Supreme Court
Re: Supreme Court
It’s a statement. A government by the people for the people. A million people were willing to sign that petition expressing their displeasure in his actions.
Re: Supreme Court
Did a million people really sign it? I honestly find that doubtful. A million people is quite a lot of people. I suspect somebody wrote some kind of astroturfing script that submitted lots of fake signatures or something. I'm not saying that there aren't a bunch of people who are mad at Clarence Thomas. But a million just seems farfetched.
Re: Supreme Court
And even if they did, it is less than one third or one percent of the population where he presides.
Re: Supreme Court
Then I guess people are ok with the Supreme Court decision and I can accept that.
Re: Supreme Court
lol not what I was saying. but internet petitions usually don't hold any weight. we would have to make sitting members of congress fear for reelection if they didn't take actions on this. And unfortunately 65% or so are nearly guaranteed to win their next election, or are far enough away from their election where it won't matter.
Re: Supreme Court
They never actually investigated Kavanaugh. They just gathered up some messages, forwarded them to the WH, and then were told to look no further.
Re: Supreme Court
"I play as physical as it gets. Maybe I am playing too hard." - Deandre Ayton
“If you went into a lab and wanted to construct a starting five, this is what it’s going to look like. This is as good as it gets…” - Tim Legler
“If you went into a lab and wanted to construct a starting five, this is what it’s going to look like. This is as good as it gets…” - Tim Legler
Re: Supreme Court
I love Al Franken. Sad that he got canceled and is no longer there to talk sense into any of these people.
Re: Supreme Court
An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars
https://dnyuz.com/2022/12/19/an-imperia ... -scholars/
“It is a court that is consolidating its power, systematically undercutting any branch of government, federal or state, that might threaten that power, while at the same time undercutting individual rights.”
Justice Elena Kagan noted the majority’s imperial impulses in a dissent from a decision in June that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address climate change.
“The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy,” she wrote. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
“there are increasingly frequent indications that the court is establishing a position of judicial supremacy over the president and Congress.”
Nor does the Supreme Court seem to trust lower federal courts. It has, for instance, made a habit of hearing cases before federal appeals courts have ruled on them, using a procedure called “certiorari before judgment.” It used to be reserved for exceptional cases like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor or President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry.
Before 2019, the court had not used the procedure for 15 years, according to statistics compiled by Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Since then, he found, the court has used it 19 times.
The court has been, “increasingly setting aside legally significant decisions from the lower courts as if they had never happened, invalidating them in brief procedural orders.”
“The Roberts court, more than any other court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to select cases that allow it to revisit and overrule precedent,”
https://dnyuz.com/2022/12/19/an-imperia ... -scholars/
“It is a court that is consolidating its power, systematically undercutting any branch of government, federal or state, that might threaten that power, while at the same time undercutting individual rights.”
Justice Elena Kagan noted the majority’s imperial impulses in a dissent from a decision in June that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address climate change.
“The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy,” she wrote. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
“there are increasingly frequent indications that the court is establishing a position of judicial supremacy over the president and Congress.”
Nor does the Supreme Court seem to trust lower federal courts. It has, for instance, made a habit of hearing cases before federal appeals courts have ruled on them, using a procedure called “certiorari before judgment.” It used to be reserved for exceptional cases like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor or President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry.
Before 2019, the court had not used the procedure for 15 years, according to statistics compiled by Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Since then, he found, the court has used it 19 times.
The court has been, “increasingly setting aside legally significant decisions from the lower courts as if they had never happened, invalidating them in brief procedural orders.”
“The Roberts court, more than any other court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to select cases that allow it to revisit and overrule precedent,”