- 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 2:06 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:06 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
There should be penalties, rarely criminal- but sometimes, for doing something unconstitutional.
quote:that's what the court does, supreme that is, all the time, all day- compare laws (not outcomes) to the constitution.
The problem is determining what is unconstitutional. There is too much interpretation required/involved.
All I'm saying is if you want to reduce case load, then attack it from the front end.
Make the people making those laws take a pause and consider the risk involved. Right now it is a free for all. There is no consequence for making an unconstitutional law. There is no risk for overstepping, accidentally or intentionally.
You make them consider that, maybe they'll stop leaving it to the courts so often.
And such has indeed been done before, but only in an extreme circumstance: reconstruction post-civil war (and restitution to freed slaves).
Maybe the principle should be the same in all cases albeit with much reduced penalties. And I'm all for keeping it in the executive and excluding the legislators (the executive is signing these bills and they all have the veto).
0
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:22 pm to I20goon
For the most part I agree with what you took the time to make as a well written reply.
As somebody who is for change to some of these things. Obviously, I agree with what your saying.
One point. Do we trust modern politicians to make those constitutional amendments? Yes, we need them. But will politicians make them... Properly?
You're nicer and fairer than I. In cases where states are making what are being called "retaliation laws", I would personally like to see those who were involved, be stripped of their civil immunity. With the provision that they have to take their case SOLELY out of their own funds.
Obviously, that would never get passed. But I like to daydream, lol.
But yeah. Things are going too far. There needs to be accountability, and consequences. Or they just going to keep doing it, and just keep getting worse.
As somebody who is for change to some of these things. Obviously, I agree with what your saying.
One point. Do we trust modern politicians to make those constitutional amendments? Yes, we need them. But will politicians make them... Properly?
You're nicer and fairer than I. In cases where states are making what are being called "retaliation laws", I would personally like to see those who were involved, be stripped of their civil immunity. With the provision that they have to take their case SOLELY out of their own funds.
Obviously, that would never get passed. But I like to daydream, lol.
But yeah. Things are going too far. There needs to be accountability, and consequences. Or they just going to keep doing it, and just keep getting worse.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:33 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Say it as slowly as you want, ya fricking puff. It's a catastrophically bad idea.
The last time you did this, I told you that your reading skills sucked. I see you haven't improved on that yet.
So. KISS Keep it simple stupid, for the simply stupid.
No more judges. But find a way to get their caseload moving faster.
Anything beyond this, if that doesn't get through, then you're just being irrational.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:42 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
I am just responding in kind to a rude and condescending poster.
Compare your replies to others here
Compare my responses to them, compared to my responses to the way you answered.
My responses are like buttsex. If you don't want it, don't put yourself in the position to receive it.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:44 pm to 4cubbies
More of Obama's "Fundamental Transformation"..
Progressives loathe the founding of this country...
Progressives loathe the founding of this country...
Posted on 9/27/24 at 2:44 pm to BoKnowsAUOne
quote:
What's the difference in a bill and a sweeping bill?
The scope of the bill.
If all they wanted was to increase the number of judges, it would be a bill.
But with all the other things that they want to impose on the judges, it becomes a sweeping bill.
They want massive reform, not just one thing.
Edit- that's a good question, btw.
This post was edited on 9/27/24 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:09 pm to Figgy
That’s why getting everyone on record now then if he does win, he should somewhere in a random moment say “ thinking about asking congress write a bill to add justices to scotus….” And leave it hanging. All the democrats will scream to the high heavens how bad that will be. Then he can point to this bill and those who voted for it a say “ funny NOW they are against it because I’m the president.”
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:11 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
My responses are like buttsex. If you don't want it, don't put yourself in the position to receive it.
Lol, what an abject moron. Although, I must admit, an interesting case study in self- reverential neediness. Please continue, knock yourself out, I’m sure you’ll get the attention you seek. This board loves drama queens.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:13 pm to 4cubbies
This should be swiftly defeated
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:15 pm to I20goon
quote:
More lower courts, less activist lower courts (tort reform), less laws (congress).
