Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: Ginsberg dies

  1. #61
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,478

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Nothing will heal until things actually change. With the way the system works you have to rely on the very people causing the broken system to fix it. Changes that will nit benefit them.
    Barring a full-blown revolution won't that always be the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Their legal knowledge regarding the Constitution from their experience on cases is invaluable. Term limits just makes it more likely for politics to seep onto the court since they now be obliged to rule certain ways on as many cases as possible before their term is up.

    Mandatory retirement could work but i'd only support it if the retirement age was set pretty high.
    Isn't that already the case? Look at Ginsberg's last wish. Also the very same argument could be used for the other branches of government. So no term limit for the president or congressmen also, I mean their experience can't exactly be replicated. Hm, I think not.

    Besides I'm not saying that retired justices couldn't advise on matters they have such great expertise on, it could happen if the current justices thought it prudent, but to place so much on a geriatric club seems both inefficient and cruel to me.

  2. #62
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,239

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Barring a full-blown revolution won't that always be the case?
    Revolution is not necessary for reform. Just enough pissed off people.
    Isn't that already the case? Look at Ginsberg's last wish. Also the very same argument could be used for the other branches of government.
    That argument only works if you outright ignore the job of SCOTUS and comparing it to that of Congress and the President.

    When justice's rule on cases they set legal precedent. A constant revolving door of judges could destroy the concept of legal precedent since new judges will automatically seek to undue the the previous judge's rulings all for political gain.


    Besides I'm not saying that retired justices couldn't advise on matters they have such great expertise on, it could happen if the current justices thought it prudent, but to place so much on a geriatric club seems both inefficient and cruel to me.
    There's no legal precedent to allow for retired judges to consult on active SCOTUS cases.

  3. #63
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,478

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Revolution is not necessary for reform. Just enough pissed off people.
    I didn't say it is. But revolution is necessary if you want to stop relying for fixes on the people that broke the system in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    That argument only works if you outright ignore the job of SCOTUS and comparing it to that of Congress and the President.

    When justice's rule on cases they set legal precedent. A constant revolving door of judges could destroy the concept of legal precedent since new judges will automatically seek to undue the the previous judge's rulings all for political gain.
    Why would they? Courts don't easily overturn precedent once its set. You don't need to keep the same people on the panel in order to enforce precedent, you simply need to have respect for the institution. If anything should your suggestion be followed, that is to pad the court willy-nilly every time congress/whitehouse change owners, it is more likely that precedent will be casually overturned, because it shows a lack of respect for the institution, that would be transferrable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    There's no legal precedent to allow for retired judges to consult on active SCOTUS cases.
    All it takes is to set one then.

  4. #64
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,239

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I didn't say it is. But revolution is necessary if you want to stop relying for fixes on the people that broke the system in the first place.
    Fortunately you can change the system yourself. They still need votes to be in power.

    Why would they? Courts don't easily overturn precedent once its set.
    A court of revolving new judges very much could.

    You don't need to keep the same people on the panel in order to enforce precedent, you simply need to have respect for the institution. If anything should your suggestion be followed, that is to pad the court willy-nilly every time congress/whitehouse change owners, it is more likely that precedent will be casually overturned, because it shows a lack of respect for the institution, that would be transferrable.
    A revolving court of judges appointed to take on as many cases before their term is up will definitely end up causing legal precedent to be overturned. Expecting them to respect the institution under those conditions is laughable. I am not saying packing the court is a better idea. Term limits certainly aren't the answer though.

    All it takes is to set one then.
    You'd need a constitutional amendment. Thats really not easy to get.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    It appears that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will win again. As of Monday, he almost certainly has the votes that he needs to go back on the precedent he set in 2016 about refusing to seat Supreme Court justices in an election year and build upon the Supreme Court he’s been intent on creating ever since he stole Merrick Garland’s seat four years ago.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-vote-rbg.html

    Womp.

    After this nomination, Republicans should just nominate and confirm a new judge to the supreme court everyday till January. Because, that's how this is gonna work now apparently.

  6. #66
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,918

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by tgoodenow View Post

    After this nomination, Republicans should just nominate and confirm a new judge to the supreme court everyday till January. Because, that's how this is gonna work now apparently.

