Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Thermodolia]

Then why has the GOP been conveniently sitting on a stimulus bill for the past 4 or so months?

It's schumer that keeps holding it up.

Um no that was Mitch himself who said he wouldn’t pass any stimulus Bill

[Lazarian]

Hurrah, good stuff.

[Tarsonis]

That also takes balls.

Yes but fewer, since it's explicitly backed by the Constitution and does not undermine the structure of the Court.

its not backed by the constitution. "Rulings i don't like," hardly equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. You'd just create a standard of removing your opposition and erode the republic even further.

[Woldoina]

The republicans aren't going to control one of the other three branches of the government for a long time, so it's fair to let them hold on to one.

You overestimate the memory of Americans.

Even the Nixon scandal only resulted in the Republicans losing the Presidency for one term.

I know this will start a chat war. But Nixon should not have resigend. He was not the lying monster the media said about him.

[Greed and Death]

If you will not protect the rights of others do not be surprised when they will not protect the rights of you.

Just noting the gay rights movement had a string of victories with the Chik fila boycott being the only loss then the pulse night club shooting and the adoption of anti gun positions by leaders of the gay right movement occurred. Then it seems the gay rights movement has had a string of defeats with only a minor victory about interpreting sex as including LGBT status.

Is/ought dichotomy. Whether you think something is to be expected is something different from thinking it just.

Do you think it's just to act that way?

It need not be just it is how humans act especially in large groups.

[Thermodolia]

Except, he's right and you're not. That might just make him a better source of info.

Except he's not.

All Biden would have to do is declare the GOP a terrorist or Right-Wing extremist organization, which they 100% are, thus removing their ability to have a say in Congress or the Courts.

And cause a civil war in the process but hey it’s perfectly fine to declare some 28% of the population as terrorists

[Greed and Death]

Is this supposed to mean something to me?

They think people who disagree with them should be put to death.

No I wanted to sound like the cool cult leader.

[Novus America]

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

There is no box you can tick to opt out of healthcare. We simply do not trust you to keep to your principles when you've been shot and only an operation will save your life. "I'm out of money but I'll pay the half million later, promise" is not good enough.

This is why universal healthcare is the best. You don't have to opt in (at expense to yourself). You can opt out (to private, at expense to yourself). You are never put in that position between dying, or living but paying for it later.

But whatever. When the medic looks in your eyes and says "your bronze negative plan doesn't cover the operation, you can only have it if you take on a debt" then you can make the heroic choice. Your money or your life!

But see that is the problem with the ACA. If it simply placed everyone not on some other form of adequate insurance on Medicaid then it would be Constitutionally fine. It could have done that. But it did not. It instead said “buy insurance (regardless of if you can afford it or not) or we hike your taxes” while claiming it was not a tax.

Even you acknowledge it was a poor way of going about it. Although judges are not supposed to determine if they like a law or not, but on the legality of a law. Even something you might like could be done in an illegal manner, and then you are still supposed to strike it down, and tell Congress to try again, this time better.

I am all for healthcare reform that provides universal coverage, but we have to do it right. You could do it in a law that even the most conservative judge would have no problem with. But to do that we would need to write a well written law. Even though I support universal healthcare and some ACA provisions, I cannot say it was well written. Even supporters of it often acknowledge it was not very well written.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Think on this on the Tree of Woe.

Is this supposed to mean something to me?

It seems to be a reference to Conan the Barbarian. You are supposed to know it because the star was Schwarzenegger. Last Republican Governor of California. California being notoriously Republican.

Yeah, pretty weak Roiling there. More like Rollicking.

[New Visayan Islands]

Nice to see the GOP confirm that they consider stripping Americans of their civil rights is more important than helping then survive the worst pandemic in recent memory.

Next time you favor restricting my gun rights or forcing me to buy insurance consider the consequences.

Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.

You realize this gets you *** one day off for trolling, *** right? Now take the time to review the rules; if you wish to appeal, file a GHR.

Thanks!
NVI

[Picairn]

its not backed by the constitution. "Rulings i don't like," hardly equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. You'd just create a standard of removing your opposition and erode the republic even further.

Technically high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress wants them to be. Your pseudo-principles are already outdated since the Clinton impeachment. And did I stutter in the part where it is explicitly backed by the Constitution to impeach and convict judges?

[Thermodolia]

To get us back on topic, what cases do y'all imagine will come before the SCOTUS in the next few months? And how do y'all think ACB's appointment will impact the rulings of the SCOTUS in those cases?

I don't think Roe vs Wade is going anywhere and gay marriage is not going anywhere

Gay marriage is definitely not going anywhere. Most republicans gave up on that front. It’s here to stay. Now roe won’t be overturned but it will be very much weakened

[Plzen]

Now roe won’t be overturned but it will be very much weakened

Even more than it already is, I might as well add.

It's already an open secret that quite a few states are trying to de-facto ban abortion by regulating it out of existence.

Similar goes for the Civil Rights Act, etc. People are finding increasingly creative ways to weasel around old civil rights legislation.

[Tarsonis]

its not backed by the constitution. "Rulings i don't like," hardly equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. You'd just create a standard of removing your opposition and erode the republic even further.

Technically high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress wants them to be. Your pseudo-principles are already outdated since the Clinton impeachment. And did I stutter in the part where it is explicitly backed by the Constitution to impeach and convict judges?

Establishing a mechanism doesn't constitute "backing" the abuse of that mechanism.

[Picairn]

Establishing a mechanism doesn't constitute "backing" the abuse of that mechanism.

Except, the mechanism is backed and up for use. So, you lose.

[Novus America]

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

Or impeach and convict the conservative judges. If both Houses turn blue then it's also a possibility.

Which is basically declaring being a conservative judges is a crime. Which is a terrible idea. Is almost certainly unconstitutional. Impeachment is not a carte blanche, you are actually supposed to prove a crime.
And requires a senate supermajority to convict. Not just a majority. But two thirds of the senate.

[Thermodolia]

1. You know full well that isn't the standard definition of terrorism. 2. Somebody implementing policies you dislike isn't terrorism. 3. It may be poor policy, but there's no reason to dive into hyperbole when what you're proposing is objectively much worse.

1. If organizations like Hezbollah can be considered as such despite being a political party I see no reason why the GOP can't be labeled as such.
2. If those policies are made specifically to harm the population, they 100% can and should.
3. It's not a hyperbole, it's a factual statement.

Hezbollah isn’t just a political party though. The party is just a front for the terrorists

[Thermodolia]

I wish I had your optimism.

Obergefell almost certainly isn't tbh. Roe is more plausible because there are some actual flaws in how the conclusion was reached, but there's no solid method to overturn Obergefell without also weakening tons of conservative causes too because of 14A precedent.

Also there’s no political will to overturn it as most people just don’t care. Gays getting married and minding their own business doesn’t exactly lend to great anti-gay marriage ads.

Unlike say the super emotional charge of unborn babies being murdered

[Thermodolia]

Just so we're clear that includes Trump who is suing to get rid of the ACA. Look, I don't like Trump, and the reasons aren't because of his mean tweets or some other crap, but mainly because he wasn't as much of a populist as he presented himself as and he is corrupt, even by politician standards.

Biden is the one taking money from wall street not trump. Trump could but he isn't

Trump very much is taking money from Wall Street. They all are. The idea that a Manhattan real estate developer doesn’t have his mitts in Wall Street is idiocy

[The Reformed American Republic]

Or impeach and convict the conservative judges. If both Houses turn blue then it's also a possibility.

Which is basically declaring being a conservative judges is a crime. Which is a terrible idea. Is almost certainly unconstitutional. Impeachment is not a carte blanche, you are actually supposed to prove a crime.
And requires a senate supermajority to convict. Not just a majority. But two thirds of the senate.

I agree here.

[Novus America]

its not backed by the constitution. "Rulings i don't like," hardly equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. You'd just create a standard of removing your opposition and erode the republic even further.

Technically high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress wants them to be. Your pseudo-principles are already outdated since the Clinton impeachment. And did I stutter in the part where it is explicitly backed by the Constitution to impeach and convict judges?

No, because bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are still illegal.
It says judges can be impeached, it does not say they could be impeached for no reason. That would start a constitutional crisis. What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

Clinton committed perjury. Which is a crime. They still caught him in an actual crime, even if you think it is not one severe enough to warrant impeachment. And they failed to convict.

Abusing impeachment just because you disagree with a court ruling is a very bad idea. Also to do it you need a two thirds super majority and hope you never lose again.

Smarter to just expand the court If you think it has gotten to that point. That has no legal issues.

Impeachment without a crime is far more contentious and probably illegal.

[Thermodolia]

You guys can whine all you want, but nothing changes the fact that there’s now a conservative majority on the supreme court, possibly for decades, even if Trump loses the election and Republicans lose the Senate

Probably not for decades. Remember the oldest conservative justice is about 75. He has maybe 5 to 10 more years. If the democrats play their cards right they can hold the senate for 12 to 18 years.

The court will swing back to a liberal majority in about a decade

[Picairn]

Which is basically declaring being a conservative judges is a crime. Which is a terrible idea. Is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Nope, the mechanism is established by Section 2, Article 1 and backed by Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution. I believe Constitutional Articles can not be unconstitutional themselves.

Impeachment is not a carte blanche, you are actually supposed to prove a crime.

It is already carte blanche when the vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause is included. Technically they can be whatever Congress wants, just like what happened with Andrew Johnson (violating a later-declared unconstitutional law), Clinton (for lying about a blowjob), Samuel Chase (for "alleged" political bias when it was actually a hit job by Jefferson and his party).

And requires a senate supermajority to convict. Not just a majority. But two thirds of the senate.

That's why I'm speaking in a hypothetical.

[Plzen]

What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

That would actually be very interesting to see. Kompetenzkompetenz in action? :p

[Thermodolia]

Or impeach and convict the conservative judges. If both Houses turn blue then it's also a possibility.

Which is basically declaring being a conservative judges is a crime. Which is a terrible idea. Is almost certainly unconstitutional. Impeachment is not a carte blanche, you are actually supposed to prove a crime.
And requires a senate supermajority to convict. Not just a majority. But two thirds of the senate.

While it would be technically unconstitutional to do so if a party held the required supermajority to impeach and remove justices they could make up whatever crime they wanted to

They’d have complete control of congress and the White House. Who’s going to stop them?