SCOTUS - US Supreme Court (and other court stuff)

I'm not a big fan of the whole civil vs criminal cases or State vs Federal ones. I'm not a legal novice, let alone an expert, but it doesn't make sense to me how someone like OJ can be proven innocent in a criminal case, but found guilty and have to paid a big fine in a civil case. Maybe state laws are different than federal laws in some cases, so those states would have the right to prosecute someone for breaking their laws that wouldn't be illegal in a different state or nationally, but I would have a hard time seeing how someone could be innocent of a crime at one level, but guilty of the same thing in the other court.

Technically, I think it is a problem with how the judicial system is setup and way too busy. I would rather see them hold one trial and have both judges and juries rule together. And the laws need to be rewritten and unified more.

 

I dont understand what the issue is.

If their aint shit happening in the supreme court in the next month then wait, if shit is going on then do it now. Personally she seems like a good fit.

I did see the part where they asked her to show her notes, and she held up a blank note pad. lol

 

I'll be blunt: That letter doesn't mean shit in the real world, it isn't going to change anything.

But I suppose it looks good as a symbolic gesture.

 

There is a lot coming up. From yet another attempt to prevent Obamacare from working so the GOP can say they were right and it doesn't work, to abortion cases that will get pushed through.

However the big issue is the election. What if Florida and Ohio have a majority vote for Biden, but the GOP legislature decides to send Republican electors. And even if they slow down the process to try and get the 50 state votes in the House to go to Trump (26 to 22 with 2 tied). And there are a lot of other schemes that could be used to win the election in the court by the electoral college and Supreme Court regardless of the voters.

 

The issue is the Republicans were able block Obama's nominee with 10 months to go before the election.

Their reason was: This is an election year, therefore we should wait until the people have voted so that the next nominee reflects what the people want via their presidential choice.

But now that the Republicans have a nominee favorable to their party line, they say we have the right to approve a nominee basically because we have the power to do so.

I think the Republicans are concerned that Trump will lose the election, which means Biden would select a nominee who is more favorable the Democrats policies. Another factor is if the Democrats take control of the Senate, esp if by a large majority, the next SCOTUS nominee could be especially liberal leaning.

To use a boxing analogy:
The Republicans are in trouble, and about to lose the decision (Biden gets elected) or about to get knocked out (Biden wins AND the Democrats take the Senate), so they're throwing a low blow because that's all they can do.

Power between political parties shifts back and forth every two years and four years, but Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. The opportunity to pack the SCOTUS means a party can influence our policies for many decades, even when that party is in the minority.

Many people do not realize just how high the stakes are with SC nominees and appointments.

 

Amy Coney Barrett: "I will literally say nothing about how I'll decide cases."

Sen. Cornyn: "You gave that answer with no notes?"

ACB: "Yes."

Cornyn: "Wow, you are so smart."

TAKE THAT LIBS!

 

I didn't know any of the writers for Gilligan's Island were still writing.

 

Futile, yes.

But "rolling over" is not a viable option; it doesn't play well with supporters/voters.

A group walkout by the Democrats might've gotten the protest point across, but it could have also been viewed as "surrendering."

Scenario:

Biden wins, and the Democrats take control of the Senate. A Biden SCOTUS nominee is as close to a guaranteed confirmation as you can get (say even more so than the current situation favoring Conman Trump and the Republicans).

Do you see the Republicans automatically acquiescing? Of course not.

End scenario.

Edit: Dragging this out also allows repeated showings of news footage of Republicans being hypocritical. I like the constantly hammering home the fact that Graham and other Republicans are lying sacks of shit.

 

THE BOXING ANALOGY MAKES IT MAKE SINCE TO ME.. YOU KNOW ME. LOL




WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LADY? FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN SHE SEEMS TO KNOW HER SHIT, PLUS SHES A WOMAN, AND SHES NOT OLD. SO WHAT DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE AGNIST HER?

 

She will do everything she can to overturn Roe V. Wade that is pretty clear from her religious upbringing.
That she hasn't been honest about that is bullshit.
She has hedged about things as straight forward as Brown Vs. Board of Ed. and that is fucked up.
Putting her on the court now as a garunteed conservative vote (and that is all she is) now when they blocked Obama's very moderate choice of Garland a Fucking YEAR away from the election is just bullshit.
If she is the good moral Catholic that she says she is, she would refuse to be seated until after the election.

 

Her legal history, professional experience, and personal life indicate that she has conservative values. That becomes a problem when conservative justices are in the majority and vote as such.

Reproductive rights, labor laws, equal rights, environmental regulations, etc. could be weakened or even eliminated by a conservative SCOTUS.
If the conservative majority remains intact for say 30 years, many protections could be adversely affected during those 30 years.

This ^ is why SCOTUS appointments are so important, and frequently hotly contested.

If your politics lean right, you might want a right leaning SC.

If your politics lean left, you might want a left leaning SC.

 

Barrett Unable to Name 5 Freedoms Protected by 1st Amendment

For the average Joe on the street who fell asleep in government class in high school, this can be overlooked. But for a Justice on the Supreme Court? Unacceptable.

 

This isn't really about her. Although being in her 40's and being on the Supreme Court for possibly 40-50 years to ensure that nothing moderate or progressive ever gets enacted is a big issue. Well, until Biden comes around to adding more justices to the court.

However, the bigger fear is that Trump knows he can win the election by cheating. And if the Supreme Court will side with him, there isn't much that can be done. He doesn't care about the vote turnout on Nov. 3rd probably. If he can get Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and other Republican legislatures to either not send electors or to override the will of the voters in the state (and possibly using the national popular vote reasoning, which was going to have states send electors that represented the national vote, not the specific state outcome) to do it. It will get challenged in the Supreme Court, which could do the right thing, but could also kill democracy for a conservative policy agenda. If the electoral college can't pick a President, then it goes to the House of Representatives, but each state gets 1 vote, and then we get to see if any of the 26 GOP states will defect.

This type of thing would make a good movie or TV show, not so much having it happen in real life.

 

Amy Coney Barrett may be an unprincipled religious fruitcake hellbent on imposing her fairy tales on the real world, but at least she's not a rapist like Brett Kavanaugh.