The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[joecct]

Having a lair sounds so cool. What must a person be or do in order to qualify for a lair? Could Dick Cheney have a lair? Michael Jordan? Scooby?

Remember The Greenbrier? Mount Weather? Site Y? There are secret sites all through the US and the world where the rich and famous and lucky get to ride out Doomsday. The rest of us get a proctoscopy without anesthesia .

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Can any of the legal scholars here explain how "extremely careless" is not also "grossly negligent"? They sure sound synonymous to a lay person....

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Can any of the legal scholars here explain how "extremely careless" is not also "grossly negligent"? They sure sound synonymous to a lay person....

I'm not sure "extremely careless" is any sort of legal term or standard. Someone else may know. I think it was just the harshest term the Director could think of short of saying her actions were criminal.

 

[unofan]

Can any of the legal scholars here explain how "extremely careless" is not also "grossly negligent"? They sure sound synonymous to a lay person....

Extremely careless is not a legal term.

Putting your makeup on in the car while eating a breakfast burrito is extremely careless, but unless you get into a wreck, you're probably not getting ticketed or charged with anything.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Can any of the legal scholars here explain how "extremely careless" is not also "grossly negligent"? They sure sound synonymous to a lay person....

Not a legal scholar but from what I heard last night the closest case in point that the FBI director could have pointed to was pardoned before it went to plea bargain or court. So, the FBI director was able to say there were no cases on point that would lead him to be able to charge Clinton with a crime.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/f...pardoned-cia-director-for-private-server-use/

I've decided Mrs. Clinton must be extremely intelligent so she must also be one of the most arrogant people on the planet. Cause storing and running your own email server while working for the government has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

That was FDR, not the Court.

I fully agree that the Court packing scheme was one of the worst moments in the history of the Presidency.

It still sets the precedent that there are really nine legislators (well, eight now). Same could be said about the Presidential "election" of 2000, which was decided by the Supreme Court effectively. With that precedent in place, your can throw any law book out the window, and turn the country into an effective oligarchy. I seem to recall the same arguments being made by loonies in 2005, and are being made by the knucks today. And remember, there's no check or balance on the Supreme Court except Senate confirmation. It's a life term, and I don't recall impeachment proceedings in the Constitution. If they wanted to ban all weapons today, despite what the second amendment says, they could do it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It still sets the precedent that there are really nine legislators (well, eight now). Same could be said about the Presidential "election" of 2000, which was decided by the Supreme Court effectively. With that precedent in place, your can throw any law book out the window, and turn the country into an effective oligarchy. I seem to recall the same arguments being made by loonies in 2005, and are being made by the knucks today. And remember, there's no check or balance on the Supreme Court except Senate confirmation. It's a life term, and I don't recall impeachment proceedings in the Constitution. If they wanted to ban all weapons today, despite what the second amendment says, they could do it.

Have you read the Constitution? It's funny how everyone is a strict constructionist until it's their beliefs getting trampled. Then they're immediately on the legislate from the bench bandwagon. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It's a life term, and I don't recall impeachment proceedings in the Constitution. If they wanted to ban all weapons today, despite what the second amendment says, they could do it.

A federal judge can be removed by impeachment.

And, in fact, eleven of the fifteen impeachments reaching trial in the Senate have been directed at federal judges, and all seven of those convicted in impeachment trials have been judges.

In theory the Supreme Court can do anything. They can even decide that corporations are people with First Amendment rights. They are not last because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are last.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Have you read the Constitution? It's funny how everyone is a strict constructionist until it's their beliefs getting trampled. Then they're immediately on the legislate from the bench bandwagon. You can't have it both ways.

And what would stop any of them from not following the Constitution in their decisions?

The only other check/balance I can think of is local/state executive branches deciding whether or not to enforce these, but thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, many of them are becoming federalised.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Have you read the Constitution? It's funny how everyone is a strict constructionist until it's their beliefs getting trampled. Then they're immediately on the legislate from the bench bandwagon. You can't have it both ways.

