So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[jc456]

It was very different because more justices voted FOR Roe v Wade, (and the cases that upheld it) than voted to OVERTURN Roe v Wade.

7-1 FOR - 5-4 AGAINST.

That's not even close

didn't the majority decide? how is it different?

 

[martybegan]

The case wasn't "ripe" it was a "hypothetical", and as such didn't even have "standing".

They were activist by taking a case they were not allowed to take under Article 3 of the constitution.

Those are opinions, not facts.

You are just quoting article 3 for decisions you don't like. it's a cop out.

 

[postman]

quote the paragraph from the Executive Branch?

Not needed, it's an "inherent" power of government.

You can look it up under inherent powers. They don't have to be enumerated.

 

[martybegan]

That's what article 2 is all about.

The executives executing. And by that, they get to promulgate the regulations made by experts, and not by courts.

Bullshit. They set the regulations based on what congress allows them to do, and when the laws are too vague it's up to the courts to iterpret, not the people about to enforce the laws to be able to say "We can do it because we feel like we can do it"

 

[postman]

experts in government.

I would rather the "rocket scientists" at NASA decide what NASA does with it's rockets, than some activist judge.

 

[jc456]

Not needed, it's an "inherent" power of government.

You can look it up under inherent powers. They don't have to be enumerated.

Article 2 is just the executive branch. nowhere do experts come into play! That was your statement.

 

[TNHarley]

It was very different because more justices voted FOR Roe v Wade, (and the cases that upheld it) than voted to OVERTURN Roe v Wade.

7-1 FOR - 5-4 AGAINST.

That's not even close

Ok, what about minersville school district vs gobitis?
I assume you think kids should be made to salute the flag in schools? Because a 8-1 vote got overruled by a 6-3 vote?

 

[postman]

didn't the majority decide? how is it different?

A SMALLER majority than the majority who decided it the other way.

Which decision would you trust, one made 7-1 or one made 5-4.

One person against, vs 4 people against.

Just do the math.

 

[Doc7505]

They hate anyone with just the potential to oppose their leftist agenda.....Nothing new under the sun there except that the MSM is now giving them a sounding board for their incessant screeching.

~~~~~~
Democrat Neo-Marxists hate anyone/anything they cannot control. From Climate Control to Congress, presidents to the Supremem Court to the people that elect them.

 

[jc456]

A SMALLER majority than the majority who decided it the other way.

Which decision would you trust, one made 7-1 or one made 5-4.

One person against, vs 4 people against.

Just do the math.

is there a difference between majority?

 

[Doc7505]

A SMALLER majority than the majority who decided it the other way.

Which decision would you trust, one made 7-1 or one made 5-4.

One person against, vs 4 people against.

Just do the math.

~~~~~~
Indeed, that is why we have an "Electoral College" to allow the lesser populated States to have a voice in elections and government.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Marxism? What does that even mean?

I bet you think you even know what a woman is.

What right wing lunatics!!

J/6 nEvEr fOrGeT

 

[postman]

Those are opinions, not facts.

You are just quoting article 3 for decisions you don't like. it's a cop out.

Wrong, Look up the Line Item Veto case before the SC.
Six senators brought the case, that it was unconstitutional, and the court rejected them for lack of standing.

The court is not to hear "hypothetical" cases.

This court is the ultimate "activist" court, which took cases they weren't constitutionally allowed to take, so they could impose their judgement.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong, Look up the Line Item Veto case before the SC.
Six senators brought the case, that it was unconstitutional, and the court rejected them for lack of standing.

The court is not to hear "hypothetical" cases.

This court is the ultimate "activist" court, which took cases they weren't constitutionally allowed to take, so they could impose their judgement.

Bullshit. The Senators are the ones directly impacted by a line item vs. overall veto, as they are the ones doing the fucking voting.

Lack of standing is 9 times out of 10 a cop-out, just like lack of harm.

 

[postman]

Bullshit. They set the regulations based on what congress allows them to do, and when the laws are too vague it's up to the courts to iterpret, not the people about to enforce the laws to be able to say "We can do it because we feel like we can do it"

It's up to the courts to determine of the executives made an interpretation within the law. This court wants to attack chevron deference, which says the regulators decide the best way to enforce the law, and not the courts.
That the courts role is to step in, only when their interpretation is barred by the law.

Which strangely goes against their decisions they made in the gerrymandering cases.

 

[martybegan]

It's up to the courts to determine of the executives made an interpretation within the law. This court wants to attack chevron deference, which says the regulators decide the best way to enforce the law, and not the courts.
That the courts role is to step in, only when their interpretation is barred by the law.

Which strangely goes against their decisions they made in the gerrymandering cases.

"We decided we can fuck you over based on our interpretation of the law, and you can't run to the courts" isn't the way the constitution was set up.

Chevron deference has to die, and there is nothing activist about that.

 

[postman]

schools? Because a 8-1 vote got overruled by a 6-3 vote?

What you left out is, it was the same justices making the decision, and justices Murphy, Black and Douglas reversed their opinions,

So it was the same court admitting their error. Not a smaller majority on a later court overturning a superior majority.

 

[postman]

is there a difference between majority?

Yes there is. That's why the district appeals court does em banc.

 

[postman]

~~~~~~
Indeed, that is why we have an "Electoral College" to allow the lesser populated States to have a voice in elections and government.

Actually it's to give smaller states a "superior" voice in elections and government.

One of several "slavery" compromises to bring the Constitution into existence.

 

[jc456]

Yes there is. That's why the district appeals court does em banc.

What's the difference? majority isn't defined by a count, it is a mere majority that settles the review. Not like congress with simple majority rules. so, factually, there is no difference.