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

[FlagDUDE08]

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

The other shoe drops.

And then when the GOP takes over, they'll beg for it back. We've heard this song and dance before.

 

[Rover]

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

In the long term it's probably good since they tip their anti-democratic, anti-American hand yet again. In the short term it's bad since voters aren't paying attention and they won't be punished for it.

The ideal situation would be they do their little pout act and the voters shelve them as the sniveling losers they are. But... even shutting down the government and their bare faced lying re: the Garland nomination didn't provoke an outcry against them. They could probably try an actual, armed coup and the eejits who back them still wouldn't be moved to reject them. This has become tribal.

Which is all well and good until the Dems pay them back somewhere down the road. As much as I don't like to image it somebody we will have another Republican President (hopefully not anytime soon ). If this is the game we're going to play, no problem. Older conservatives still think liberals are like their meek 1960's ancestors. Most liberals nowadays are score settling jack ***es like....oh I don't know.... ME! Some people like Flake get this. Most Goopers don't. Its the same mentality that made Trump think he could make Bill Clinton's sex history a winning issue while completely ignoring his own.

Another good example is wikileaks. In one of the few good ideas to penetrate his skull, Little Marco came out recently and warned Republicans to not use hacked Russian e-mails via wikileaks against Dems, because the time will come when they go after Republicans as well. Of course he was ignored, but IMHO modern day cons don't understand the concept of What Goes Around Comes Around.

 

[Handyman]

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

In the long term it's probably good since they tip their anti-democratic, anti-American hand yet again. In the short term it's bad since voters aren't paying attention and they won't be punished for it.

The ideal situation would be they do their little pout act and the voters shelve them as the sniveling losers they are. But... even shutting down the government and their bare faced lying re: the Garland nomination didn't provoke an outcry against them. They could probably try an actual, armed coup and the eejits who back them still wouldn't be moved to reject them. This has become tribal.

Dont be so sure...the Dems are already lining up ads of GOPers saying "let the people decide" followed by clips of them going against the people's votes. If you are Senator up for re-election in the midterm you cant get caught playing both ways the media wont let it slide. They will go after them the same way they do Drumpf when he is caught lying.

This isnt 1996 people may not care but they know what is going on and wont be fooled by double talk on something that is so public. The GOP framed the entire election on this topic and are going to get trounced because of it. If they continue to pout they will lose again...the liberals will vote if the SC is not settled by the midterms.

 

[Jimjamesak]

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

So in the new Trump America it looks like one of the battles will be against legalized marijuana.

So, going with one of the scenarios stated in the article, the DEA and Sessions as AG tell the states to revoke the licenses and close the shops in 90. In response one state, hypothetically say Colorado, tells them to get bent. What would be the legal justifications for Colorado to maintain their industry and laws versus the Feds?

 

[Handyman]

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

So in the new Trump America it looks like one of the battles will be against legalized marijuana.

So, going with one of the scenarios stated in the article, the DEA and Sessions as AG tell the states to revoke the licenses and close the shops in 90. In response one state, hypothetically say Colorado, tells them to get bent. What would be the legal justifications for Colorado to maintain their industry and laws versus the Feds?

I dunno but think about what you are saying...the GOP would be arguing ON BEHALF of the Federal Government trying to DENY STATES RIGHTS!!

Honestly I dont see even a partisan Drumpf court denying the states the right to choose. So then I would guess the Legislature will go after road funding or whatever like they did with the drinking age.

 

[Jimjamesak]

I dunno but think about what you are saying...the GOP would be arguing ON BEHALF of the Federal Government trying to DENY STATES RIGHTS!!

Honestly I dont see even a partisan Drumpf court denying the states the right to choose. So then I would guess the Legislature will go after road funding or whatever like they did with the drinking age.

Well remember, drugs are bad mmm'kay. And police forces love federal funding.

Even if they did that then a state could sue against the withheld funds. I don't know if they'd win...

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

Even if they did that then a state could sue against the withheld funds. I don't know if they'd win...

South Dakota already tried that with the drinking age back in the day, and failed. South Dakota vs. Dole (1987).

Basically, the feds can set whatever "reasonable" stipulations they want.

 

[SJHovey]

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

Did I miss something? After Trump replaces Scalia aren't we going to have the exact same Court as the one that upheld the ACA and affirmed gay marriage, albeit with a less experienced and effective jurist leading the right side of the Court. Jeebus, people are acting like Roland Friesler will be taking the bench in January and the People's Court will be starting its term.

 

[Handyman]

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

They were pragmatic about some things, but lets not pretend they werent Right leaning and voted down ideological lines quite a bit.

It isnt the Scalia seat most are worried about...it is the RBG seat and anyone else who might retire/die in the next 4 years.

 

[joecct]

They were pragmatic about some things, but lets not pretend they werent Right leaning and voted down ideological lines quite a bit.

It isnt the Scalia seat most are worried about...it is the RBG seat and anyone else who might retire/die in the next 4 years.

Based on his writings/interviews it appears that the late Justice Scalia was most concerned about an unconstrained court imposing its version of utopia upon the citizenry. If PEtD picks justices who follow that mantra, we'll be ok. The quest for a more perfect union will devolve to the legislatures and the voters.

