U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,775
It could not be any more reasonable for the government of US to check if the adults with children Crossing the border are actually their parents. Democrats not beleiving in this anymore after they passed the human trafficking bill is scary.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,997
SCOTUS has agreed to hear arguments in Trump's case to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census count. Normally, I'd not be worried, the language is pretty clear but I am worried. And what worries me, too, is how they want to determine who's an undocumented immigrant without a citizenship question. Are they going to guess who could be an undocumented immigrant? https://twitter.com/KimberlyRobinsn/status/1317210184519979017
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,901
I am one of the few people here on this board who has had experience in living in a Catholic theocracy and condoms here used to be illegal. When they were finally made legal, you could only get them on prescription and later in pharmacies only. This continued until the early 1990s even during the AIDS crisis. Uber Catholics like ACB totally support a ban on condoms and would rather people die than use them. #EverySpermIsSacred
Actually ACB was clear in her statement that she didn’t see at all birth control becoming illegal. Heck I don’t even support that. Although I don’t think Catholic institutions should have to pay for it:
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,633
Where does one need to buy condoms from a pharmacist? :confused: You can buy them freely from the shelf, buy them on Amazon, in vending machines, pick them up for free in many bars..... And women can use condoms too.

My dad had a drug store and I worked there - still remember the men sheepishly coming up to the counter with their box of condoms. Mind you, that was back in the days of the dinosaurs.

But, wouldn't all pharmacies still sell condoms today?
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,775
I am one of the few people here on this board who has had experience in living in a Catholic theocracy and condoms here used to be illegal. When they were finally made legal, you could only get them on prescription and later in pharmacies only. This continued until the early 1990s even during the AIDS crisis. Uber Catholics like ACB totally support a ban on condoms and would rather people die than use them. #EverySpermIsSacred

LMAO!!!! Just totally lol. Saying ACB would make birth control illegal. Don’t you know the debate has moved to making catholic institutions and faith based institutions pay for abortions? That is what Obama policy was.
Where does one need to buy condoms from a pharmacist? :confused: You can buy them freely from the shelf, buy them on Amazon, in vending machines, pick them up for free in many bars..... And women can use condoms too.

This is just so crazy. Not only can women but condoms but the abortion pill!! Insane behavior of the left is going too far. This is like the insane moment when all the reporters of America were asking the 2012 republican pres candidates if they would ban birth control.

Though why would some support condoms But oppose the pill. Pill alters biology but condoms don’t.
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,650
Nothing makes liberals crazier than a successful woman who has defied all of their "rules" on what successful women have to do, behave like, etc. Most of the people who describe themselves as "feminists" only support women who subscribe to their own narrow ideology. The fact that ACB has Black children is really agitating them. ACB threatens to destroy their tired tropes -- that religious people are hypocrites, conservatives are racist, women are second-class citizens, etc.
Which liberals exactly are agitated because ACB has Black children? Just for the record it doesn't bother me that she has Black children. It does bother me that even though she is a mother to them, she expressed very little interest in racial issues. When she was asked elaborate on specific issues and studies she claimed she was aware of, it seems she only had knowledge of them through general conversation. That along with the case she had when she expressed the boss calling an employee the N-word doesn't necessarily create a damaging or hostile work environment certainly makes me uncomfortable and leaves me wondering if she advocates for her children as Black children.

This is just another mindless generalization along the same line as those spouted by becca earlier. My issue with your arguments is if someone writes a one sentence comment about a lack of transparency and it's not clear to another poster, then the person ought to ask for further details about what the original writer meant and have a real discussion. The person does not make a worthwhile point when they instead use that one sentence comment to post inaccuracies and broadbrush using negative stereotypes.

While we're discussing the idea of the "libs/Dems/left" or any other negative label you want to apply to all of us who "refuse" to support strong women who also happen to be conservative, why don't you and becca remind us how old you were when Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court and reminisce about all our lack of support as she received ZERO votes against her appointment? Likewise, who was it again who awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

The problem is with individuals who have extremist, bigoted or hateful views that oppress and affect other US citizens, not a question of whether or not they are strong conservative women.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,993
On her .... penis??

(I assume you meant she can buy them and have her partner use them?)
Ummmm.... Google is your friend if you’re curious.

ETA instead of adding to the court, why not subtract? Cut it back down to 7 and get rid of the two newest members. They are 2 of the 3 weakest members anyway.
Why not get rid of the two oldest and also introduce term limits?

I’m in favor of any genuine bipartisan attempt to reduce the size and influence of the court, and to require supermajorities. In theory at least this should be able to command bipartisan support.
Which liberals exactly are agitated because ACB has Black children?
The ones parsing words to show she somehow thinks differently of them because she called them strong (???).

