- 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: Barrett joins liberal justices on Trump ballot ban ruling going too far
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:55 am to Longhorn Actual
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:55 am to Longhorn Actual
"The "conservative" justices (there shouldn't be any type of Justice, but that's another topic) ruled and then slammed the door on future bullshite. They basically said, "No, and also don't pull this bullshite again because X, Y, Z."
I agree with you and so, I suspect, would ACB. The problem, from a jurisprudential standpoint, is that the "and" part of what the majority did is inconsistent with the longstanding principle that the Court should not decide things that are not necessary to dispose of the case before it. You just made ACB's case for her concurrence.
I agree with you and so, I suspect, would ACB. The problem, from a jurisprudential standpoint, is that the "and" part of what the majority did is inconsistent with the longstanding principle that the Court should not decide things that are not necessary to dispose of the case before it. You just made ACB's case for her concurrence.
1
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:55 am to WPBTiger
I think she is talking about the Liberals making it an issue.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:56 am to WPBTiger
Trump has the best SCOTUS picks, doesn't he folks?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 12:01 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
The passion of national discourse should have nothing to do with it. Your job is to interpret the constitutionality of laws/issues before the court.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 12:23 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
It’s not the court’s role to be the least bit concerned with the “temperature”. Interpret the law. That’s it.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 12:33 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
the "and" part of what the majority did is inconsistent with the longstanding principle that the Court should not decide things that are not necessary to dispose of the case before it.
frick that. So many of you people can’t see the forest through the trees.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 12:49 pm to WPBTiger
So they all agreed but all the women felt the need to complain anyways
Posted on 3/4/24 at 1:20 pm to Undertow
quote:
It’s not the court’s role to be the least bit concerned with the “temperature”. Interpret the law. That’s it.
Dissenting opinions serve a useful purpose in the US legal system.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 3/4/24 at 1:23 pm to WPBTiger
She is a disaster. Typical emotional woman.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 1:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
One can disagree, but I don't see it as something to attack her for.
It's not. Some people look for reasons to get butthurt, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
"OMG, she agreed with us, but didn't COMPLETELY agree with EVERYTHING and didn't agree the way we wanted her to agree"
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 3/4/24 at 1:51 pm to Godfather1
quote:
Your job is to interpret the constitutionality of laws/issues before the court.
She's saying the ruling should have ended there and within their typical protocols. They went further, which may have political effects.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 1:52 pm to moneyg
quote:
frick that. So many of you people can’t see the forest through the trees.
Illuminate us what you are talking about
Posted on 3/4/24 at 1:53 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
It's not. Some people look for reasons to get butthurt, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.
"OMG, she agreed with us, but didn't COMPLETELY agree with EVERYTHING and didn't agree the way we wanted her to agree"
The irony is they keep bringing up the "women are emotional" talking point while they are engaging in emotion-based demands of outrage
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:06 pm to WPBTiger
The national temperature should be irrelevant to the Supreme Court.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:08 pm to WPBTiger
And people want Identity Politics to be the reason for the VP selection.
This should be exhibit A as to not ever consider Identity Politics
This should be exhibit A as to not ever consider Identity Politics
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News