- 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: Roberts/SCOTUS needs to address this Trump shite right now
Posted on 12/29/23 at 11:10 pm to SloaneRanger
Posted on 12/29/23 at 11:10 pm to SloaneRanger
Even after being personally called out by Hussein Obama at the State of the Union show, Roberts rolled over at every single turn. Even broke the law & rewrote the ACA law in order to make it court worthy.
1
Posted on 12/29/23 at 11:10 pm to UncleLogger
I trusted Scalia. RIP.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 11:14 pm to udtiger
ghvkjbn
This post was edited on 12/31/23 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 12/29/23 at 11:27 pm to Tiger Attorney
quote:
I trusted Scalia. RIP.
Hence why they took him out.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 11:41 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Even broke the law & rewrote the ACA law in order to make it court worthy.
Obama?
Certainly you aren't saying Roberts "rewrote" the ACA
Posted on 12/30/23 at 1:01 am to Westbank111
quote:
They want to cause a civil war, anarchy is the name of this game they are playing. The will stop at nothing to keep him out of DC.
The D.C. Uniparty and the Bureaucratic State certainly want to test the resistance of the American people to cultural Marxism and Globalism. They want to know if they majority of Americans will simply rollover if the government goes full authoritarian.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 1:41 am to TerryDawg03
quote:
Procedurally, do they have the power to proactively pursue an issue without someone first bringing it to them?
Yes, no, and maybe. Theoretically, SCOTUS could issue a sua sponte order. This has been done on by state courts and lower federal courts in the past, however SCOTUS has never issues one. I think is has significant constitutional issues and is very unlikely to happen with the current makeup of the court. Thomas, Alito and possibly Gorsuch would likely have aneurysms at the thought of it.
The most recent judicial treatment of sua sponte rulings was a case in the Washington Supreme Court earlier this year. I forget the cite. It basically said that they can occur but only in extraordinary circumstances and that it borders too much on legislative action which is within the purview of the court. Note that most sua sponte orders are pursuant to unpleaded claims in an ongoing case but there is technically nothing to stop particularly SCOTUS from making the order out of thin air but highly unlikely.
You can add this to the list of things that ain't gonna happen and would produce a novel constitutional crisis if it did because such an order would be the purest form of legislation from the bench. That being said I don't know how it could be unraveled if they did do it.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 6:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Certainly you aren't saying Roberts "rewrote" the ACA
Roberts did exactly that.
CATO Institute
Roberts effectively altered a students paper after it had been handed in so that he could then give it a passing grade.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 7:32 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Roberts did exactly that.
No he didn't. He interpreted the words of the statute, which remain unchanged.
Histrionic language and emotions don't change facts and reality.
That article is just mad that it's favored interpretation of the (unchanged wording) wasn't used. CATO debased itself with emotional reporting instead of giving a rational analysis of the decision.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
It's not up to the court to assume what was meant when trying to decide the legality of a law. The Obama team tried to argue a point and Roberts flat out declared "no, you don't mean that, you mean the opposite" and ruled in a manner which would make it legal.
It's like the opposite of the scene from My Cousin Vinny, where the kid says " I shot the clerk " while asking the question, and the police officer heard it as an admission of guilt.
Only this version isn't nearly as funny.
It's like the opposite of the scene from My Cousin Vinny, where the kid says " I shot the clerk " while asking the question, and the police officer heard it as an admission of guilt.
Only this version isn't nearly as funny.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 7:55 am to udtiger
John Roberts has been compromised. Which brings me to ask - what politician in Washington,D.C. has NOT been compromised? If you answered Donald Trump you are correct sir.
Trump 2024 - We Need Him Now
Trump 2024 - We Need Him Now
Posted on 12/30/23 at 7:56 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
It's not up to the court to assume what was meant when trying to decide the legality of a law.
That is literally what courts do
quote:
The Obama team tried to argue a point and Roberts flat out declared "no, you don't mean that, you mean the opposite" and ruled in a manner which would make it legal.
I believe you're referencing a different case involving the ACA, here.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 7:57 am to udtiger
I’m actually going to disagree on this point.
I’m fine with Biden being left off Georgia’s ballot to compensate.
It’s not like a Republican is winning Colorado, Maine or California anytime soon.
Frankly the sooner we divide this country up the better the way things are going.
I’m fine with Biden being left off Georgia’s ballot to compensate.
It’s not like a Republican is winning Colorado, Maine or California anytime soon.
Frankly the sooner we divide this country up the better the way things are going.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:03 am to udtiger
Everyone could save themselves anxiety if they would accept the fact that Trump will never again be president. He’ll soon be a chapter in the history books.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:09 am to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
Hence why they took him out.
Yeah man, 80 years old is way too young to go.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That is literally what courts do
No it isn't. Try and keep up.
The linked CATO article talks about both times Roberts rolled over and pretzeled himself into approving what clearly wasn't legal.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 8:26 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:27 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
No it isn't. T
It literally is.
You're advocating for a certain type of legal interpretation but there are several. They all interpret what the words of statutes mean when evaluating the statutes. Just because Roberts used a different method than what you (or CATO) prefers, doesn't change reality: the words of the statute remain unchanged.
You seem to prefer a form of Textualism, but even then, there are multiple.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
IDK what your issue is, but that's not what happened.
Obama lawyers argued one thing, Roberts rejected that, but if they really meant something else (they didn't) then he could see it as viable.
He scratched out their argument, put in his own, effectively doing their homework for them.
That's not the courts job.
Obama lawyers argued one thing, Roberts rejected that, but if they really meant something else (they didn't) then he could see it as viable.
He scratched out their argument, put in his own, effectively doing their homework for them.
That's not the courts job.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 8:49 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 8:52 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Obama lawyers argued one thing, Roberts rejected that, but if they really meant something else (they didn't) then he could see it as viable.
He scratched out their argument, put in his own, effectively doing their homework for them.
You realize there is a difference in a legal argument and words of a statute, right?
Roberts rejecting the Obama admin argument does not "rewrite the statute"
quote:
That's not the courts job.
If the court sees the argument as incorrect, it is their job to correct it.
Do you think judges are limited solely by the arguments made by counsel?
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 8:54 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Certainly you aren't saying Roberts "rewrote" the ACA
No. He just ruled it was a tax under the taxing power granted to Congress. Even though the Dems denied itnwas a tax when it was drafted and the USA expressly denied it was a tax in its briefing and argument.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News