Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It’s really funny, SCOTUS has been liberal-leaning since the sixties. Now that it isn’t, you and your friends are all having cows. Grow up and live with it. All you have to do is pass real legislation rather than having judges short-circuit the political system.The appointment of a few republican justices drasticly changed the nature of the court in a very short time. Drastic swings to either party is detrimental to our country.
Nothing is settled precedent. Plessey and Dred were just as settled, and just as wrong under the a Constitution. Roe was always bad law, the decision was the result of the courts inventing rights and expanding the power of the federal government.It was assumed that Roe v Wade was settled precident, and as such, not subject to reversal. That is what each of the current SC justices said in their confirmation hearings. The fault, if any would be expecting any trump nominee to have enough integrity to not lie about their goals.
Sinema’s stands have solidified her support here in Arizona among independents and Republicans, otherwise she would have lost her seat this year. Kelly’s in trouble for voting the democratic ticket right down the line and he will be gone this year.Unless they manage to steal another election, they will not soon have the control of government to do anything to pack the court. Schumer and others are barking about "resurrecting" the drive to pack the court, as if they had simply decided to bow to the will of the people a few months ago. Had it not been for Manchin and Sinema, they'd have already packed that court, added two new states to the nation, and likely attempted some kind of draconian restrictions on 2A. It was VERY NEARLY a tragedy and a Democrat was the one who stood in the breach and refused.
Sinema may pay the price but I doubt Manchin will be removed so as long as he doesn't flip on his support for keeping the filibuster, the court should be stable, for now. I fully expect their butthurt reaction to include a redux of the summer of '20. Every time they don't get their way, they escalate the level of destruction and violence in an attempt to intimidate their opponents. It's simply a matter of time before the shooting begins and once THAT happens, the inner cities are going to become true war zones. It won't surprise me to see the Guard deployed to try to bring order in NY or LA, or Chicago.
So the new SC justices were lying when they said it was, or were they just ignorant of the laws? Either way looks pretty bad for those goobers.Nothing is settled precedent. Plessey and Dred were just as settled, and just as wrong under the a Constitution. Roe was always bad law, the decision was the result of the courts inventing rights and expanding the power of the federal government.
Roe was settled law until a new case came up.So the new SC justices were lying when they said it was, or were they just ignorant of the laws? Either way looks pretty bad for those goobers.
They're not supposed to poll the people when deciding the constitutionality of laws. They're supposed to read the Constitution.You are correct. adding more members to the court does nothing to make RvW more or less constitutional. It will relieve the problem we now have of a partisan court. When so few new members can completely reverse the nature of the court, those members have too much power. More members would make the courts more representative of the people whose laws they interpret.
And the next Republican president would just repack it to get what he wants.PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
PACK THE COURT!!!!
I’d do it this weekend.
That was a transparent attempt to get them to commit to uphold it, no matter what. It should not have been asked of them and they should not have answered it.It was assumed that Roe v Wade was settled precident, and as such, not subject to reversal. That is what each of the current SC justices said in their confirmation hearings. The fault, if any would be expecting any trump nominee to have enough integrity to not lie about their goals.
That is incorrect. You are reacting emotionally, not logically.They do have that authority. However, they have to maintain a long standing reputation of fairness and logic. If they follow through with the leaked draft, as is, they can kiss all that goodby.
And then the left will repack the court. This ruling turned the court political not bound by precedent so we will be voting on the Supreme Court appointees every election. Law will be what we say it is based on appointments. Not by law or precedent. I see zero issues.And the next Republican president would just repack it to get what he wants.
The ruling is simply to undo a previously political ruling, and it needed to be done.And then the left will repack the court. This ruling turned the court political not bound by precedent so we will be voting on the Supreme Court appointees every election. Law will be what we say it is based on appointments. Not by law or precedent. I see zero issues.
Same with Heller. A political ruling to be undone. Can’t wait to pack the court and get your guns.The ruling is simply to undo a previously political ruling, and it needed to be done.
I know. Hard questions are hard.That was a transparent attempt to get them to commit to uphold it, no matter what. It should not have been asked of them and they should not have answered it.
Now you're starting to understand, but that will be tougher because it deals with an actual enumerated Constitutional right. Good luck finding any of my guns. I'll laugh.Same with Heller. A political ruling to be undone. Can’t wait to pack the court and get your guns.
They're supposed to be independent and able to make up their minds for each individual case. They're not supposed to be asked to commit to voting any particular way on anything. That just makes a mockery of judicial independence, and the Senators should know better. Of course, they're democrats, so they don't.I know. Hard questions are hard.
Jackson lied when she said she couldn't define a woman because she wasn't a biologist--she shouldn't be ruling on RvW if she doesn't know what a woman is.So the new SC justices were lying when they said it was, or were they just ignorant of the laws? Either way looks pretty bad for those goobers.
No it doesn’t. My packed court will find that your state can have a military with guns but no protection for individuals is explicitly enumerated. Can’t wait. Heller is toast soon.Now you're starting to understand, but that will be tougher because it deals with an actual enumerated Constitutional right. Good luck finding any of my guns. I'll laugh.
Be sure to let us know what that happens, and good luck finding any at my place.No it doesn’t. My packed court will find that your state can have a military with guns but no protection for individuals is explicitly enumerated. Can’t wait. Heller is toast soon.
Meh. I could give a shit about your guns. But if what I described happened you’d resist, right?Be sure to let us know what that happens, and good luck finding any at my place.
