Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes on at 87
- Thread starter 76-1
- Start date
Trump has already said he wants his new pick on the Court to deal with the election. So yeah.
I don't have much imagination.
That should be one of the first questions asked in her hearing.
I'd ask her in the private meetings beforehand. And if she equivocates at all, then bust her on it in the public hearings.
They also need to press her on recusal if the election outcome ends up before the Court.
she's squeaky clean and uber smart. Fing with her over any of this is silliness. and to the victor go the spoils blah blah blah but without giving it much thought the system does seem kind of F'd up. and i get that it's the constitution but people today live a really long time. to have american jurisprudence touch the lives of over three hundred million people be predicated on the vagaries of the mortality of 9 people and who's in office at the time might be worth reconsidering. lifetime appointments for feds might not be a great idea anymore.
He hasn’t exactly been great at character assessment, consider the number of his people in jail, writing books, and leaking.
When has Trump ever done anything that wasn’t in his own self interest. He made it very clear he’d need 9 justices in case he needs to contest the election. In other words, if he loses.
Seems to me all we need to do is pass a law making senior status mandatory rather than optional. If senior status is indeed constitutional (an open question, but one I really doubt the courts would answer in the negative), then there should be no problem with making it mandatory through a simple statute.
Certainly worth considering and as you wrote potentially simple to implement
So you believe ACB to be a pawn? A clueless female pawn?
It must make you mad to see an attractive, confident, intelligent female Conservative nominated to the highest court in the land.
That and the fact that she’s practically a saint. How many underprivileged kids have you adopted and given a better life? Or do you just talk the talk, and not walk the walk?
That’s really gross Zeke.
The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale, explained
They’re not actually connected. But the story spread anyway.
www.google.com
You’re willing to slander a fellow woman just because she is conservative and has found a voice outside a message board.
I would venture to say that neither does a woman that has been as successful as she has been. Maybe you should lend some perspective by giving some examples of how she has acted while teaching or sitting that support your claim...
What is the SCOTUS problem that ending lifetime appointments would fix? Sounds to me that this issue is a reaction to an anecdote, similar to “defund the police”.
I’m not endorsing lifetime tenure, I just think ending it is not a solution to any specific problem. I haven’t noticed many, if any, federal judges, at any level, serving when they are not able.
i'd have to give it more thought CO. a few things that really for me have nothing to do with trump. i think just the capriciousness of when they're chosen; the notion of an 87 year old still on the bench; the life expectancy being what it is having a handful of people dictate interpretation for what could be thirty or even forty years. it's not a specific question it's a general feeling. and as for the partisanship i'm not up to speed on historical voting patterns so my concern, for lack of a better word, isn't motivated by justice bias.
Fair enough. I’ve always thought that we should have some kind of judicial nominating commission(s) who give POTUS 3 choices for each vacancy. Vetting is done behind the scenes instead of Making a spectacle of it in the senate. If we can minimize politics with selection, lifetime appointments may not matter as much.
Here is a question for the originalists. Where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court gain the power to declare a law unconstitutional? In the plain English of the document, what precise words gives the Supreme Court said power?
Or does that power originate from a Supreme Court decision? If so, an originalist should never strike down a law as unconstitutional.
Or does that power originate from a Supreme Court decision? If so, an originalist should never strike down a law as unconstitutional.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...b-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html?outputType=amp Sorry you find the truth gross. Your link proved nothing. I never said it was based on the book. Her group has used the term Handmaid’s for women. How is that slander? How is the truth gross? I don’t care if it’s a woman or a man trying to take rights away.That’s really gross Zeke.
The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale, explained
They’re not actually connected. But the story spread anyway.
You’re willing to slander a fellow woman just because she is conservative and has found a voice outside a message board.
I believe you’re referring to the Marbury vs Madison decision.
Correct, but that is a court decision and is found absolutely nowhere in the Constitution. So if one takes a plain reading of the Constitution as their base doctrine in life, under what authority do they find something unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be like an atheist saying something violated The Bible?
