Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 24  25  26  27  28  29 

 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


So this morning, she changed her position on Brown v Board, saying that it really wasn't a "SuperPrecedent" and according to her standards, it was easy to overturn.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/14/2020, 3:14 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Image

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/18/2020, 7:53 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Image

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/18/2020, 7:54 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Image






---
Robbie
10/18/2020, 8:19 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Image






---
Robbie
10/18/2020, 8:20 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Image



Masterly!

10/19/2020, 12:34 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
MsSusieQueue Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2575
Karma: 2 (+8/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Those robes are too close to reality, Lis.
10/19/2020, 10:56 am Link to this post PM MsSusieQueue
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Yeah, they really are. I'm not sure that a lot of pro-life folks think about the danger of insisting that the government has greater control of her body than does the woman herself.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/19/2020, 5:46 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
MsSusieQueue Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2575
Karma: 2 (+8/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Yeah, they really are. I'm not sure that a lot of pro-life folks think about the danger of insisting that the government has greater control of her body than does the woman herself.



And a lot of those pro-life folks somehow manage to support the death penalty.
10/19/2020, 8:48 pm Link to this post PM MsSusieQueue
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

MsSusieQueue wrote:

quote:

JustLis wrote:

Yeah, they really are. I'm not sure that a lot of pro-life folks think about the danger of insisting that the government has greater control of her body than does the woman herself.


And a lot of those pro-life folks somehow manage to support the death penalty.


And oppose mask mandates and the Affordable Care Act. We are FINALLY seeing them right down to their core beliefs: They care about the unborn; once they're born, they're on their own.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/19/2020, 9:04 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

They care about the unborn; once they're born, they're on their own.



I don't believe they care about the unborn. I think they care about controlling women.

---
Robbie
10/19/2020, 11:06 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


But of course. And we need controlling. We're wild!
10/20/2020, 4:35 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


This afternoon, news came out that Amy Coney Barrett spent three years serving on the board of a private religious school with the following rule: No child whose parents are in a same-sex marriage will be admitted to the school.

Lovely.

Chuck Schumer is currently on the Rachel Maddow show, explaining that THIS is why Trump and crew want to push her through so quickly; these kinds of things emerge, and we need the time to allow them to emerge....

So...now Schumer says that the Dems will boycott the markup session for Barrett's nomination to come out of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee then won't have quorum, because the Senate rules require that at least two members of the minority party must be present in the committee for the nomination to move forward. Schumer said it's possible that Lindsey Graham will move to suspend the rules and move her nomination through.

If he does, Schumer can appeal to the Parliamentation, complaining that the Judiciary Committee has violated the rules. If the Parliamentarian agrees with Schumer, the nomination goes nowhere. If the Parliamentarian agrees with McConnell to keep going ahead, the Dems are threatening to boycott the final vote.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/21/2020, 8:54 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Wow, that's fascinating!

Thanks, Lis.

---
Robbie
10/21/2020, 9:29 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


The plot thickens!
10/22/2020, 3:50 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Answering the claim that Democrats want to pack the courts:

Sure, let's talk about packing the court. Let's talk about how
Republicans have won the popular vote only 1 of last 7 Presidential
elections but have nominated 14 of last 19 SCOTUS picks. Let's talk about
how Mitch McConnell denied President Obama's appointments of 110 Federal
judges, and a SCOTUS appointment. Those 110 appointments were then appointed
by President Trump with conservative judges, and the SCOTUS pick denied to
Obama was given to Trump. And now, going back on their own rule to not
appoint SCOTUS justices in an election year, the GOP wants to appoint a
justice in an election year. You can't accuse Democrats of a hypothetical
event that never happened while ignoring the actual court packing done by
Republicans.

https://tinyurl.com/y3dsm5an

10/22/2020, 5:30 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Drat! But ultimately, it will be the best thing, when Democrats take over the Senate and Republicans try to block nominees by boycotting the Judiciary Committee.


Republican-led committee approves Barrett nomination
 
By Seung Min Kim

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court with solely Republican support Thursday, as Democrats boycotted the vote in protest of what they viewed as an illegitimate confirmation process.

The vote was 12-to-zero, with no Democrats present to officially register their objections. The Democratic senators, along with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), will hold a news conference later Thursday morning.

“That was their choice,” Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said. “It will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee. We’re not going to allow them to take over the committee.”

In place of the Democratic senators, aides had placed 10 large portraits of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their seats. Each person was someone that the Democratic senators spoke about at Barrett’s confirmation hearing last week, which senators centered around the issue of health care and the future of Obamacare.

Democrats are sure to accuse Graham of breaking committee rules to hold the vote, since the panel generally requires two members of the minority to be present to conduct committee business.

But Republican aides said if a majority of the entire committee is present — which, on Thursday, they were — that means the Judiciary Committee can go ahead, under long-standing precedents. There have been more than a half dozen instances, including under Democratic control, since 2006 when the committee has conducted business without two members of the minority being there.

https://tinyurl.com/y29l3g4h

10/22/2020, 8:49 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


IMO the Democrats are then impeding the duties of the Senate. I saw somewhere that the Chairman can change the Rule regarding a Quorum. I have no idea.

Both Houses should have Rules that everyone must go by no matter who is in the majority. Each party changes !@#$ to help them, and especially in the Senate
10/23/2020, 12:14 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Kudos to Susie for getting this OP/ED found.

