- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Biden Launches Commission On ‘Supreme Court Reform’
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:00 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Meh are you suggesting they deny litigation simply because they can't delegate to thirty or so other Justices?
I think that a country of 300 million people may well produce enough litigation and appeals to justify more than 100 cases per year getting review by the highest court. More Justice and hearings before panels (with the potential for en banc review) could provide additional capacity.
(Reuters) 2050 in a close call the USSC upheld gun rights restrictions on ideological lines 151-150.
1
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:02 pm to L.A.
quote:
Is it too early to dub Biden as the worst president of all time?
Right on time, if not late, actually.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:04 pm to L.A.
quote:
Is it too early to dub Biden as the worst president of all time?
I’m less hard on Biden than most on this board and he is making his case very quickly.
If Carter is still alive in 4 years, he’s going to be grateful to Biden for moving him a spot down.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:09 pm to AggieHank86
Because 9 is enought GD it.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:09 pm to Jbird
quote:I simply observe that the Court agrees to hear only about 100-150 of the 7-8000 cases properly appealed each year from the Courts of Appeal. Adding a few Justices and holding panel hearings on many cases MIGHT allow more litigants to have their deserving cases heard.
Meh are you suggesting they deny litigation simply because they can't delegate to thirty or so other Justices?
You are correct. Hot-button ideological issues will likely still be determined on an ideological basis, but MOST cases each term do NOT fit that mold.
Again, it is a question that seems worthy of investigating.
This post was edited on 1/28/21 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:So 7-8000 aren't heard because there aren't enough Justices?
I simply observe that the Court agrees to hear only about 100-150 of the 7-8000 cases properly appealed each year from the Courts of Appeal.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:11 pm to L.A.
Better buy anything that holds more than 2 - 3 rounds ASAP. The packed court will destroy the 2nd A as we know it.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
more litigants to have their deserving cases heard.
Are there issues with these supposed "deserving litigants" not abiding by the appellate decisions on their cases?
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:15 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Biden fires the first shot of the Civil War.
Unfortunately it is starting to look like the only option.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:18 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
in a way that allows future Dem and GOP administrations to add a Justice or two.
right there your premise falls apart, there will be no future GOP Administrations with the way the DNC controls elections now
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:20 pm to L.A.
quote:
court packing
Vile Leftists, since they can't win by honest means, they cheat elections and they "pack" the Courts.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I simply observe that the Court agrees to hear only about 100-150 of the 7-8000 cases properly appealed each year from the Courts of Appeal. Adding a few Justices and holding panel hearings on many cases MIGHT allow more litigants to have their deserving cases heard.
Enhanced judicial economy is an argument i have heard bandied about over the years. The problem with that is the Court should be treated as a last resort to overturn unconstitutional laws or large scale injustice. The notion that the SC is just a more selective version of a regular state or federal court is incorrect. The vast majority of cases that are appealed up the chain are not worthy of the Court’s time. Efforts to change laws should be done via legislative bodies, not through a loaded court full of activists which is what the Left envisions with court packing.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:25 pm to Papercutninja
Bingo.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:39 pm to Papercutninja
quote:Chicken or Egg?
Enhanced judicial economy is an argument i have heard bandied about over the years. The problem with that is the Court should be treated as a last resort to overturn unconstitutional laws or large scale injustice. The notion that the SC is just a more selective version of a regular state or federal court is incorrect. The vast majority of cases that are appealed up the chain are not worthy of the Court’s time. Efforts to change laws should be done via legislative bodies, not through a loaded court full of activists which is what the Left envisions with court packing.
quote:I submit that the SCOTUS became that which you describe BECAUSE of its limited capacity. Nothing in the Constitution suggests a desire to make SCOTUS cases rare or unusual.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish
The notion that 95% of appeals are “not worthy of the Court’s time” reeks of elitism.
This post was edited on 1/28/21 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:40 pm to L.A.
In what world does any one branch of the US Government have any power to "reform" another branch that is a direct check on their powers?
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:So nothing more than a fancy district court.
Nothing in the Constitution suggests a desire to make SCOTUS cases rare or unusual.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:43 pm to Jbird
quote:Set aside the preconceptions planted in your head in 12th grade Civics, effectively deifying SCOTUS. Read the language. It is just a court.
So nothing more than a fancy district court.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 12:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:The final arbiter indeed.
Set aside the preconceptions planted in your head in 12th grade Civics, effectively deifying SCOTUS. Read the language. It is just a court.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 1:13 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Biden fires the first shot of the Civil War.
Second. Ashli Babbett says hi. Well her ghost says hi.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News