- 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: Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:15 pm to Wolfwireless
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:15 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:you are hitting on one thing that I have long thought should have been prescribed in the constitution, but very carefully. It's beyond my congnitive ability to work it out, but in the modern era it is obvious that is should have been there all along. A constitutional amendment may be in order...
Possible long response. Trying to cut down wording to shorten the read.
Ok I'ma use California as an example, because I know that one best.
California passes a law. Law is unconstitutional, deprives citizens of rights. litigation ensues. Litigation goes to local state court, which usually sides with the people, not the state. Cali immediately appeals, and it goes to district. District sides with the state, not the people. People appeal. SCOTUS may or may not take the case. If they do, sometimes they say
No district court screwed up, didn't do it right. Retry the case. Throwing it right back to the court they know will not change verdict.
District court then throws it back down to state court. Which rules the same way it did before, and then gets appealed again. Then the district court places preliminary injunction on state courts ruling, and then just SITS on the case. Leaving it in limbo.
All the while, for years, people of Cali are stuck living under the unconstitutional law, that deprives them of rights.
There should be penalties, rarely criminal- but sometimes, for doing something unconstitutional.
In your CA example: the state should have to pay damages and make restitution.
Fail to enforce existing Federal statutes for immigration (willfully and knowingly)- pay a fine.
We are held to that standard by the courts. Why shouldn't the court require the same of the people with the most power?
Additionally, it might go a long way to putting the word 'service' back into the phrase 'public service' insomuch as reduce the ladder climbers and con artists.
2
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:16 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:I think we're on the same page here, but just in case... changing the SCOTUS makeup or structure doesn't change case load.
There's no argument about the number. The problem is the caseloads. And not forcing people to have their states deprive them of civil rights for YEARS while the suits against the laws work their way through the system.
Lsupimp I think has half of it...
quote:More lower courts, less activist lower courts (tort reform), less laws (congress).
Or maybe we could just have Tort reform instead? Or expand the court to 10, 001 judges and dilute it beyond all recognition and become an official Bureaucratic/ Administrative State. We could all have numbers. Sounds efficient..
The other half is congressional reform in so much as further (or possibly forbidding) them delegating power to the executive in the form of 3 letter agencies (combined with less laws, period).
I think the system should be "organic" on the legislative side... by that I mean if they don't have time to pass all these regulations then maybe they shouldn't exist. When you delegate that authority, that authority just escaped constitutional guidelines for the most part and it will be, NOT might be, but will be abused.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:17 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
Ok, yeah, we've all seen how vulnerable the medical field is to financial incentives.
Well doctors are people and people are flawed. If the doctor was staunchly against a candidate's platform or eye color or whatever, the doctor could easily raise concerns about the candidate's cognitive abilities.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:19 pm to Smeg
quote:
So you believe in anarchy?
I believe in autonomy.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:19 pm to I20goon
Goon, I appreciate the information, and the time it took to write it. Thank you.
Ok, clarification in order. When I said people coming after them. I meant the assassination attempt from a year or so ago. They need better protection from things like that.
The big problem is the lower courts. Like I just posted, Cali pretty much owns the district court. Washington literally does own the state and district courts.
If those courts will not decide these cases as they should, the SCOTUS needs to step in. And a lot of times, they aren't.
Ok, clarification in order. When I said people coming after them. I meant the assassination attempt from a year or so ago. They need better protection from things like that.
The big problem is the lower courts. Like I just posted, Cali pretty much owns the district court. Washington literally does own the state and district courts.
If those courts will not decide these cases as they should, the SCOTUS needs to step in. And a lot of times, they aren't.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:24 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
All the while, for years, people of Cali are stuck living under the unconstitutional law, that deprives them of rights.
I see where you're coming from, I just disagree that having the SC intervene would result in a more favorable outcome for the majority of cases. There's no guarantee. It's rolling the dice and hoping that the federal government will be prudent, which is not really a safe bet.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
quote:
Since we are speaking theoretically, a court of that size would create utter chaos in rulings that contradict each other. Too many heads always leads to failure in communications. And too many contradictions leads to flaw in judgement
It would like Congress Jr.
Congress and the Senate put together!
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I believe in autonomy.
Whose autonomy is more important? Yours or mine? If you don't believe in laws or government, generally speaking, then obviously you feel as if we are all free to do what we want, period. Right?
Anarchy it is.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:26 pm to dafif
quote:
can you point to an opinion that has been done by this current Supreme Court that you consider to be wrong
it's the whole system that is a shitshow, not this particular court.
There's no confidence in any level of the federal government.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:26 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Or maybe we could just have Tort reform instead? Or expand the court to 10, 001 judges and dilute it beyond all recognition and become an official Bureaucratic/ Administrative State. We could all have numbers. Sounds efficient..
Obtuse.
I will say it slowly.
The
Number
Is
Not
What
Needs
To be
Changed.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:28 pm to I20goon
quote:
There should be penalties, rarely criminal- but sometimes, for doing something unconstitutional.
The problem is determining what is unconstitutional. There is too much interpretation required/involved.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
to remake a high court that has suffered a sharp decline in its public approval
So then we can do this to the other branches as well then? I don't know if any of them have great approval ratings these days...
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:29 pm to Wolfwireless
Say it as slowly as you want, ya fricking puff. It's a catastrophically bad idea.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:34 pm to 4cubbies
Does six actually make sense? There are 13 Federal appeals courts. As it stands now four of the sitting justices are overseeing two appeals courts each and five have a single court.
Adding four justices would make sense in that regard. More sense than 6.
Also, historically the number of justices matched the number of appeals courts until after 1869 when it was fixed at 9. There is nothing in the Constitution about the number of justices.
Adding four justices would make sense in that regard. More sense than 6.
Also, historically the number of justices matched the number of appeals courts until after 1869 when it was fixed at 9. There is nothing in the Constitution about the number of justices.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:41 pm to Lsupimp
you're very grumpy today. It's Friday and it's not super hot outside.
And you're going to Fred's tomorrow. Rejoice.
And you're going to Fred's tomorrow. Rejoice.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:51 pm to 4cubbies
I'm very non grumpy today, I even already had a 5 mile walk. sweetcheeks. I am just responding in kind to a rude and condescending poster.
Also Freds is tonight, stalker. Sorority girl moms ftw .
Also Freds is tonight, stalker. Sorority girl moms ftw .
Posted on 9/27/24 at 1:59 pm to 4cubbies
It would be hilarious if they passed that bill and President Trump got to fill the open slots.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:01 pm to 4cubbies
What's the difference in a bill and a sweeping bill?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:04 pm to 4cubbies
If you don’t support this you don’t support DEMOCRACY!!!
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:05 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
There's no confidence in any level of the federal government.
I will agree with you on that point but it is because of the senate, congress and the president becoming so greedy and abandoning any semblance of representation
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News