's why the Republicans win. Trump has shat on the Statue and the Constitution all week but with this pick he is revered. Obama pleaded with the public on the campaign trail that his legacy was on the line and people didn't vote. They'll protest at Chuck Schumer's home, but they won't vote.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Drew S. said:
I believe there is nothing that says there needs to be nine justices.
Click to expand...

Acts of Congress determine the maximum number of Justices.

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Gorsuch is one of those judges whose writing consistently sets limits on Executive Power, and restricts interpretation of vaguely-worded criminal statutes that might inadvertently trap innocent people.

That seems like a good thing, no?

if a judge's role is to interpret existing law, why would his personal politics matter at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top