Supreme Court Question For Those On The Left

[rightwinger]

precedence isnt supposed to matter to SCOTUS,, only the constitution,,

This court has no interest in the Constitution
If they did, they would not have allowed the Texas abortion law to stand

 

[meaner gene]

This court has an agenda
They are looking to have more influence than any branch of Government
Precedence has no bearing
Consistency in their decisions is meaningless

They have effectively said just that.
In many of the cases they ruled on, they said that if congress didn't like the decision, they could change it legislatively.
Saying so, knowing the deadlock in the senate (60 vote filibuster rule, in a 50-50 senate) would prevent a legislative action to overturn their decision.

 

[Votto]

I would rather have a court that respects legal precedent

I would rather have a court that respects the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

They have effectively said just that.
In many of the cases they ruled on, they said that if congress didn't like the decision, they could change it legislatively.
Saying so, knowing the deadlock in the senate (60 vote filibuster rule, in a 50-50 senate) would prevent a legislative action to overturn their decision.

The Supreme Court knows that Congress is impotent
They are working on overturning executive decisions of the President

With a 6-3 Conservative advantage, THEY make the rules

 

[rightwinger]

I would rather have a court that respects the Constitution.

It sure isn’t this court

 

[Votto]

The Supreme Court knows that Congress is impotent
They are working on overturning executive decisions of the President

With a 6-3 Conservative advantage, THEY make the rules

You really think democrats will abide by any ruling against their precious abortion initiative?

They will pack the courts, codify it into law, use federal lands, do anything they have to do to fight the decision

They have no restraint or respect for the law, as they have proven time and again.

 

[meaner gene]

precedence isnt supposed to matter to SCOTUS,, only the constitution,,

I used to think of that as a child, but when I actually read their decisions I realized their job was to do justice while leaving precedence intact. Because each case that's overturned, has a cascading effect in not only subsequent cases, but in previously decided cases involving the law that was overturned.

Scalia was very careful in the Heller V DC case to specifically say that the NFA and GCA were still fully constitutional.

 

[g5000]

This court has no interest in the Constitution
If they did, they would not have allowed the Texas abortion law to stand

I don't think the US Supreme Court has ruled on Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson yet.

 

[progressive hunter]

I used to think of that as a child, but when I actually read their decisions I realized their job was to do justice while leaving precedence intact. Because each case that's overturned, has a cascading effect in not only subsequent cases, but in previously decided cases involving the law that was overturned.

Scalia was very careful in the Heller V DC case to specifically say that the NFA and GCA were still fully constitutional.

youre still a child that doesnt understand their true purpose,,

 

[meaner gene]

You really think democrats will abide by any ruling against their precious abortion initiative?

They will pack the courts, codify it into law, use federal lands, do anything they have to do to fight the decision

Maybe you missed the Supreme Court telling Congress to do just that, codify it into law.

 

[rightwinger]

You really think democrats will abide by any ruling against their precious abortion initiative?

They will pack the courts, codify it into law, use federal lands, do anything they have to do to fight the decision

They have no restraint or respect for the law, as they have proven time and again.

I thought we were honoring the Constitution?

Where does it say anything about 9 Justices?

 

[progressive hunter]

I thought we were honoring the Constitution?

Where does it say anything about 9 Justices?

you honor it by accepting the decision of whos there now,,
and not have a tantrum and pack the court because you dont like the outcome,,

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think the US Supreme Court has ruled on Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson yet.

If they cared about the Constitution, it would have been quickly discarded

 

[rightwinger]

you honor it by accepting the decision of whos there now,,
and not have a tantrum and pack the court because you dont like the outcome,,

So NOW……Conservatives are concerned with precedence

 

[g5000]

I thought we were honoring the Constitution?

Where does it say anything about 9 Justices?

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and it cost him dearly.

The American people will not abide that.

Don't be a sore loser like Trump.

 

[progressive hunter]

So NOW……Conservatives are concerned with precedence

thats not prrecedent and I'm not a conservative,,

 

[rightwinger]

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and it cost him dearly.

The American people will not abide that.

Don't be a sore loser like Trump.

Most Americans have no idea how many Justices there are

There were no ramifications for Republicans maintaining a court of 8 Justices for over a year

 

[pknopp]

I get labelled as being on the "left" all the time. I had no problem with either ruling.

I don't like that overturning RvW will actually expand access to abortion but the ruling is understandable.

 

[meaner gene]

youre still a child that doesnt understand their true purpose,,

Even Scalia followed Stare Decisis. And even though I didn't always agree with his decisions, I have to acknowledge his unmatched knowledge of the law.

 

[g5000]

Most Americans have no idea how many Justices there are

Do you think court packing would not be headline news?