FWIW, I always take your posts seriously even when we disagree. Many of the other posts on this thread are just regurgitations of people’s daily doses of propaganda that’s no better than Fox News.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,929
My dad had a drug store and I worked there - still remember the men sheepishly coming up to the counter with their box of condoms. Mind you, that was back in the days of the dinosaurs.

But, wouldn't all pharmacies still sell condoms today?

When I first got married in Connecticut, you had to go to New York to buy condoms or be fitted for a diaphragm. All contraception was illegal in CT, even for married people.

Griswold vs. CT changed that, and established the right to privacy on which Roe was decided. If you take out Roe entirely, a challenge to Griswold will surely be brought, as a number of the anti-abortion groups are anti-IVF and anti-contraception. It puzzles me to guess how this 6-3 court would justify a ruling on Griswold, either way. My guess would be that they will choose to deal with such a challenge by refusing to take up the case, if they want to keep Griswold without keeping Roe, but I would like to hear what the law experts here think might happen.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,997
I’m in favor of any genuine bipartisan attempt to reduce the size and influence of the court, and to require supermajorities.

Supermajorities in the court or for confirmation?

I'm not sure about reducing the size. I'm more in favor of expanding and then having a certain number of judges rule on any given issue. I think the more variety of opinions the better.

Term limits, definitely. I checked on Germany after it came up a couple of years ago or so, and they have a term limit of 12 years but if a justice reaches retirement age before the 12 years are up, they have to retire.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278
Term limits, definitely. I checked on Germany after it came up a couple of years ago or so, and they have a term limit of 12 years but if a justice reaches retirement age before the 12 years are up, they have to retire.
I would like a system where justices serve for 20 years and then they have to be re-confirmed if they want to stay in.
 

kedrin

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,111
I’m in favor of any genuine bipartisan attempt to reduce the size and influence of the court, and to require supermajorities. In theory at least this should be able to command bipartisan support.
This liberal is on board.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,278

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,961
Am I crazy for still supporting lifetime appointments? To me, that guarantees the ultimate independence of thought and freedom from political powers that be. If a justice tends to be political (who isn’t?), it’s only because they themselves are that way. They all have reasons for making certain decisions but they do believe they’re doing it based on their ideology of what the Constitution says, which doesn’t always fall on strict left-right spectrums.
 

BittyBug

The missing ingredient
Messages
22,709
In addition to the other factors cited in favor of term limits, I am concerned about the trend to nominate younger and younger judges, with the goal being to "lock in" that seat for either party. As a result, instead of getting judges with vast experience, who would necessarily have a shorter runway, we get people with little experience to demonstrate whether they are actually suited to the role.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,884
I definitely would support 18-year term limits for SC justices, as suggested in the Fix The Court proposals, which I have posted about here before.

I just think it's a practical and simple solution to the increasing unacceptable politicization of the Court.

@VGThuy I can definitely see your point about lifetime appointments being a possible gateway to true independent thought and judgment. And I think we saw that play out a little bit in the careers of jurists like O'Conner, Souter, etc. However, things are now so politicized that the types of justices who are being appointed (I suppose by both sides) are so strongly partisan to start with that we're just not seeing that effect very much. Justices are being specifically chosen with the intent to forestall flexibility of thought or drifts toward the center or in any direction. So at this point I just don't know as lifetime appts are leading to the independence desired.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,793
In addition to the other factors cited in favor of term limits, I am concerned about the trend to nominate younger and younger judges, with the goal being to "lock in" that seat for either party. As a result, instead of getting judges with vast experience, who would necessarily have a shorter runway, we get people with little experience to demonstrate whether they are actually suited to the role.
FWIW, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh were all in their early to mid fifties when they joined SCOTUS. Gorsuch was 49, but with more than a decade's experience on the tenth circuit.

In Israel Supreme Court justices must retire at the age of 70, and appointment as chief justice goes to the most senior justice under that age. But I suspect if you tried that in the US, you'd see even younger justices nominated. Term limits and a non-partisan selection procedure (if that's possible) seems like the way to go.
 

BittyBug

The missing ingredient
Messages
22,709
FWIW, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh were all in their early to mid fifties when they joined SCOTUS. Gorsuch was 49, but with more than a decade's experience on the tenth circuit.
My comment was as much about circuit court judges (also lifetime appointments) as SCOTUS. To me it's not only age and the subsequent poential tenure but also prior experience as a judge. Some might argue that a few years in a lower court is enough to prove oneself, and Roberts himself was only a circuit judge for a few years when he was tapped to be the Chief Justice, but especially if you're going to be the last stop for justice, it would be nice to have a track record demonstrating solid reasoning and judicial temperament before getting a lifetime gig.
 

