Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) SCOTUS (Read 2768 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #30 - Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:47am
Print Post  
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #31 - Aug 17th, 2019 at 7:29am
Print Post  
More on the "progressive" push to politicize the Supreme Court.

https://reason.com/2019/08/16/conservative-justices-are-political-hacks-five-sen...

From the article:

"Yet in the process of making this argument, the senators are insulting Roberts, who joined the majority in all those decisions the senators deem clearly political, by attacking his integrity and intellectual honesty. And by closing with a threat that the Court may have to be "restructured" if it continues to issue decisions that offend Democrats—in the name of insulating the Court from politics and protecting the separation of powers, no less—the senators are choosing a tack that is apt to irritate not only Roberts but members of the Court's liberal wing as well.

"It's hard to describe to non-lawyers how truly extraordinary this filing is," writes National Review's David French. "You can spend a lifetime reading Supreme Court briefs, and while you'll certainly find passionate argument…threats against the Court—much less threats buttressed by transparently obvious allegations of judicial corruption—will be extraordinarily rare."

Whitehouse et al.'s ad hominem attacks on Second Amendment advocates and on justices inclined to agree with them reflect a bipartisan tendency to impugn people's motives instead of addressing their arguments. It's a strategy that has no place in rational political debate, let alone constitutional law."
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1079
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #32 - Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:16am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 7:29am:
More on the "progressive" push to politicize the Supreme Court.

https://reason.com/2019/08/16/conservative-justices-are-political-hacks-five-sen...

From the article:

"Yet in the process of making this argument, the senators are insulting Roberts, who joined the majority in all those decisions the senators deem clearly political, by attacking his integrity and intellectual honesty. And by closing with a threat that the Court may have to be "restructured" if it continues to issue decisions that offend Democrats—in the name of insulating the Court from politics and protecting the separation of powers, no less—the senators are choosing a tack that is apt to irritate not only Roberts but members of the Court's liberal wing as well.

"It's hard to describe to non-lawyers how truly extraordinary this filing is," writes National Review's David French. "You can spend a lifetime reading Supreme Court briefs, and while you'll certainly find passionate argument…threats against the Court—much less threats buttressed by transparently obvious allegations of judicial corruption—will be extraordinarily rare."

Whitehouse et al.'s ad hominem attacks on Second Amendment advocates and on justices inclined to agree with them reflect a bipartisan tendency to impugn people's motives instead of addressing their arguments. It's a strategy that has no place in rational political debate, let alone constitutional law."


Can't blame the Dems for doing this.  It worked like a charm for FDR.

Let's be honest, Jeff (please!).  You like it when the USSC over-rides the constitution in your favor.  For example, the constitution clearly forbids depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process.  Yet, each state, county, municipality, and many other political territorial designations, regularly deprives its residents of property, with the threat of deprivation of liberty to anyone who resists the deprivation of property, with the threat of deprivation of life to anyone who resists the deprivation of liberty. 

There is no due process for taxation.  Government taxes, the people pay the taxes . . . or else.  Since you enjoy the benefits of taxes disproportionately to your payment of taxes, you think that is mighty fine. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #33 - Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:40am
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:16am:
Can't blame the Dems for doing this.  It worked like a charm for FDR.
FDR seems to be your hero... He certainly is a hero of Democrats and other "progressives".

Keep making "progressive"/Democratic arguments and people will start to think your nothing but a useful idiot. Cry
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #34 - Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:42am
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:16am:
Let's be honest, Jeff (please!).

For example, the constitution clearly forbids depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process.

There is no due process for taxation. 
I thought you wanted to be honest?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #35 - Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:44am
Print Post  
This will go to SCOTUS. It's a good decision, but "progressive" state governments will fight it.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/21/electoral-college-members-not-b...

In a nutshell:

DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2785
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #36 - Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:56am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:44am:
This will go to SCOTUS. It's a good decision, but "progressive" state governments will fight it.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/21/electoral-college-members-not-b...

In a nutshell:

DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

Nice, they made a ruling that is clearly correct.

Simple fix for the SCOTUS that would defang the SCOTUS as a political issue and let folks vote for a POTUS for some other reason.  Congress can right a law, ideally an amendment but only to make difficult to change latter rather constitutional need, that says, "Their shall be 9 justices on the supreme court, each shall serve an 18 year term.  A new justice shall be appointed every two years to replace the longest sitting justice starting in 202#"
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #37 - Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:59pm
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:56am:
Nice, they made a ruling that is clearly correct.

Simple fix for the SCOTUS that would defang the SCOTUS as a political issue and let folks vote for a POTUS for some other reason.  Congress can right a law, ideally an amendment but only to make difficult to change latter rather constitutional need, that says, "Their shall be 9 justices on the supreme court, each shall serve an 18 year term.  A new justice shall be appointed every two years to replace the longest sitting justice starting in 202#"
That would require amending the Constitution.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2785
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #38 - Aug 23rd, 2019 at 2:48pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:59pm:
That would require amending the Constitution.

I do not believe it would.  All the constitution says about the courts is there there shall be a SCOTUS and other courts and that judges shall old office under good behavior. 

I think its a bit of a stretch to think that means they can't have legislatively determined terms. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50566
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #39 - Aug 23rd, 2019 at 4:08pm
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 2:48pm:
I do not believe it would.  All the constitution says about the courts is there there shall be a SCOTUS and other courts and that judges shall old office under good behavior. 
An office under the "good behavior" rule is a lifetime appointment for almost all judges and justices, no matter how badly they act in office...

Congress is at fault for allowing bad judges to stay in office. So is the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

It's not something that can be changed by legislation.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy