NationStates

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Senkaku wrote:"why people hold others to their words or standards of behavior I will never understand"

It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.

so I guess just bail on the concept of trying to hold the powerful and state institutions accountable, because they're mean or something?

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.

so I guess just bail on the concept of trying to hold the powerful and state institutions accountable, because they're mean or something?

Accountable for what? Being shifty bastards who do what is in their best interest? They aren't breaking any rules. They're not violating any laws.

Greed and Death wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

You do know matters of federal law can be handled in state court right ? What you propose is a Republican's wet dream.

Please elaborate. As a paralegal, I have always filed matters of Federal law in the Federal Circuit Courts and matters of State law in the State courts.

Imagine mourning the loss of someone who you don't know who most likely has done absolutely atrocious things in their lifetime.

Can't relate, sorry. Why should I care about some satanic slave, again?

Lanoraie II wrote:Imagine mourning the loss of someone who you don't know who most likely has done absolutely atrocious things in their lifetime.

Can't relate, sorry. Why should I care about some satanic slave, again?

Take *** three days off for trolling. ***

Let me reiterate what Arch said here: "Given the nature of this news, no gloating, trolling, or flaming by either side will be tolerated."

Thanks!
NVI

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.

so I guess just bail on the concept of trying to hold the powerful and state institutions accountable, because they're mean or something?

The thing is, it's not illegal to do what the Republicans are trying to do.

You can say it's mean or disrespectful, but neither of those things are really binding.

Trump tried to pay respects to RBG and got booed and shouts of vote him out.

Granted the President does things like this for decorum and yet what was he thinking?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... nr-vpx.cnn

Elwher wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
You do know matters of federal law can be handled in state court right ? What you propose is a Republican's wet dream.

Please elaborate. As a paralegal, I have always filed matters of Federal law in the Federal Circuit Courts and matters of State law in the State courts.

Under the US constitution Federal Courts have limited jurisdiction and State Courts have general jurisdiction. Ie federal courts are limited to only federal matters and state courts can hear all matters not specially excluded from state court. Now some federal law requires certain federal courts to hear certain claims (such as bankruptcy) those would then be considered federal only matters. But if you get rid of the Bankruptcy courts you most likely get rid requirement that Bankruptcy be tried in Bankruptcy court.

As for why you only file federal matters in federal court( though you likely file mixed claims more on that latter) it has to do with removal jurisdiction. If you sue me in State court on a federal claim I can remove that claim to federal court( also I can do this on Diversity). As practical matter this Removal would allow me the defendant to pick the court. So say you sue me in New York State court on a federal claim I then remove to the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court assuming they would have jurisdiction( say its a internet related matter). You now have a much higher cost of litigation and I have a much lower costs. Further we are now dealing with 5th circuit precedent as opposed to 2nd circuit precedent.

Depending on what your law firm does and what types of cases you file you likely tack on state law claims to federal claims regularly. There is what is called Supplemental Jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear state law claims between two parties based on the same nucleus of facts that the federal law claim is based on. If you didn't your firm would likely be committing malpractice.

The Black Forrest wrote:Trump tried to pay respects to RBG and got booed and shouts of vote him out.

Granted the President does things like this for decorum and yet what was he thinking?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... nr-vpx.cnn

It will be billed that he was trying to be non partisan and got booed for his trouble. His base will eat this up on the grounds that there is no appeasing the left.

The Black Forrest wrote:Trump tried to pay respects to RBG and got booed and shouts of vote him out.

Granted the President does things like this for decorum and yet what was he thinking?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... nr-vpx.cnn

I mean, he kind of deserves that if he created merch with the words 'fill that seat' literally the day she died.

Greed and Death wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:Trump tried to pay respects to RBG and got booed and shouts of vote him out.

Granted the President does things like this for decorum and yet what was he thinking?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... nr-vpx.cnn

It will be billed that he was trying to be non partisan and got booed for his trouble. His base will eat this up on the grounds that there is no appeasing the left.

Isn’t that preaching to the choir? Many of the people viewing that message are probably happy she is gone so they can put a tru ‘murkin *spits* in SCOTUS. Her body wasn’t even cold and my trumpest relatives were already saying who should fill the seat....oh and it’s shame she died.

Punished UMN wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

You do realize that such a huge caseload would necessarily mean investing a massive amount of power in the presidency, right?

Not really, the state court systems would get the extra care load. The executive branch does not handle most court cases.

Cisairse wrote:Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

Why would the Democrats do that though? That would give more power to the states. The Democrats tend to be the ones wanting more power to the feds.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
It will be billed that he was trying to be non partisan and got booed for his trouble. His base will eat this up on the grounds that there is no appeasing the left.

Isn’t that preaching to the choir? Many of the people viewing that message are probably happy she is gone so they can put a tru ‘murkin *spits* in SCOTUS. Her body wasn’t even cold and my trumpest relatives were already saying who should fill the seat....oh and it’s shame she died.

Trump wins by going to his base and telling them he trolled the liberals. Anyways Trump is set to give a speech at her service. Leaked documents say he plans on saying she would have wanted the seat filled quickly.

Greed and Death wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Isn’t that preaching to the choir? Many of the people viewing that message are probably happy she is gone so they can put a tru ‘murkin *spits* in SCOTUS. Her body wasn’t even cold and my trumpest relatives were already saying who should fill the seat....oh and it’s shame she died.

Trump wins by going to his base and telling them he trolled the liberals. Anyways Trump is set to give a speech at her service. Leaked documents say he plans on saying she would have wanted the seat filled quickly.

Heh. And she really supported him.

Senkaku wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.

so I guess just bail on the concept of trying to hold the powerful and state institutions accountable, because they're mean or something?

How though? The Republicans control both the Presidency and Senate.
This is perfectly legal.

You might find it objectionable on other grounds. But this is not illegal nor an abuse of power.
The President picks someone, the Senate says yes or no.

There is not law saying judicial confirmations must cease at some arbitrary time around election season.

Picairn wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:Don't pack the court (that will be unfair and just end with a huge supreme court)

As unfair as Republicans blocking Merrick Garland?

Nearly so

Novus America wrote:How though? The Republicans control both the Presidency and Senate.
This is perfectly legal.

You might find it objectionable on other grounds. But this is not illegal nor an abuse of power.
The President picks someone, the Senate says yes or no.

There is not law saying judicial confirmations must cease at some arbitrary time around election season.

Packing the court is also completely legal, as the Constitution says nothing on the number of justices.

Salus Maior wrote:

Senkaku wrote:so I guess just bail on the concept of trying to hold the powerful and state institutions accountable, because they're mean or something?

The thing is, it's not illegal to do what the Republicans are trying to do.

You can say it's mean or disrespectful, but neither of those things are really binding.

There's a higher point though than necessary whats legal. People have forgotten, especially the politicians, that the process matters more than the outcome. It's the process that people put their faith in. Bad faith faith moves like this erode the public trust in the institution and we get the crap that's been going on for the last 10 years.

Tarsonis wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
The thing is, it's not illegal to do what the Republicans are trying to do.

You can say it's mean or disrespectful, but neither of those things are really binding.

There's a higher point though than necessary whats legal. People have forgotten, especially the politicians, that the process matters more than the outcome. It's the process that people put their faith in. Bad faith faith moves like this erode the public trust in the institution and we get the crap that's been going on for the last 10 years.

That's true, but this is also nothing new.

Bad faith moves have been happening in the government since Adams and Jefferson.

Tarsonis wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
The thing is, it's not illegal to do what the Republicans are trying to do.

You can say it's mean or disrespectful, but neither of those things are really binding.

There's a higher point though than necessary whats legal. People have forgotten, especially the politicians, that the process matters more than the outcome. It's the process that people put their faith in. Bad faith faith moves like this erode the public trust in the institution and we get the crap that's been going on for the last 10 years.

How about evil? Old McC is an evil man.

Salus Maior wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
There's a higher point though than necessary whats legal. People have forgotten, especially the politicians, that the process matters more than the outcome. It's the process that people put their faith in. Bad faith faith moves like this erode the public trust in the institution and we get the crap that's been going on for the last 10 years.

That's true, but this is also nothing new.

Bad faith moves have been happening in the government since Adams and Jefferson.

True. We've endured quite a bit. But usually it gets far worse before it gets better.

Picairn wrote:

Novus America wrote:How though? The Republicans control both the Presidency and Senate.
This is perfectly legal.

You might find it objectionable on other grounds. But this is not illegal nor an abuse of power.
The President picks someone, the Senate says yes or no.

There is not law saying judicial confirmations must cease at some arbitrary time around election season.

Packing the court is also completely legal, as the Constitution says nothing on the number of justices.

It will also result in retaliation by Republicans. The Court in time will simply become a yet another political arm as which every party won the last election will pack the court to ensure at first a bare majority then they will seek a comfortable majority. One of your appointees go swing. Add four more seats and seek reconsideration next term.

Abortion rights will come and go in 8-12 year intervals as each side appoints in mass.

The end result of course will be a Republican win. Because they know how to play dirty and the Democrats are terrible at it. They will appoint a Supreme court super majority then institute all sorts of restrictions on voting designed to entrench them for decades.

Greed and Death wrote:

Picairn wrote:Packing the court is also completely legal, as the Constitution says nothing on the number of justices.

It will also result in retaliation by Republicans. The Court in time will simply become a yet another political arm as which every party won the last election will pack the court to ensure at first a bare majority then they will seek a comfortable majority. One of your appointees go swing. Add four more seats and seek reconsideration next term.

Abortion rights will come and go in 8-12 year intervals as each side appoints in mass.

The end result of course will be a Republican win. Because they know how to play dirty and the Democrats are terrible at it. They will appoint a Supreme court super majority then institute all sorts of restrictions on voting designed to entrench them for decades.

Hmmm. You make a good case to abolish the republican Trump party.

-edit-

Opps this is the Ginsburg thread. Never mind.

Salus Maior wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
There's a higher point though than necessary whats legal. People have forgotten, especially the politicians, that the process matters more than the outcome. It's the process that people put their faith in. Bad faith faith moves like this erode the public trust in the institution and we get the crap that's been going on for the last 10 years.

That's true, but this is also nothing new.

Bad faith moves have been happening in the government since Adams and Jefferson.

"You hear this guy? Man openly campaigns against me, talkin' bout, 'I look forward to our partnership.'"
"It's crazy that the guy who comes in second gets to be Vice President."
"Ooh,! You know what, we can change that. You know why? Because I'm the President. Burr, when you see Hamilton, thank him for the endorsement."
-Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, probably, 1800.