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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

When I saw this:
Tom Brady to petition SCOTUS for certiorari. First step: ask RBG for a stay of the Appeals Court Ruling.
Click to expand...
it seemed to me like a banner headline that a decision had been made to appeal to the SC knowing that no decision had been made yet(well, there was nothing in either of the Boston newspapers).

As for the "links or patties", you should really stay away from that shyte. It's not good for you. ;)
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SonofSouthie said:
When I saw this:
it seemed to me like a banner headline that a decision had been made to appeal to the SC knowing that no decision had been made yet(well, there was nothing in either of the Boston newspapers).

As for the "links or patties", you should really stay away from that shyte. It's not good for you. ;)
Click to expand...

If you have to use bench legislators to determine whether or not you're allowed to throw a ball, it is the end of humanity as we know it.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I don't think you guys fully appreciate the underlying aspects of what this represents. It's about collective bargaining and contract law.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

dxmnkd316 said:
I don't think you guys fully appreciate the underlying aspects of what this represents. It's about collective bargaining and contract law.
Click to expand...

Yep. Facts don't matter. It's all about power and Lord Roger has it all.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The inscription on the inside of Lord Roger's ring:
<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/One_Ring_inscription.svg/640px-One_Ring_inscription.svg.png"></img>

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

joecct said:
The inscription on the inside of Lord Roger's ring
Click to expand...

The inscription on the One Ring is Black Speech, transliterated in Tengwar characters. Roger's ring is more likely to be inscribed in a Mannish language like Adûnaic or Westron.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

A lower court victory over voter suppression.

Ultimately the only way to stop the new Jim Crow is to win the state leg and governorships. Hopefully November is the start of that -- with such a tool at the top of the GOP ticket, turnout below the pinwheel-eyed cray level should be down.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Another victory for the good guys. These will hopefully keep coming and cure the infection with the disinfectant of sunlight, particularly if we can hold the White House and Senate and keep staffing up the Courts.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Just a reminder, we still have a president for whom it's somehow not his job to recommend a Supreme Court justice, despite the fact that his term isn't up for another few months. Because the GOP's memory of the Constitution is conveniently hazy from time to time.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Just a reminder, we still have a president for whom it's somehow not his job to recommend a Supreme Court justice, despite the fact that his term isn't up for another few months. Because the GOP's memory of the Constitution is conveniently hazy from time to time.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I argued with a poster on here a month or so ago about this and it was their feeling that the GOP is well within their rights to do it this way. There is no you must vote clause in the advise and consent.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Just a reminder, we still have a president for whom it's somehow not his job to recommend a Supreme Court justice, despite the fact that his term isn't up for another few months. Because the GOP's memory of the Constitution is conveniently hazy from time to time.
Click to expand...

If Trump's popularity starts crashing a lot of those Republicans are going to suddenly remember their Constitution, especially if it looks like he'll take the Senate with him.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ScoobyDoo said:
I dunno. I argued with a poster on here a month or so ago about this and it was their feeling that the GOP is well within their rights to do it this way. There is no you must vote clause in the advise and consent.
Click to expand...

I have the "right" to flip off my waitress.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ScoobyDoo said:
I dunno. I argued with a poster on here a month or so ago about this and it was their feeling that the GOP is well within their rights to do it this way. There is no you must vote clause in the advise and consent.
Click to expand...

Well... yeah, they have no duty to confirm the guy. But their MO from day one was just flat out obstruction.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Well... yeah, they have no duty to confirm the guy. But their MO from day one was just flat out obstruction.
Click to expand...

I wonder about this, though. Can Obama just say, "having heard nothing to the contrary from the Senate, take your seat on the bench, Justice Garland."
 
Kepler said:
I wonder about this, though. Can Obama just say, "having heard nothing to the contrary from the Senate, take your seat on the bench, Justice Garland."
Click to expand...

Nope. There's no pocket consent. He could do revolving recess appointments, though. They only expire at the end of the next session, and nothing would prevent him for continuing to reappointment Garland until they vote on him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top