SL I think you are just scared that the spirit of your constitution is being shat upon from great heights by the Republicans. and tbh? id be too.
Advertisement
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu May 12, 2022 9:49 am
by Eahland » Thu May 12, 2022 9:51 am
San Lumen wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:they perfectly could, because they are the ones "interpreting" the constitution and just like the bible you can manage any favourable interpretation you want.
No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.
by Ifreann » Thu May 12, 2022 9:54 am
by Farnhamia » Thu May 12, 2022 9:54 am
Eahland wrote:San Lumen wrote:
No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.
Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
by San Lumen » Thu May 12, 2022 9:54 am
Eahland wrote:San Lumen wrote:
No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.
Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
by Shrillland » Thu May 12, 2022 9:54 am
Farnhamia wrote:Eahland wrote:Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
Actually, I think it the Mississippi law was written in such a way as to provoke a challenge.
We're very near the end here, so beware of a lock and a new thread.
by Farnhamia » Thu May 12, 2022 9:55 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu May 12, 2022 9:56 am
San Lumen wrote:Eahland wrote:Stop repeating this. It is not a meaningful barrier to anything. Do you think there's any shortage of people willing to bring cases to allow the Supreme Court to strike down anything they want? This Roe ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Someone brought a case with the specific intention of allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.
by Tarsonis » Thu May 12, 2022 9:56 am
by San Lumen » Thu May 12, 2022 9:57 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.
sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.
by Untecna » Thu May 12, 2022 9:58 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu May 12, 2022 9:58 am
by Tarsonis » Thu May 12, 2022 9:59 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Yes because a state passed a law all but banning abortion. In order for your fantasy to happen someone would have to be charged with treason outside of the federal definition.
sure
like russia some southern state, probably florida charges someone with treason for disliking the tyranny that is visited upon them, et voila the GOP SCOTUS is free to say treason is whatever the GOP dislikes.
by Ifreann » Thu May 12, 2022 10:00 am
by Zurkerx » Thu May 12, 2022 10:01 am
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Thu May 12, 2022 10:01 am
by San Lumen » Thu May 12, 2022 10:02 am
The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:San Lumen wrote:
what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.
>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu May 12, 2022 10:02 am
by Tarsonis » Thu May 12, 2022 10:03 am
Ifreann wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
then why defend it? just to be contrarian?
I'm not defending it, I'm explaining that you're wrong, and I'm doing that because I would prefer that "authoritarianism" join the long list of perfectly useful words that have their actual meaning sucked out, leaving only a dry husk of "bad thing" where the definition used to be.
by Eahland » Thu May 12, 2022 10:04 am
San Lumen wrote:The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!
That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.
by Ifreann » Thu May 12, 2022 10:05 am
San Lumen wrote:The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!
That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Thu May 12, 2022 10:06 am
San Lumen wrote:The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:
>Florida arrests someone for not being a Republican
>Florida gets sued
>Case reaches supreme court
>Supreme court rules in favor of Florida
>Democrat politicians try to stop scotus
>They don’t have enough power
>Viola!
That's not something they can be charged with. Its not a crime to disagree. No judge would take up the case.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bira Atty, Corporate Collective Salvation, Dimetrodon Empire, Durius, Fahran, Gorutimania, Hidrandia, Hypron, Ineva, Southglory, Tinhampton, Tungstan, Zurkerx
Advertisement