I’m glad you brought the bible into the discussion. Please correct me if I’m wrong but I think I know what you’re getting at here and it’s that originalists are only originalists when it fits their beliefs. Same with the bible and fundamentalists. Even self proclaimed fundamentalists will interpret the bible as needed/desired. That’s overly simplistic but I think that’s the most barebones argument you’re getting at.
Once again you are being excessively pugnacious for no purpose except to bitch at those with whom you disagree. The answer to your question is in the plain language of Article III: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, . . . ." Judicial power, both in the abstract and as defined by the constitution, includes the authority to decide whether laws are properly enacted. Marshall didn't create this power with Marbury, he simply recognized it.
The official website of the US Court system https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=The best-known power of,v. Madison (1803).:
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...lause-1/the-establishment-of-judicial-reviewl:Practically all of the framers who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation,730 and prior to Marbury the power seems very generally to have been assumed to exist by the Justices themselves.731 In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress explicitly provided for the exercise of the power,732 and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.733 Nonetheless, although judicial review is consistent with several provisions of the Constitution and the argument for its existence may be derived from them, these provisions do not compel the conclusion that the Framers intended judicial review nor that it must exist. It was Chief Justice Marshall’s achievement that, in doubtful circumstances and an awkward position, he carried the day for the device, which, though questioned, has expanded and become solidified at the core of constitutional jurisprudence.
Annenberg says it is "implied" https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/judicial-review/:The concept of judicial review was created during the founding of the United States and specifically included in the constitutional governments of some of the 13 original American states, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. Judicial review is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but most constitutional experts claim that it is implied in Articles III and VI of the document.
Article III says that the federal judiciary has power to make judgments in all cases pertaining to the Constitution, statutes, and treaties of the United States. Article VI implies that the judicial power of the federal courts of law must be used to protect and defend the supreme authority of the Constitution against acts in government that violate or contradict it.
Article VI says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Sates which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
From the US Supreme Court website https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx:
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
I'll respond with a war story.
Years ago a town in the county I represented passed an urban renewal plan that materially adversely affected future ad valorem tax revenue we would receive. We filed suit challenging the URA. The problem is, based upon prior court rulings, and the wording of relevant statutes, we had no standing. Moreover based upon the case law and statute, nobody had standing. Of course that didn't stop me. For the first and only time in my career I mounted a full frontal assault on the case law and said it had to be reversed. The basis of my argument was that inherent in the judicial power as defined in the Colorado Constitution (and US Constitution) is judicial review. So long as the constitution provides for a judicial department in the terms given, judicial review is inherent and inalienable; unless there is a change to the constitution.
There isn't much authority on the subject. I recall consulting with Buzz123 about my ideas as well as another law professor friend. I wrote a helluva brief on the subject. I lost in the trial court because the trial judge was bound by the existing law. I filed an appeal. The case was settled mostly in our favor because the town was anxious to sell bonds which our litigation was holding up. So the issue was never decided at the appellate level. But we left a mark. The relevant legislation was changed to address some of my concerns.
As with any legal opinion, legal scholars differ. But I remain convinced that judicial review is inherent in the design of the Colorado and Federal Constitution and is not merely a result of judicial interpretation. FWIW, Congress has authority to monkey around with federal jurisdiction of lower courts which could change judicial review in some circumstances. SCOTUS is different, it is a constitutional body with inherent power of judicial review.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Omitting key details and behaving unethically in relation to the Kavanaugh story isn't new for NYT's Kate Kelly
She already got rewarded with a book deal for it.
Any two of us can get along perfectly. THEY just don't want ALL of us getting along. It would kill THEIR cash flow.
Hell, outside of us being guided like sheep, I bet a few drinks and a couple weekend trips, Zeke and I could parent a love chil........ ahhahaha
Ah who the hell am I kidding?
Zeke would need a lot more than a few drinks.
Politicians, media, social media is how I took it. Not Dems or Pubs specifically. One party is no better than the other in wanting divisiveness.
