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.
Sometimes courts make a bad decision, ala Roe, and have to be overturned by a later court. How long does decision have to stand before it cannot be overturned without a democrat Senator's blessing? Asking for a friend.So, the opposite of what the anti abortion puppet judges did, when they violated Stare Decisis to satisfy their Senate patrons.
I mean, thanks for making my points for me, but I can do it myself.
Not according to people who know the law a lot more than we do.Gun ownership isn't a civil right.
The Second Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership.
And sometimes they make the right decision, and the only pathway for corrupt judges to overturn it later is to violate the jurisprudence principle of Stare Decisis.Sometimes courts make a bad decision, ala Roe, and have to be overturned by a later court.
It’s not proper for them to speculate on his they would rule on a case when they have not heard the arguments for and against.Those kinds of questions should NEVER be asked of a justice during confirmation hearings. They should NOT be pressured to forecast how they would vote on any given case, EVER. They are supposed to be independent and be able to view each case as unique, to be balanced against the Constitution. Those asking those questions need to be run out of town on a rail, because they should know better.
Wrong.Gun ownership isn't a civil right.
The Second Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership.
Trump pardoned people caught up in the demafasict russian hoax…xiden pardons his crack head gun running son.As well he should.
If Trump could pardon Flynn, Manafort and everyone else involved in Russiagate for keeping quiet, then Biden certainly should be able to pardon his son for a bullshit gun charge.
Oh, please. I wish Biden did a quarter of the gun grabbing you clowns accuse him of.
absolutely, bad rulings would never be overturned if Stare Decisis wasn’t always followedAnd sometimes they make the right decision, and the only pathway for corrupt judges to overturn it later is to violate the jurisprudence principle of Stare Decisis.
You're making this very easy on me.
And yes, they absolutely can and should be asked their feelings and level of agreement with prior decisions.
I asked you how long a decision has to stand before it cannot be overturned. How long?And sometimes they make the right decision, and the only pathway for corrupt judges to overturn it later is to violate the jurisprudence principle of Stare Decisis.
And, naturally, when they were obviously nominated to check the Politically Correct boxes instead of having a stellar judicial record, they should be grilled on how they are going to vote on matters pertinent to their nomination, not the Constitution, then be required to recuse themselves from cases involving their skin color and/or sexual orientation </sarcasm>And yes, they absolutely can and should be asked their feelings and level of agreement with prior decisions. ESPECIALLY when anyone with a functioning brain cell knows they were nominated specifically to overturn a past decision.
So they were asked. And they chosen to deceive the Congress and the public, as the truth would have killed their confirmations.
Anyone who doesn't admit this is ignorant or lying.
And I ignored your irrelevant question.I asked you how long a decision has to stand before it cannot be overturned. How long?
A cute and useless way of putting it. This whiny and juvenile rant doesn't hold any weight.No, they should NOT be hounded to see if they will protect a democrat's sacred cow.
It's a standing principle, but no decision simply cannot ever be overturned, which is the point. The Senate democrats were desperately trying to ensure their sacred cow would remain unmolested, and they were wrong. Justices need to be free to approach each case on its own merits. Prior decisions can be taken into account, but should never be reasons to deny a justice a seat on the bench.And I ignored your irrelevant question.
Are you stumbling over trying to articulate a question about Stare Decisis? Stare Decisis lasts forever. It's a standing principle.
Likewise, a justice nominated simply for checking the right boxes instead of judicial experience and temperament needs to be swiftly rejected on those grounds.A cute and useless way of putting it. This whiny and juvenile rant doesn't hold any weight.
Yes they can and should be asked of they agree with a past decision, when the corrupt president and corrupt senate majority leader have corruptly and publicly informed the american people that overturning that decision is why the judges were nominated.
They cant tell you how they would rule without hearing the arguments for and against. On past cases they may have questions which weren’t asked then.And I ignored your irrelevant question.
Are you stumbling over trying to articulate a question about Stare Decisis? Stare Decisis lasts forever. It's a standing principle.
A cute and useless way of putting it. This whiny and juvenile rant doesn't hold any weight.
Yes they can and should be asked if they agree with a past decision, when the corrupt president and corrupt senate majority leader have corruptly and publicly informed the american people that overturning that decision is why the judges were nominated.
The fact that they deceived the congress and the american public in their answers to the question shows precisely why the question should be asked.
Then enjoy diddling your strawman, because nobody claimed otherwise. That's not what Stare Decisis means.It's a standing principle, but no decision simply cannot ever be overturned, which is the point.
Wait, you're saying Trumps 3 nominees should have bene rejected?Likewise, a justice nominated simply for checking the right boxes instead of judicial experience and temperament needs to be swiftly rejected on those grounds.
But can and should be asked about their level of agreement with a prior decision.They cant tell you how they would rule without hearing the arguments for and against
They would also need to review all the arguments presented. Dont be a sap.But can and should be asked about their level of agreement with a prior decision.
4th time. Please pay attention.
So you only respect jury verdicts when they go your way... got it.Trump pardoned people caught up in the demafasict russian hoax…xiden pardons his crack head gun running son.
ONLY thing I care about, HE pays ONLY for what he has done, NOT just because he is BIDEN SON,You can scream that all day, but you can't prove it.
When did i say anything about a jury verdict? We were discussing the pardon powerSo you only respect jury verdicts when they go your way... got it.
No, she specifically said she did not observe him doing drugs at the time period in question.
So, you were part of the deliberations and know for a fact that the Justices did NOT consider precedent when overturning Roe?Then enjoy diddling your strawman, because nobody claimed otherwise. That's not what Stare Decisis means.
What Politically Correct boxes did they check? Was it their skin color? Can't be their gender because that's impossible to even know anymore unless you're a biologist, according to one of the newest justices.Wait, you're saying Trumps 3 nominees should have bene rejected?
You guys toss off these tu quoque points without understanding that they cut both ways.
So the 3 corrupt Trump picks should have been tossed?
Yes, they are expected to have some experience and knowledge.They would also need to review all the arguments presented.
Not what Stare Decisis means.So, you were part of the deliberations and know for a fact that the Justices did NOT consider precedent when overturning Roe?
Whiny, irrelevant.What Politically Correct boxes did they check? Was it their skin color? Can't be their gender because that's impossible to even know anymore unless you're a biologist, according to one of the newest justices.
