Sign in to follow this  
B.J. Porter

Something is Wrong Around the Courts

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

1) The only filibuster left is legislative, which requires 60 senators to get to a vote, sort of It's not a law, it's a senate rule, and it is long past its sell-by date.  Look for its removal immediately prior to the first major vote of the new senate.

 

Yeah I get that, but it seems like the Democrats have used the legislative filibuster a lot however it didn't do the Democrats any good in stopping the tax cuts or saving the ACA mandate so I kind of agree that it is no longer serving them.

With the GOP is planning on blocking all relief legislation that doesn't pay money directly to businesses I can imagine that the democrats would like to avoid a repeat of 2009-.  So, yeah, bye bye filibuster.

Then we can start talking about Puerto Rico and DC but where does that stop?  I can imagine that Guantanamo will be a red state.

Seems like the SC and Senate are all irredeemably broken.  Not to mention the electoral college.  No wonder we didn't give Germany our Constitution after WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I’m baffled how she/her team could fuck up the paperwork. How do you not include speeches on a public calendar?

itll never come out but I’m still curious how Bart o’kavanagh miraculously got rid of all his debt.

They didn't fuck it up. They lied.  Here's the crazy part: If I failed to include a single item that the Michigan or California Bar asked for in the bar application, and they found out about it during the process, I would be rejected and never allowed admittance to the bar.  Lying is the single worst thing an officer of the court can do.

Meanwhile, this fucking fairy worshipper conveniently forgets to mention a bunch of fiery political activism 'for some reason' and the senate is like "SHE CAN TALK WITHOUT WRITTEN NOTES ZOMG"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really clear cut at all though.  Not nearly as clear cut as amending an existing judiciary act.

 

 

As on so many important issues, the Constitution is indeterminate: Article III provides a textual foundation for the power, and neither history nor precedent rule it out. In this matter, however, what Congress does is more important than anything the Constitution says. The Constitution’s indeterminacy opens a space for Congress to reclaim authority, in particular cases, over constitutional interpretation. If a determined Congress acts to fill that space, courts will have little power to resist. Correction, if it comes at all, will come from voters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Teener said:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the hard part was the act of Congress required to expand the court which would be subject to filibuster.

If Schumer has a majority, the majority can change the Senate rules, of which the filibuster is one. It’s a tradition, not a constitutional requirment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way  I see it is that the horse has left the barn on this. If the Dems do not expand the SC, then the Rs will at the first opportunity if the existing one does not do what they want. The SC has already become politicized, now it is all about executing on strategy for each party. I don't like it, but just like the weather not liking it does not mean refusing to recognize our current reality. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LenP said:

The way  I see it is that the horse has left the barn on this. If the Dems do not expand the SC, then the Rs will at the first opportunity if the existing one does not do what they want. The SC has already become politicized, now it is all about executing on strategy for each party. I don't like it, but just like the weather not liking it does not mean refusing to recognize our current reality. 

Set the law up such that it adds a justice for every 20 million folks, adjusted at census time. Yes, it could be changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

No one speaks for me, Jeff.

Regardless, no grounds are necessary for an impeachment investigation or indeed for an impeachment.  As we learned recently, it is a political process, not an evidentiary one, and there is no appeal.

No shit, Clean.  I'm well aware of it being a "political process".  You and your elk keep saying that to avoid the question.  I haven't asked where it "could be done" for any reason.  I'm just asking what reason(s) would you manufacture to start the impeachment investigations and hearings?  Good luck telling the US public that we're impeaching the SC justices "just cuz we can".  Yeah, that won't cause any problems.

So anywho.... am I to understand that YOU support impeaching sitting SC justices who have committed no wrongdoing simply for political reasons, namely revenge?  Your postings here certainly seem to show that support, but since "no one speaks for you", tell me in your own words please what you support wrt to these calls for impeachment.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LenP said:

The way  I see it is that the horse has left the barn on this. If the Dems do not expand the SC, then the Rs will at the first opportunity if the existing one does not do what they want. The SC has already become politicized, now it is all about executing on strategy for each party. I don't like it, but just like the weather not liking it does not mean refusing to recognize our current reality. 

The Supreme Court has always been cognizant of its political role.  The "law"  changed in 1937 because they said it did.  Suddenly those FDR programs declared unconstitutional were now being called just fine.  They noted that FDR had a plan to pack the court and they preferred he didn't.

England didn't even have a Supreme Court until recently.  The final appeal was to the House of Lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Set the law up such that it adds a justice for every 20 million folks, adjusted at census time. Yes, it could be changed

That is probably the most defensible position from a political standpoint. Framing it that way would force Republicans to at least reframe it before increasing it in the absence of a SC justice dying or the population growing. They would still do it, but it would make it marginally more challenging. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

It's 66% to remove but the impeachment trial itself (run by the Democrats) would be humiliating for Kavenaugh and then the stain of impeachment on a sitting justice would be beneficial. Yes, Republicans would still vote for their boy. Yes, that's a foregone conclusion.

I’d add that I sure don’t want Feinstein as Judiciary Chair.