Sheldon Whitehouse: “It Sure Looks Rank and Rancid”

quote:

After about 20 minutes of her first appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it became plain that asking Judge Amy Coney Barrett a substantive question about the law served no good purpose—that it was, in fact, like asking the statue in the Lincoln Memorial to recite the Gettysburg Address. So the Democratic members of the committee found ways to use their five-minutes of time in other ways.

The most memorable of these episodes was the one produced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. He spent his allotted time in a detailed description of the long march of the conservative movement to capture the federal judiciary, which will become virtually complete when Barrett takes her seat at the end of October. There will be a decades-long conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The lower federal courts are salted thickly with larval Scalias produced by the well-funded apparatus of the conservative movement, the money laundered through groups like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network.

 

Whitehouse brought all the receipts and, with detailed charts, showed how this smooth-running machine operated in real life in order to produce the likes of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. (Posterity is going to choke eternally on the fact that this particular president* got to appoint three members of the Supreme Court.) He further showed these same operations have cherry-picked cases and plaintiffs to attack previous precedents with which they disagree. The "captive courts" have been one of Whitehouse's areas of interest for quite some time. He raised his first ruckus on the issue by pointing out that, in 72 cases involving corporate power and influence, the then-5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court had ruled for the money power in every one of those cases. Often, the disputes over judicial nominations rise or fall on social issues. Whitehouse's warning takes in those cases, but also concentrates fully on how we seem to be sliding back into a Gilded Age federal judiciary.

 

On the day that he and the other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee boycotted the committee's vote to recommend Barrett's confirmation, Whitehouse took some time to lay out the parameters of the problem of the captive courts, and also to suggest some remedies.



Source.

There is a good Q&A at the end of the article on the link that is worth reading. I highly suggest it.

This has been a hot topic for me that few people pay any attention to. The citizens will pay and are paying the price.
10/25/2020, 10:40 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Enlarging the Supreme Court is the only answer to the right’s judicial radicalism

E.J. Dionne Jr.
Oct. 25, 2020

There is only one good thing that can come from the power-mad Republican rush to jam Amy Coney Barrett onto the Supreme Court before Election Day: Of a sudden, as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, Americans in the tens of millions now know that our country faces a crisis of democracy triggered by the right wing’s quest for unchecked judicial dominance.

Barrett’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and President Trump’s comments before nominating her, brought home just how dangerously disrespectful of democratic norms the enlarged conservative majority on the court threatens to be.

Her silence on the most basic issues of republican self-rule tells us to be ready for the worst. She wouldn’t say if voter intimidation is illegal, even though it plainly is. She wouldn’t say if a president has the power to postpone an election, even though he doesn’t.

She wouldn’t even say that a president should commit himself to a peaceful transfer of power, telling Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that “to the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge I want to stay out of it.”

What, pray, is controversial in a democratic republic about the peaceful transfer of power?
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that she was nodding to the president who nominated her. He said he wanted a friendly judge on the court to deal with electoral matters, and he continues to signal that one of the most hallowed concepts of a free republic is inoperative when it comes to himself.

Rushing to confirm such a nominee just in time to rule on any election controversies (from which she refused to commit to recusing herself) would be troubling enough. But it is all the worse for being part of a tangle of excesses by the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

The truly scandalous lack of institutional patriotism on the right has finally led many of the most sober liberals and moderates to ponder what they opposed even a month ago: The only genuinely practical and proper remedy to conservative court-packing is to undo its impact by enlarging the court.

Note the language I just used. Court-packing is now a fact. It was carried out by a Republican Senate that was cynically inconsistent when it came to the question of filling a court seat during an election year. A Democratic president could not get a hearing on Judge Merrick Garland. A Republican president got express delivery on Judge Barrett.

That’s two seats flipped.

Then consider the lawless 5-to-4 Bush v. Gore ruling by conservative justices in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount and let George W. Bush become president. (Oh, yes, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Barrett were all Bush lawyers in that fight. All in the family.) After winning reelection the normal way, Bush appointed Roberts and then Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the high court in 2005.

That’s four seats out of nine.

It’s not court enlargement that’s radical.

Balancing a stacked court is a necessary response to the right’s radicalism and (apologies, Thomas Jefferson) to its long train of abuses. And conservatives are as hypocritical about court enlargement as they are about Garland and Barrett: In 2016, Republicans expanded the state supreme courts of Georgia and Arizona to enhance their party’s philosophical sway.

Democracy itself is at stake here. If the oligarchy-enhancing Citizens United decision and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County ruling don’t convince you of this, reflect on a study by the pro-enlargement group Take Back the Court. In 175 election-related cases this year, it found that Republican appointees interpreted the law in ways that impeded access to the ballot 80 percent of the time, compared with 37 percent for Democratic appointees. (The group pegged the “anti-democracy” score of Trump appointees at 86 percent.)

Court enlargement will be a long battle, but those of us who support it should be encouraged, not discouraged, by Joe Biden’s call for a bipartisan commission to study a court system that is, as Biden put it, “getting out of whack.”

Biden is a long-standing opponent of enlargement, so his statement is an acknowledgment that this crisis can’t be avoided. His commission would help the public, which usually doesn’t want to worry about judges, understand the danger of a judiciary dominated by reactionaries.

Sadly, the best case for enlargement is likely to be made by the court’s conservative judicial activists themselves. It would be good for democracy if they showed some restraint. But everything about this struggle so far tells us that restraint is no longer a word in their vocabulary, and that prudence is not a virtue they honor anymore.

https://tinyurl.com/y3bfangq
10/26/2020, 6:08 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 24  25  26  27  28  29 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top