House Democrats Vote To Undermine USSC, Violate Separation of Powers

[OKTexas]

So there is no questions you can ask at all. Because everything could come in front of them to judge seeing as though no judgement is ever safe.

Yep, and it was Ginsberg that pretty much invented the non-answer answer during her confirmation. Every justice since has followed her lead. Including the commies.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Sp why have confirmation hearings?

They aren't required by the Constitution.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You can ask whatever you want. IMO the answer should always be "I can not address questions about some case in the future I have not heard".

All justices have records of their rulings in lower courts. We know who they are.

Win elections.

Not Kagan, she was never a judge.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Well the law says that the president gets to nominate and the senate must have a confirmation hearing on that nomination. Correct?

No.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So this is a stolen court by the right wing.

.

 

[Circe]

This and their plans for "election reform" both rely on removing the filibuster. America so far has dodged a bullet. Had these people not been thwarted by a couple of their own members, we would be facing real choices of whether to secede or fight.

No, whether to secede AND fight.

Like sanctions or war? No, history shows in every instance it's sanctions AND war. Japan, Italy, ----- now Russia?

Some actions (often also armistice ends poorly: WWII, Korean War still going on cool) between states are just holding points before war. Secession is clearly that. The South wanted to secede peacefully; the northern Union wouldn't allow it, they made war against the South.

Any state that secedes, I would expect war next. Including Texas. We'll see, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

??

Congress can pass a federal law making abortion legal. Sadly, we no longer abide by the 9th so they are not constrained.

Actually the 10th would be operative and it wouldn't favor congress.

.

 

[OKTexas]

And which ten GOP Senators would vote for it?

And there’s every possibility that this activist Court would rule that as unconstitutional

Once again, if the court didn't have the constitutional authority to impose abortion on the nation, neither would congress. Last I heard both operate under the same Constitution.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Like I said… this activist Court could well over turn any legislation

Only 2 descents hardly makes it an activist court.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Didn't maobamacare make that 26 years?

.

 

[Lesh]

Only 2 descents hardly makes it an activist court.

.

One would make it an activist court considering they are over turning 50 years of precedent

 

[OKTexas]

One would make it an activist court considering they are over turning 50 years of precedent

Bad precedent will fall eventually, this just took a bit longer than usual. The Roe court could have saved a lot of time and money if they'd followed the Constitution to begin with.

.

 

[Lesh]

Bad precedent will fall eventually, this just took a bit longer than usual. The Roe court could have saved a lot of time and money if they'd followed the Constitution to begin with.

.

We’ll In any regard… precedent no longer means squat

Remember that when a more liberal Court reinterprets the 2A

 

[g5000]

Whatever it takes...

BREAKING: House Passes Bills to Enshrine Abortion in Federal Law

pjmedia.com

The Dobbs decision does not make clear whether Congress can enact a nationwide ban of abortions, or a nationwide protection of abortions.

The Democrats want to protect abortions nationwide, and the Republicans have made clear they want to ban abortions nationwide if they win Congress. So much for the longstanding Republican claim they "want to leave it up to the states to decide".

This battle is far from over and will be fought in the courts for a very long time.

There have been many Supreme Court decisions which resulted in Congressional action. It does not follow that is a violation of the separation of powers as you are saying.

In fact, the Supreme Court has often said in their decisions that if Congress changes the law at issue, they would be cool with it.

 

[g5000]

The real issue here is federal pre-emption of state laws.

It is has been a long practice of both Republicans and Democrats to federally pre-empt state laws, and yet you rarely hear any partisans whining about it.

But you can be sure the hack propagandists are counting on the rube herd to be ignorant of these facts.

 

[OKTexas]

We’ll In any regard… precedent no longer means squat

Remember that when a more liberal Court reinterprets the 2A

I posted a link where precedent has been overturned 233 times in 234 years. Like I said, eventually bad precedents fall.

.

 

[g5000]

We’ll In any regard… precedent no longer means squat

I'm sure the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas felt the same way.

 

[Lesh]

I posted a link where precedent has been overturned 233 times in 234 years. Like I said, eventually bad precedents fall.

.

And the 2A interpretation could well be next when we get a liberal Court

Oh well

 

[g5000]

Bad precedent will fall eventually, this just took a bit longer than usual. The Roe court could have saved a lot of time and money if they'd followed the Constitution to begin with.

.

It took the Supremes 56 years to overturn Plessy.

 

[g5000]

And the 2A interpretation could well be next when we get a liberal Court

Oh well

Rogers v. Grewal - SCOTUSblog

Malpasso v. Pallozzi - SCOTUSblog

The Supremes refused to review both of those horrible, horrible lower court decisions.

Maryland and New Jersey require a law-abiding citizen to prove they have a need for a gun.