Flag believes if he doesn't get his way that's unconstitutional. It is a sadly common view on the right.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Flag believes if he doesn't get his way that's unconstitutional. It is a sadly common view on the right.

It is and it's getting old.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

And what would stop any of them from not following the Constitution in their decisions?

They can't by definition, because the Constitution is literally what they say it is. There have been SCOTUS decisions with wildly whack-job results (Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner, Heller, Citizens United). During the time in which those decisions were operative they were, by definition, Constitutional, because the meaning of the Constitution constantly evolves.

There are no stone tablets and no Mount Sinai and no supreme being. There are just nine people in a room giving it their best shot. When a future Court deems they got it so wrong that it matters, it overturns them.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It is and it's getting old.

As are we all.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Flag believes if he doesn't get his way that's unconstitutional. It is a sadly common view on the right.

And yet, the opposite could have been said about you guys ten years ago. It's amazing what a little power intoxication can do.

But in all seriousness, take "intended concepts" out of the equation. To quote the film Apollo 13, "I don't care what it was designed to do, I care about what it can do." Is what is being described possible? Obviously, you have taken to refute impeachment of justices, and that's fair. Looking in the Constitution, I don't see anything specifically calling out the impeachment of justices, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. That's fine and dandy. Now, how many Congressional members will actually seek impeachment of a justice? Or anyone for that matter? If the executives won't indict Hillary because they're afraid of "disappearing", what makes you think they'll go after a justice?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

And yet, the opposite could have been said about you guys ten years ago.

Not at all, because we don't pretend our whims are "original intent." We say decisions are unjust and we work to change them. The RWNJs pretend decisions they don't like are apostasy and that they are "Real 'Murica" -- the perpetual high priests. It must have come as a shock to Scalia that he was mortal, as Ginsburg held that pillow over his face and smiled and smiled...

The sole original intent, and the greatest value, of the Constitution is that it is flexible enough for future generations to adapt it. America is not a prison where living citizens are held by their dead ancestors. America is what we all agree it is, every second changing.

 

[joecct]

A federal judge can be removed by impeachment.



In theory the Supreme Court can do anything. They can even decide that corporations are people with First Amendment rights. They are not last because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are last.

And Alcee Hastings was then elected to the US House of Representatives by the people of his district.

But, being men (and women), they are not infallible and are prone to error. But the only way to change a court's opinion is to get the court to change its mind or a Constitutional Amendment. Both are extremely difficult.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

If the executives won't indict Hillary because they're afraid of "disappearing", what makes you think they'll go after a justice?

After impeaching a president, shutting down the government, threatening to default on our debt, and hounding the presumptive nominee all solely for personal and/or partisan political gain I can easily imagine a Republican president trying to impeach sitting justices and a Republican Congress going along with it. They have demonstrated they have no scruples.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

And Alcee Hastings was then elected to the US House of Representatives by the people of his district.

But, being men (and women), they are not infallible and are prone to error. But the only way to change a court's opinion is to get the court to change its mind or a Constitutional Amendment. Both are extremely difficult.

Time ratifies or refutes the Court. In the end it's just another political organ -- it's just on a longer timeline.

And that is exactly what the Framers had in mind.

But it is not with a view to infractions of the constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safe-guard against the effects of occasional ill humours in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of an iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may imagine. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more states than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts; as no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day.

 

[unofan]

And Alcee Hastings was then elected to the US House of Representatives by the people of his district.

But, being men (and women), they are not infallible and are prone to error. But the only way to change a court's opinion is to get the court to change its mind or a Constitutional Amendment. Both are extremely difficult.

They are not last because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are last.

 

[joecct]

They are not last because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are last.

But as humans, we are not infallible (except our spouses, of course). Therefore any human or group of humans are fallible - even if it is the SCOTUS.