So I take it you also support impeaching SC justices for purely partisan political reasons too?  Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

1) The only filibuster left is legislative, which requires 60 senators to get to a vote, sort of.  It's not a law, it's a senate rule, and it is long past its sell-by date.  Look for its removal immediately prior to the first major vote of the new senate.

The filibuster is already gone for Federal judges, thanks to your boy Harry Reid.  So not sure why you're still going on about this.  Otherwise, there would be no vote on ACB in the next week or so.  

Edit to add, and yes - for other non-confirmation votes you're correct the filibuster is still in place.  And specifically because of the way the GOP has used Harry's nuclear rule change against them, I don't think the Dem's are going to be in any hurry to take away the FB for the rest, knowing that again it will be used against them with "Great Fury and Vengeance" by the GOP the next time they are in power.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So I take it you also support impeaching SC justices for purely being overly partisan political reasons too?  Why?

They are supposed to be impartial. The latest three are anything but, especially Mrs. Speaking in Tongues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

ACB lied under oath multiple times in her confirmation hearing.  Unambiguously.

Really, I didn't watch it.  What did she lie about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Again, the idea of there being necessary 'grounds' for impeachment is silly.  That's why 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is so vague.  As SCOTUS has told us, it is a POLITICAL process, not a judicial one.

And I have said numerous times that I don't disagree with that premise.  But you still have to state a "reason", even if its a political reason, to open hearings.  Again, simply saying "because I don't like your Potus that put you here" or "I don't like your beliefs" is not going to cut it.  You still have to have a good reason on paper, even if we all know it's political revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

They are supposed to be impartial. The latest three are anything but, especially Mrs. Speaking in Tongues.

Really?  Both Gorsuch and Kav voted against the admin recently in an abortion case.  If they were not impartial, how did that happen???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

 And I have said numerous times that I don't disagree with that premise.  But you still have to state a "reason", even if its a political reason, to open hearings.  Again, simply saying "because I don't like your Potus that put you here" or "I don't like your beliefs" is not going to cut it You still have to have a good reason on paper, even if we all know it's political revenge.

FIFY.  Any lawyer can argue for anything without having any substance behind it.  And any politician can accept that argument.  Just look at the most recent Obamacare challenge.  No meat on that bone yet here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Really?  Both Gorsuch and Kav voted against the admin recently in an abortion case.  If they were not impartial, how did that happen???

How about if you study up on the Whitehouse analysis OP; then tell us what it says, and why you disagree or agree. 

In other words, do a little bit of flippin' homework for a change !! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

impeaching a SC justice simply because you don't like the potus that appointed them is not going to go over well with any elk - red or blue - and will set an ugly, ugly precedent that will only snowball.  If there was one thing you could do to start a CW, that would be it

They are not going to impeach any SC judges for lying on the application or ruling in a political fashion. Only one was ever impeached, and he was acquitted and a founding father. No matter whether we think they should or shouldn’t be it is not going to happen.

My beliefs is either nothing will happen in the interest of stability, or the filibuster will be scuttled and the court will be expanded. 

A true “civil war” would be over very quickly in this day and age. 

2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

back when we were talking about the 2nd Am rights and when a militia movement to actually overthrow a gov't was warranted.....?

There is no such 2nd Amendment right any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, loneshark64 said:

There is no such 2nd Amendment right any longer.

Jeff's kind of an idiot about the 2A. He thinks its purpose is a civil war.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 6:19 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Did the gun store owner tell you they were equivalent buttplug57? Did he tell you all the SC justices who’ve come up through it?

Not expecting an answer really, you have trouble doing anything but trolling and nonsequiturs, kinda like Incontinent Tom. Just a dumb gunnut, trapped in the chamber.

Aww, R'iblet comes running along on cue to answer for Joe. I guess Joe is unable to answer for himself these days, since PJ Charles hasn't given him any material to cut and paste.

But do give us your theory on how a group that was founded as a "progressive" answer to the federalist society is not worthy of the same scrutiny? I'm not expecting you to answer, since that might require some thought, and you don't get paid for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff's kind of an idiot about the 2A. He thinks its purpose is a civil war.

LOL

that is fucking funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

The filibuster is already gone for Federal judges, thanks to your boy Harry Reid. 

The supreme court confirmation filibuster was removed by Mitch McConnell.  The legislative filibuster will be removed by Liz Warren.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

am I to understand that YOU support impeaching sitting SC justices who have committed no wrongdoing simply for political reasons, namely revenge?  Your postings here certainly seem to show that support, but since "no one speaks for you", tell me in your own words please what you support wrt to these calls for impeachment.   

What calls for impeachment are you referring to, specifically? I have personally only made two calls for impeachment. The first is Kavanaugh, for lying in application and lying on the stand.  The second is ACB, for lying in application and lying on the stand.  Unimpeachable honesty is the single most crucial trait of a jurist, and lying under oath should disqualify any officer of the court from ever working as a judge or lawyer again.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Really, I didn't watch it.  What did she lie about?

that amongst her 1600 pages of document submissions, she somehow 'forgot' to include only the required disclosures that showed her to be a fucking skyfairy loon.

Like we don't fucking know that those submissions are combed through dozens of times by folks eminently skilled at making sure they are complete and perfect before they are ever sent. Miss "I don't need to look at notes" has an oddly inconsistent memory.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Really?  Both Gorsuch and Kav voted against the admin recently in an abortion case.  If they were not impartial, how did that happen???

Your checkers game is coming along great.

It happened because it's desirable to have a nice convenient example for clowns like you to point at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

What calls for impeachment are you referring to, specifically? I have personally only made two calls for impeachment. The first is Kavanaugh, for lying in application and lying on the stand.  The second is ACB, for lying in application and lying on the stand.  Unimpeachable honesty is the single most crucial trait of a jurist, and lying under oath should disqualify any officer of the court from ever working as a judge or lawyer again.

Well spoken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Incontinent Tom

LOL the hits just keep on comin’!

Time for him to change this name again. Suggestions? Here are mine:

Indoctrinated

Insurrectionist

Indefatigable 

Querulous

Quarrelsome

Quaalude

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

What calls for impeachment are you referring to, specifically? I have personally only made two calls for impeachment. The first is Kavanaugh, for lying in application and lying on the stand.  The second is ACB, for lying in application and lying on the stand.  Unimpeachable honesty is the single most crucial trait of a jurist, and lying under oath should disqualify any officer of the court from ever working as a judge or lawyer again.

What did ACB lie about specifically in application and on the stand?  And Kav too for that matter?  Lay out your legal case for impeachment, please.  What are your facts?

And no this is not a troll or a rhetorical question.  I haven't paid rapt attention to either hearing and didn't follow it in excruciating detail word for word.  It's obvious the minority party doesn't like either - kav for unfounded and unproven allegations of sexual misconduct 35 years ago and ACB for being catholic and opposing abortion.  But I am not aware of any specific and irrefutable allegations that they lied about anything. 

If there are facts out there that you alone are aware of, have you let Madam Pelosi and the House Judiciary committee know about your superior knowledge so they can immediately begin impeachment proceedings?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

What did ACB lie about specifically in application and on the stand?  And Kav too for that matter?  Lay out your legal case for impeachment, please.  What are your facts?

Why do you ask people to lay out cases you can’t be bothered to read demanding bitch? You like these justices because you’ve been told to like them and are too fucking stupid and scared To question your beliefs. Stop wasting peoples effort you needy welfare queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Lay out your legal case for impeachment, please.  What are your facts?

There is no legal case for impeachment, Jeff.  Are you unable to process information today?

The factual case is that she attested that her application was complete despite withholding a quantity of incriminating information from her submissions. her excuse? "But there were 1600 pages!!!!!"

She is a proven liar under oath.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

What did ACB lie about specifically in application and on the stand?  And Kav too for that matter?  Lay out your legal case for impeachment, please.  What are your facts?

Almost nothing more annoying than a student who is too lazy to do the assignment, and then walks into class and goes off on a tangent . .

Do your flippin' homework (below) 

How about if you study up on the Whitehouse analysis OP; then tell us what it says, and why you disagree or agree?? 

In other words, do a little bit of flippin' homework for a change !! 


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, loneshark64 said:
19 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff's kind of an idiot about the 2A. He thinks its purpose is a civil war.

LOL

that is fucking funny

It's a common delusion among gun nutz.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There is no legal case for impeachment, Jeff.  Are you unable to process information today?

The factual case is that she attested that her application was complete despite withholding a quantity of incriminating information from her submissions. her excuse? "But there were 1600 pages!!!!!"

She is a proven liar under oath.  

And it was stupid she did this. The things she hid were meetings and associations with anti abortion and anti LGBTQ groups. It’s not like we didn’t know she was against these things. She was vetted by the so-called Federalist Society with flying colors! She should have just put it all out there and had Notre Dame just open her calendar and records. It just makes her look sneaky. 

Nonetheless as Clean said there is no “legal” case. There is a massive integrity question though. Frankly both side should have kicked her skinny ass out of the room for not answering the basic fucking questions of law, because she looked vacuous and like she isn’t a serious legal mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

And it was stupid she did this. 

A whole bunch of Notre Dame faculty have called upon her to withdraw from consideration. 

Unprecedented, as far as I know. 

(And Jeffbo still has not done his homework) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Tom, please, you need to weigh in, cuz you actively peddle the very problem that is presented.in the OP.  Speak up. I keep finding a voice of CATO and the Kochs, on Political Anarchy. This thread is your chance to shine, mate.


Don't just avoid the Federalist Society blueprint behind the messy high court problem. This nasty bit displays the very platform of the Libertarian Party. If you avoid frank discussion of corporate influence in the judicial branch, you display more dishonesty by omission. 

This is the proper thread. Let's face this high court problem on PA, as directly as you can. Did you watch the Whitehouse presentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Did you watch the Whitehouse presentation?

I didn't have to. As noted upthread, I was able to correctly guess his exact words without watching or reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

I didn't have to. As noted upthread, I was able to correctly guess his exact words without watching or reading.

Can you not converse intelligently on this subject? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this