- 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: Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:48 am to 4cubbies
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:48 am to 4cubbies
quote:
He's 75 years old. If you are older than the Social Security retirement age, you should not be allowed to hold public office.
There's more than a few of the walking dead, in the political sphere. That's for sure.
Age limits. I think that's a common ground that a lot of us can agree in.
Throw some mandatory cognitive testing and mandatory EKG tests in there too.
1
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:49 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I honestly don't think much about federal politics. Sorry?
You reflect so poorly in women in general.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:53 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
Yet you have an article about it you wanted to share
Why are you upset with receiving news about the left agenda? Regardless of what the source is?
Keeping tabs on what they are up to, is mandatory these days.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:53 am to moneyg
Do you consider yourself to be the representative for all men everywhere?
I certainly never considered myself to represent anyone but myself.
I certainly never considered myself to represent anyone but myself.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:55 am to Wolfwireless
quote:
Throw some mandatory cognitive testing and mandatory EKG tests in there too.
I think these would be more vulnerable to manipulation either by administration or interpretation than a strict age limit.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:56 am to 4cubbies
In the Project 2025 email the Harris campaign is distributing (w/Trump's, and only Trump's, name and pic on it) is states he "stacked the court".
When they propose something like this the Dems call it "reforming the court".
That is marxist propaganda, old school.
When they propose something like this the Dems call it "reforming the court".
That is marxist propaganda, old school.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:58 am to moneyg
quote:
You don’t like her hit and run, non-explicit opinion style of posting?
you're really that upset that I didn't post an impassioned opinion about this? Why do you care so much about what I think about things? I posted an article and you're all butt hurt over it but you keep posting in this thread. Make it make sense.
quote:
How is she supposed to run from her obviously flawed opinion if you force her to take a stance right away?
You really hate that I didn't offer an opinion about this. Poor thing.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:58 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Only an idiot would support this crap
Have you seen America lately?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 11:59 am to Park duck
quote:
Why does it need to be changed?
I do believe it needs to be changed.
Make them stop punting cases back to the lower courts.
Give them enforcement measures against states like NY, Mass, IL, Cali, and all the others that just keep rolling out unconstitutional BS laws. Edit- And rogue agencies that keep making up BS unconstitution rules.
Give them a way to get through the caseloads faster.
Give them protection against people that decide to come out after them.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:04 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The staggered format over two or three administrations is aimed at diminishing the chance that one political party would pack the courts with its nominees.
So if Trump wins now, then Vance for 8 more years, plus any current retirements . . . . well I will let you do the mathematics
I hope the Pubs pass this the day after Trump gets elected. And I want that DIM prick Wyden to vote against it, proving it was a shite piece of legislation all along
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:05 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
Make them stop punting cases back to the lower courts.
Why is this important? Seems like forcing the Supreme Court to decide more cases just concentrates power at the federal level.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:05 pm to tide06
quote:
It would be an acknowledgment by the left that they intend to use the courts to force their political will in spite of all existing norms and constitutional restrictions.
As if this was an open question.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
15 judges hearing a case is too many cooks in the kitchen.
This!
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:08 pm to 4cubbies
Does Trump get to nominate all 6 as the next POTUS?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:11 pm to I20goon
quote:
states he "stacked the court"
Only because RBG tried to hang on too long and died while in office. Had she retired a few years earlier, in say, 2014, then Obama would have nominated her replacement and all this would be a moot point.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:11 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
you're really that upset that I didn't post an impassioned opinion about this?
I’m mocking you. You should have been able to figure that out. My questions to the other poster were rhetorical in nature. He understood that.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:14 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Maybe you should keep your trap shut then and let the adults talk
Ok, I'm not gonna make friends this way. But oh well.
In case you folks haven't noticed cubbies generally keeps a speak when spoken to posting habit in the topics they post.
Yes, they post controversial topics. But the only time they really reply back, is when posted directly to.
If I have a nasty uncle who only opens their mouth with stuff I don't agree with, when I say something to them, then if I don't wanna hear them, I don't talk to them.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:18 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:in many cases this is exactly their "job" as defined by the constitution.
Make them stop punting cases back to the lower courts.
Their job is not to 'jump ahead' in the process and override lower courts. Those courts exist for a reason. If they start deciding for them there is no reason for the process to exist.
Either they tell the Congress to make a law, or tell a lower court to try again in almost all cases. For example, in Dobbs/Roe they overturned a previous decision and since there was no law in place they kicked it to the states (according to the 10A) and, simultaneously, put the Congress on notice that if they want to have control over it for them to make a law doing so.
That's why "Trump's abortion ban" is pure fiction. At the federal level the ONLY body that can do that now is legislature.
quote:They have that protection in the fact that it is a lifetime appointment. That's why term limits (another Dem wish) is a terrible idea. If there are term limits they have to worry about their career after being on the SCOTUS and that may affect their objectivity and duty to the constitution.
Give them protection against people that decide to come out after them.
People forget that the SCOTUS's duty is NOT to 'the law'. It is to the constitution and to make sure that the Congress, who makes those laws, do not make laws that are un-constitutional. Everything they do is through the lens of the constitution... not fairness, not fleeting public desires, not polls.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:21 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:What Trump did was not "stacking" in any shape form or fashion.
Only because RBG tried to hang on too long and died while in office. Had she retired a few years earlier, in say, 2014, then Obama would have nominated her replacement and all this would be a moot point.
He filled a vacancy. Period. As prescribed by the constitution with NO modifications to the structure of the court.
He did not increase (or decrease) the number of justices and then fill that newly created justice position. That is stacking.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 12:22 pm to 4cubbies
I would be in favor of adding more to Congress
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News