- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What does Ted Cruz know that we don't about the SCOTUS
Posted on 2/24/17 at 9:27 am to PoundFoolish
Posted on 2/24/17 at 9:27 am to PoundFoolish
Three scotus replacements in his first term will ensure thirty more years of constitutional integrity and thirty more years of progressives lighting their hair on fire. Winning.
0
Posted on 2/24/17 at 9:31 am to PoundFoolish
Ginsberg has actually been dead for several months now. Democrats just keep putting her corpse out there in hopes they can fool Trump for 4 years.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 9:31 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 9:37 am to PoundFoolish
I thought it was pretty well known at this point that the Gorsuch nomination was made in deference to Kennedy so that he would step down in short time.
Cruz is talking about Kennedy, not RBG.
Cruz is talking about Kennedy, not RBG.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 9:57 am to PoundFoolish
Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn't going anywhere unless she's in a casket. 
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:00 am to Wtodd
quote:Nobody ever gets close enough to put a stake through her heart.
This & Ginsburg is approaching 200 yrs old
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:01 am to LSU Patrick
How can something not be done about her falling asleep on the bench?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:05 am to PoundFoolish
My guess, if a seat does become vacant, is that Kennedy retires. It's good for conservatives as he is a swing vote who goes left on many issues. That would give conservatives a real 5-4 advantage.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:06 am to Roll Tide Ravens
Laura Ingraham has said similar things and she clerked for Clarence Thomas.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:10 am to The Spleen
quote:
It's been rumored for a couple of years that Kennedy has been weighing retirement.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:13 am to PoundFoolish
I think he's hinting that either Kennedy or Thomas will retire. While I like Thomas, I dont know if Trump will get re-elected, so for me, I'd like both to retire and keep a 5-4 majority.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:21 am to jb4
quote:
What does Ted Cruz know that we don't about the SCOTUS
I would guess Kennedy and Thomas retire under trump with Thomas being this summer. No way Ginsburg quits
I was thinking along the same lines that Judge Thomas would retire early in Trump's administration to make sure a young conservative judge would take his place for the next 30 years
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:23 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
And in year 9, I'm siding with the party in power on every case that comes before me.
Being insulated from political pressure through lifetime appointments is a good thing. There's a reasons the Framers made it that way.
This doesn't even make any sense. A term limit doesn't add political pressure. These people are appointed not elected. The problem is that more and more of them are activists that don't respect tradition or checks and balances. Limiting how long the appointment lasts would limit how much damage 5 hacks can do to millions for generations.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 10:24 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:24 am to LSU Patrick
Appointed by whom and confirmed by whom?
And Congress has the power to change the law if they do not like what the Supreme Court ruled. We also have the ability to amend the constitution. The checks on a Supreme Court that has gone rogue are already built in.
And Congress has the power to change the law if they do not like what the Supreme Court ruled. We also have the ability to amend the constitution. The checks on a Supreme Court that has gone rogue are already built in.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 10:27 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:29 am to boosiebadazz
The political pressure is on the elected persons not the justices. It doesn't matter who appointed them 4, 8, 40 years later. He/she won't be held accountable his/her appointments, nor will congress for confirming. I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:36 am to LSU Patrick
It's Year 9 of my ten year term and President Trump and the Republican Senate just got elected. A case comes before me where I know the clear position of the President and the Republicans. I like my job and its pretty cushy and I want to keep it. I also know that my term is up in one year and President Trump will have to re-nominate me and the Senate will have to re-confirm.
You bet your arse I'm siding with Trump and the Senate.
I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this.
Federalist 78, playa.
You bet your arse I'm siding with Trump and the Senate.
I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this.
Federalist 78, playa.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:39 am to LSU Patrick
quote:
No. We need term limits. As it stands now, there is nothing preventing them from overstepping their bounds, not even time. They should get 10 years max.
The Framers set it up this way, and specifically said that Supreme Court justices would serve life terms, so I will defer to Article III. However, I will say that it is good to have Justices who become very experienced. Having turnover that often would not necessarily be good, as precedent could be constantly overturned.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:39 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
I also know that my term is up in one year and President Trump will have to re-nominate me and the Senate will have to re-confirm.
Simple. Term limits with no possibility of reappointment.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:41 am to LSU Patrick
That's a different parameter than what you said.
I'll just say I disagree with that for a multitude of reasons.
Why do you think folks with lifetime appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate? If you think there are too many activists on the bench, maybe the problem is with the Senate acting as the gatekeeper. Maybe they aren't doing their jobs.
I'll just say I disagree with that for a multitude of reasons.
Why do you think folks with lifetime appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate? If you think there are too many activists on the bench, maybe the problem is with the Senate acting as the gatekeeper. Maybe they aren't doing their jobs.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 10:42 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:41 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
The Framers set it up this way, and specifically said that Supreme Court justices would serve life terms, so I will defer to Article III
There were no term limits for the president either. Nobody seems to have a problem with that now though.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 10:42 am to LSU Patrick
And you know how we fixed that? We amended the Constitution. Same process that is available now to fix any ruling by an "activist" Supreme Court.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News