Meoima

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,900
I am sorry if I am a bit behind, there are so many news around I am overwhelmed. I just want to as is it possible ACB won't be joining the Supreme Court before the election?
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
63,893
I wonder if anyone has asked her if she sees her black children as 5/8ths of her white children.

Anyway, I freaking HATED her statement talking about her kids. All her white kids got to have academic dreams and aspirations and personalities. Her adopted kids got talked about in context of their adoption. Except her black daughter who is as strong as a man. And it was a prepared statement - does she not see how messed up that is? It seemed like she and her husband are so lucky to have her white kids but her black children are so lucky to have them.
Exactly. They are like so many other white families who "adopt" those poor Black children and act like they are so magnanimous and gracious and often treat those kids like servants. I know too many people who did this.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,993
I'm with @BittyBug on this one. There's effective age discrimination: no President is going to appoint a justice over 60, and probably over 55, even if they're the best qualified judge. Garland, at 63, was an exception, and I suspect was deliberate to see if Republicans might cave and give him a vote. Judges absolutely "age out" of consideration. "Who can serve the longest" seems to be, if not the primary consideration, one of the top two or three.

Picking on Barrett, whom I like: she has been a judge for three years, and she could realistically be on the court for 40.
 

alexikeguchi

Well-Known Member
Messages
735
Exactly. They are like so many other white families who "adopt" those poor Black children and act like they are so magnanimous and gracious and often treat those kids like servants. I know too many people who did this.
There was even a Law and Order episode about that. IIRC the children were also adopted from Haiti and were afraid to speak out against their "parents" out of fear of being returned to the dire conditions there.

If I had been on the Judiciary Committee, I would have skipped over Roe and gone back to Scott vs Sandford and asked her if she believes it was decided correctly based on an originalist interpretation of the constitution, which at the time obviously did not include the Reconstruction Amendments. If you truly believe in originalism, you would have to say the Taney court could not have decided otherwise; the original intent of the Framers, many of whom were slave owners, was quite explicit in treating Blacks as property. If she believes the decision was wrong, what does that say to her about originalism? And if she thinks it was right, how would she explain to her Black children that they do not have the same worth or rights as her biologic children being raised in the same household? And no cop-outs about not wanting to lock herself into an opinion on a case that might come before her since Scott was decided in 1857.
 
Last edited:

BittyBug

The missing ingredient
Messages
22,709
I am sorry if I am a bit behind, there are so many news around I am overwhelmed. I just want to as is it possible ACB won't be joining the Supreme Court before the election?
Anything is possible but the odds of Barrett not being confirmed prior to the election appear to be extremely low. Republicans have the votes to confirm her, they control the Senate so they control the timing and content of business that is brought to the floor, and they have made it very clear that confirming her before the election is a priority. The only way it won't happen is if they lose enough votes to support her. That would mean (a) at least two Republican senators change their mind about supporting her (assuming Collins and Murkowski are against her), or (b) at least two Republican senators become incapacitated and cannot be present to vote. The latter is theoretically possible due to illness (like c0vid), but seemingly unlikely.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,997
I don’t like the idea of reconfirmation because it compromises judicial independence. Judges may start to rule based on what they think need to do to get reconfirmed.

I was initially thinking the same thing but they can't know which party will be in the majority once they're up for reconfirmation. If they ruled one way for 18 years and suddenly, rule the other for one or two years then that should be reason not to reconfirm them.
 

Meoima

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,900
Anything is possible but the odds of Barrett not being confirmed prior to the election appear to be extremely low. Republicans have the votes to confirm her, they control the Senate so they control the timing and content of business that is brought to the floor, and they have made it very clear that confirming her before the election is a priority. The only way it won't happen is if they lose enough votes to support her. That would mean (a) at least two Republican senators change their mind about supporting her (assuming Collins and Murkowski are against her), or (b) at least two Republican senators become incapacitated and cannot be present to vote. The latter is theoretically possible due to illness (like c0vid), but seemingly unlikely.
This is worrisome. Thanks for explaining.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,961
Article on “originalism” and why the way it’s used today doesn’t fully capture everything that term means. It’s just a fancy PR spin created by those on the right, far-right to make it sound like their views on the constitution have more credibility:


In all honestly, if we really take originalism and really use it, we’ll see so many issues with it in terms of having a coherent and consistent doctrine and how it doesn’t always support conservative goals. But nobody who calls themself an originalist actually wants actual originalism - Just the pick and choose kind.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information