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 agree.
This that I quoted. The recent ruling against Chevron deference will help out with that.
IF, as you pointed out, don't get caught up in activist courts. Or my point about corrupted courts.
Life experience has given me a bad bias against local courts tho. So I can't answer back, on more courts without bias. So I'm gonna leave that one alone as a courtesy.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:17 pm to 4cubbies
I don't have a problem with forcing justices to face more financial scrutiny, i.e. gifts for vacations, etc. But that's it. Democrats have to put up with the counterbalance of a conservative Supreme Court. The proposed legislation just exacerbates the politicized atmosphere.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:20 pm to 4cubbies
This would be absolutely disasterous for the country and every single leftist, socialist thing you could ever imagine would literally tear through the courts like you've never before seen.
It's something that in past years, it would have been automatically laughed out of discussion before it could even make it into existence as a passed bill.
Nowadays, I honestly do not think you have the Republicans to stop it. And I'm 100% serious about that. Their balls are completely non-existent. It's like, as a party, they don't even really exist. They're basically like alternate policymakers. They're just there to tap in. Other than that, they're there to write letters and try to call hearings so they can get on TV.
It's something that in past years, it would have been automatically laughed out of discussion before it could even make it into existence as a passed bill.
Nowadays, I honestly do not think you have the Republicans to stop it. And I'm 100% serious about that. Their balls are completely non-existent. It's like, as a party, they don't even really exist. They're basically like alternate policymakers. They're just there to tap in. Other than that, they're there to write letters and try to call hearings so they can get on TV.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
How do you suspect that would play out long term? It's hard to imagine a bigger shitshow than what we already have, but anything is possible.
It amazes me to see people who think govt is dysfunctional and then automatically think the way to fix it is to make that particular branch of govt even bigger
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:24 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Lol, what an abject moron. Although, I must admit, an interesting case study in self- reverential neediness. Please continue, knock yourself out, I’m sure you’ll get the attention you seek. This board loves drama queens
Yup. Expected that to fly over your head.
Irrational.
Immature, as well.
No reasoning with the irrational.
Moving on.
But. Next time, at least try a little harder.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:25 pm to GeauxtigersMs36
quote:
That’s why getting everyone on record now then if he does win, he should somewhere in a random moment say “ thinking about asking congress write a bill to add justices to scotus….” And leave it hanging. All the democrats will scream to the high heavens how bad that will be. Then he can point to this bill and those who voted for it a say “ funny NOW they are against it because I’m the president.”
Ideally I think that's fine. But politicians "evolve" their views
the soft way of saying that they don't believe what they've previously campaigned on. Then you have situations like McCain who was all for repealing Obamacare until it came time to do it and didn't do it just to spite Trump.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:28 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices
quote:
Wyden said the current court has been too quick to discard precedent and curtail rights by narrow majorities.
Democrats are such disingenuous hacks. Roe discarded Civilizational precedent. So frick off with your diabolical garbage gaslighting.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:28 pm to deltaland
Well think about it. The Administrative State really only has one imperative, and that's self perpetuation. So if political partisans get behind it, all of it's momentum is on growing the State Leviathan. Bigger is better. And conveniently, having more judges also provides the incentive for more litigation. Never, at any point do any of the Statist cheerleaders of the Administrative State ever even think about reform. No that's impossible when your entire goal is the Feed The Beast.
The State needs MORE. Feed it.
The State needs MORE. Feed it.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
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.
Yes sir or ma'am. That's something that didn't pop into my head when I wrote it earlier.
So. If you want to give an opinion on it... What's your opinion about the state of affairs that so many people aren't willing to do things objectively now?
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:31 pm to Wolfwireless
We always await and appreciate your insight, dear.
Posted on 9/27/24 at 3:41 pm to tide06
Make it 9.
2 term limit judges from the court of appeals approved by Congress and not the Senate with 60% vote.
2 term limit judges from the court of appeals approved by Congress and not the Senate with 60% vote.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News