Will the legislatures and the voters get it right 100% of the time? Nope, but part of our checks and balances will be the executives and judiciary to reign in the wilder impulses of the people.

The justices need to curb their wilder impulses, too. Just because RBG or CT is personally offended by a case brought before the SCOTUS, doesn't make the plaintiff or defendant's argument wrong. Our justices' check is what is written in the Constitution.

Being a black and white type of guy, I don't like penumbras. Maybe should not cut it.

Call me Capraesque? Yeah, I'll probably agree with you.

Bash away. That's what you do best, anyway.

 

[Handyman]

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

Bash away. That's what you do best, anyway.

I wasnt going to bash you...I disagree with you completely but I am not going to bash you. Here is a hint though...if you want to martyr yourself it is best to wait until someone actually attacks you before you jump on your cross

 

[joecct]

I wasnt going to bash you...I disagree with you completely but I am not going to bash you. Here is a hint though...if you want to martyr yourself it is best to wait until someone actually attacks you before you jump on your cross

Usually, I don't have to wait. It's instinctive for most of the posters to bash those they disagree with. And, maybe a guilt trip will cause you to think twice.

 

[burd]

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

Based on his writings/interviews it appears that the late Justice Scalia was most concerned about an unconstrained court imposing its version of utopia upon the citizenry. If PEtD picks justices who follow that mantra, we'll be ok. The quest for a more perfect union will devolve to the legislatures and the voters.

Will the legislatures and the voters get it right 100% of the time? Nope, but part of our checks and balances will be the executives and judiciary to reign in the wilder impulses of the people.

The justices need to curb their wilder impulses, too. Just because RBG or CT is personally offended by a case brought before the SCOTUS, doesn't make the plaintiff or defendant's argument wrong. Our justices' check is what is written in the Constitution.

Being a black and white type of guy, I don't like penumbras. Maybe should not cut it.

Call me Capraesque? Yeah, I'll probably agree with you.

Bash away. That's what you do best, anyway.

That old lazy and self-serving fiction again: What is written in the Constitution. All justices and judges, whether liberal or conservative, base their decisions on what is implied but not written in the constitution. In fact, one could easily argue that no cases come before the SCOTUS that require only the application of black letter law. If you are a strict constructionist, and I assume you are, consider the following comments by Robert Bork, the person before whose alter you worship:

"Douglas began by pointing out that 'specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that
help give them life and substance.' There is nothing exceptional about that thought, other than the language of penumbras and emanations.
Courts often give protection to a constitutional freedom by creating a buffer zone, by prohibiting a government from doing something not in itself
forbidden but likely to lead to a invasion of a right specified in the Constitution."

Robert Bork, The Temptiing of America, p.97. Bork disagreed with Black's opinion in Griswold, but he did not disagree with the concept of penumbras or the fact that courts recognize zones of protection not specifically stated in the Constitution. The notion that the Supreme Court is guided only by what is written in the Constitution is nothing but a popular fallacy used to discredit decisions with which people disagree.

 

[Handyman]

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

Usually, I don't have to wait. It's instinctive for most of the posters to bash those they disagree with. And, maybe a guilt trip will cause you to think twice.

I'm Jewish...that hardly registers as a guilt trip compared to people I know

 

[joecct]

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

I'm Jewish...that hardly registers as a guilt trip compared to people I know

We're members of religions that specialize in guilt trips.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

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

I've certainly heard of Catholic guilt, but Jews have it too? That's news to me.

Now, if you want to talk about serious guilt, the Mormons will be at your front door soon.

 

[Handyman]

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

I've certainly heard of Catholic guilt, but Jews have it too? That's news to me.

Now, if you want to talk about serious guilt, the Mormons will be at your front door soon.

You need to meet a Jewish mother...Catholic guilt you put on yourself Jewish guilt is thrust upon you by 6000 years of Jewish women

 

[jerphisch]

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

You need to meet a Jewish mother...Catholic guilt you put on yourself Jewish guilt is thrust upon you by 6000 years of Jewish women

The book Born to Kvetch will teach you everything you need to know about Jewish mothers and guilt, and is a pretty good read.

 

[Kepler]

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

It's Kos, but these two potential Trump SCOTUS nominees do sound pretty horrible.

The courts are the thing I worry most about in the coming Reign of Error. Since Trump is lazy, incurious, and incompetent he will farm out his picks to whichever rightwing wackjob happens to have flattered him the most that week, and right now the inside track is Federalist or Heritage. Both are going to champion the usual parade of horribles: repeal the 20th century, government as the handmaiden of the 1%, favorite color white, and in general "principles" that are mere ill-disguised self-interest.

 

[burd]

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

It's Kos, but these two potential Trump SCOTUS nominees do sound pretty horrible.

The courts are the thing I worry most about in the coming Reign of Error. Since Trump is lazy, incurious, and incompetent he will farm out his picks to whichever rightwing wackjob happens to have flattered him the most that week, and right now the inside track is Federalist or Heritage. Both are going to champion the usual parade of horribles: repeal the 20th century, government as the handmaiden of the 1%, favorite color white, and in general "principles" that are mere ill-disguised self-interest.

I'm glad you included the word "incurious." It is a significant flaw, IMO.