    Every man a king supreme court judge.

  7. #67
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,478

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by tgoodenow View Post
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-vote-rbg.html

    Womp.

    After this nomination, Republicans should just nominate and confirm a new judge to the supreme court everyday till January. Because, that's how this is gonna work now apparently.
    Isn't it the Democrats that actually threatened to expand the court and pad it with their picks? The Republicans so far are simply replacing justices that happened to die while they hold the keys.

  8. #68

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Isn't it the Democrats that actually threatened to expand the court and pad it with their picks? The Republicans so far are simply replacing justices that happened to die while they hold the keys.
    And they only replace them because of laws that Democrats themselves have passed. Democrats have nobody to blame but their own stupidity.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Isn't it the Democrats that actually threatened to expand the court and pad it with their picks? The Republicans so far are simply replacing justices that happened to die while they hold the keys.
    Yes but if Democrats announce that they are going to pack the court if they win; might as well start packing it in the Republican favor before January if they lose, right?

    Joe Biden also refuses to announce a supreme court nominee list; likely because he knows it going to cost him moderate votes. Trump is of course going to slam him for this in the debate; so we will see his list after the debate. Biden is also going to have to announce his support for or against packing the courts.

    According to The Washington Post, some members of Biden’s campaign expressed “particular annoyance” with Markey for floating the idea of expanding the court, as the former vice president made a speech Sunday urging swing-vote Republican senators not to confirm a nominee until “the voices of the American people” are heard.
    https://www.boston.com/news/politics...-court-packing
    Last edited by tgoodenow; September 22, 2020 at 08:13 PM.

  10. #70
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,182

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    There's a few interesting things at play here.

    Hyper-partisan judges are obviously problematic in a two party system. It renders them nothing more than a backup catcher for Capital Hill. Ensuring that a Republican government can't enact laws if the SC is left leaning and visa versa. It leads to the entrenchment of disfunction.

    Threats to pack the courts to swing rulings aren't new. And neither are partisan judges. But the backdrop behind those threats is definitely new. Back during Bret Kavanaugh's hearings Economist put together an analysis based on Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn's work looking at partisanship in the SC. Looking at the diagram a few things are obvious - Historically, hyper partisan judges were outliers and unusual, and appointments by both Democrat and Republican Senates tended to sit just right of centre and mingle. But since the 1990s, the have untangled themselves and left a clear empty centre. This is a reflection of hyper partisanship at all levels and divergent world views.

    Unless society can find a way to re-entangle the judges, then their role is going to be increasingly undermined as the final arbiters of justice and the law. The conversation immediately above represents an exaggeration of the hyper-partisanship, and each and every person to-ing and froing in this page's debate are problems rather than solutions. Neither a legacy Trumpian or stacked Biden SC is good for the US. With the anonymity of the internet, I don't expect any of you to have any motivation to look beyond your partisanship. But the sad thing is that even beyond forums, the dialogue has been taken over by entrenched and problematic voices.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SupremeCourt.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	370.0 KB 
ID:	362648
    Last edited by antaeus; September 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM. Reason: Big spoiler
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  11. #71

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Hyper-partisan judges are obviously problematic in a two party system. It renders them nothing more than a backup catcher for Capital Hill. Ensuring that a Republican government can't enact laws if the SC is left leaning and visa versa. It leads to the entrenchment of disfunction.
    That's the nature of SCOTUS and this was the case for decades.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    So shortly after ACB said "sexual preferences", the term became a "slur" and even Webster dictionary definition was changed to fit the Democratic talking points, in less then 16 hours. That's some Orwellian right there.

  13. #73
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,209

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    It does indeed appear as though Merriam-Webster altered its definition of "preference" to accommodate an insipid liberal criticism of Coney-Barrett.

    Spoiler for Definitions Compared


    Source.
    Last edited by Cope; October 14, 2020 at 05:19 PM.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Bunch of Democrats need to start offering up heartfelt apologies for using the bigoted , racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic term as well.
    Also, anything that can be considered as memorializing or honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to be torn down, removed, eliminated.
    https://freebeacon.com/courts/barret...-it-for-years/

  15. #75
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    7,890
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Yeah that’s kinda weird that the flippin dictionary is being politicised like this.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •