So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[postman]

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.

Then why did the court reject them for lack of standing?

Six U.S. Lawmakers File Suit Challenging Line-Item Veto (Published 1997)

Six members of Congress file lawsuit challenging constitutionality of new law giving President line-item veto power; Sens Robert C Byrd, Daniel Moynihan and others say veto shifts power over spending and taxes from Congress to President; sponsors' aim was to curb Federal spending and cut...

www.nytimes.com

Six U.S. Lawmakers File Suit Challenging Line-Item Veto

for example, argue that members of Congress lack standing to file suit because they are not injured by the law, or that the case is not ripe for a judicial decision until the President actually exercises his new power.

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)

Raines v. Byrd

supreme.justia.com

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

On this direct appeal, we hold that appellees lack standing to bring this suit,

 

[TNHarley]

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.

 

[martybegan]

Then why did the court reject them for lack of standing?

Six U.S. Lawmakers File Suit Challenging Line-Item Veto (Published 1997)

Six members of Congress file lawsuit challenging constitutionality of new law giving President line-item veto power; Sens Robert C Byrd, Daniel Moynihan and others say veto shifts power over spending and taxes from Congress to President; sponsors' aim was to curb Federal spending and cut...

www.nytimes.com

Six U.S. Lawmakers File Suit Challenging Line-Item Veto

for example, argue that members of Congress lack standing to file suit because they are not injured by the law, or that the case is not ripe for a judicial decision until the President actually exercises his new power.

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)

Raines v. Byrd

supreme.justia.com

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

On this direct appeal, we hold that appellees lack standing to bring this suit,

Because courts are fallible because they are made up of people.

It's why stare decisis just elevates the burden on overturning shit previous decisions, not banning it.

 

[Independent thinker]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

Every single decision which didn't go their way. Of course all the decisions which did go their way showed how fair the SC is.

 

[TNHarley]

Every single decision which didn't go their way. Of course all the decisions which did go their way showed how fair the SC is.

I dont always agree with the SC, in fact rarely.
But these people are bashing them because the owners of the boots they lick tell them to bash them. Its hilarious.

 

[Independent thinker]

I dont always agree with the SC, in fact rarely.
But these people are bashing them because the owners of the boots they lick tell them to bash them. Its hilarious.

The radical leftists are constantly inciting violence when it comes to the Court.

 

[22lcidw]

experts in government.

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

The judge may do it cheaper.

 

[postman]

"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.

It's just as activist as when in Bush V Gore they interpreted Florida voting law, different than the way the Florida Supreme Court interpreted their own law.

The federal government is supposed to leave interpretation of state law, to the states.

 

[martybegan]

It's just as activist as when in Bush V Gore they interpreted Florida voting law, different than the way the Florida Supreme Court interpreted their own law.

The federal government is supposed to leave interpretation of state law, to the states.

Not when the issue at hand is federal in nature.

 

[postman]

View attachment 961734

It's the difference between asking the same court to re-adjudicate the issue. Vs asking a completely different court. And with a smaller majority throws out the opinion of the more unified court.

 

[postman]

Because courts are fallible because they are made up of people.

It's why stare decisis just elevates the burden on overturning shit previous decisions, not banning it.

Once more, but with GUSTO!!

It's why stare decisis just elevates the burden on overturning shit previous decisions, not banning it.

Which was my point. That the burden should be elevated.
Like going from 7-1 to 9-0 ELEVATED.

Going from 7-2 to 5-4 NOT elevated.

 

[martybegan]

It's the difference between asking the same court to re-adjudicate the issue. Vs asking a completely different court. And with a smaller majority throws out the opinion of the more unified court.

A bad opinion is a bad opinion, no matter how many people decide it.

Plessey, Bad. Roe, Bad. Chevron, Bad.

Obergfell, over-reach, not bad.

 

[martybegan]

Once more, but with GUSTO!!

It's why stare decisis just elevates the burden on overturning shit previous decisions, not banning it.

Which was my point. That the burden should be elevated.
Like going from 7-1 to 9-0 ELEVATED.

Going from 7-2 to 5-4 NOT elevated.

Numbers are meaningless in these cases. 5-4 Bad is just as wrong as 9-0 bad.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

Yeah.

The revocation of abortion as a constitutional right.

 

[postman]

The judge may do it cheaper.

Like the Morton Thiokol gaskets?

 

[postman]

Not when the issue at hand is federal in nature.

They didn't say the Florida election law was unconstitutional. They said their interpretation was different than the Florida Supreme Court. So they used their own interpretation, and rejected that of the states highest court.

What happened to states rights?
The one's who actually hold elections.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah.

The revocation of abortion as a constitutional right.

Abortion was never an enumerated constitutional right. All Roe did was prevent States from legislating before viability, and shakily at that.

 

[martybegan]

They didn't say the Florida election law was unconstitutional. They said their interpretation was different than the Florida Supreme Court. So they used their own interpretation, and rejected that of the states highest court.

What happened to states rights?
The one's who actually hold elections.

They hold elections, but this was a federal election, not a State election.

Federal elections are controlled by the US Constitution. State elections are controlled by State Constitutions.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Abortion was never an enumerated constitutional right.

Correct but it was still a constitutional right.

All Roe did was prevent States from legislating before viability, and shakily at that.

Correct. A constitutional right to abortion.

 

[martybegan]

Correct but it was still a constitutional right.


Correct. A constitutional right to abortion.

No, it wasn't because it was never in the constitution.

You want it to be an enumerated/constitutional right? Amend the Constitution to include it.