Again, People Should Not Have Knee-Jerk Responses to the Supreme Court

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm thinking that 18 was picked for a reason...that reason being it allows them to flip it to a liberal majority, and still gives Kagan and Sotomayor another 3-4 years which means that even if Trump won, he wouldn't be able to replace them until his term was almost over.

Biden said nothing about the term limits applying to the current justices, and I think that would be unreasonable - for the very reasons you gave. I would expect term limits to take effect for all new appointments moving forward.

 

[Pommer]

Because the Supreme Court is tasked with determining if a law is constitutional.

One of us might not be taking the facts on hand into consideration.
SCOTUS would be acting as Judge of itself should Congress pass a law aimed at the High Court but that the Court would rather not follow, (they’d be a party to the case they’re weighing). This is untenable. And would (needlessly) create a Constitutional Crisis.

 

[rjs330]

make that statement not because I don't like the ruling, but because I think (and virtually every legal scholar I've seen weigh in agrees) that the reasoning is unsound and flies in the face of precedent.

Those legal scholars probably were a bunch of liberals and precedent needs to be overturned sometimes. Just because there is a precedent doesn't mean it was correct.

Roe wasn't political and many legal scholars have said it was bad law. See how that works?

 

[Truth7t7]

He’s “losing money” being President?
Sure, sure.

NBC​

Barack Obama's billionaire backers​

Ever since he ran for the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has had a wealth of 10-figure tycoons advising — and funding — him.

Jan 20, 2009
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, right, endorsed Barack Obama last fall and is currently a technology adviser in his transition team. Schmidt and Google co-founder Larry Page have each contributed $25,000 to the inauguration events.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not only does Congress have binding ethics rules (Mr. Santos was expelled this Congress), but the members are clearly chargeable with crimes. All we need to do is look at the conviction *THIS MONTH* of (soon to be former) Sen. Menendez. What do you think would happen if the DOJ charged a Supreme court justice with taking bribes?

Or evading income taxes...

 

[DaisyDay]

The branches aren't equal. The Judiciary is the weakest of the branches with the least power. They can only decide cases before them.

That used to be true, but wasn't the case of the web designer who didn't want to design for gay weddings a bit different in that there never was a case? There was no gay would be customer. No one sued them, no damages happened - yet the supreme court heard the case.

Supreme Court rules for Christian designer in gay rights case

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

www.pbs.org

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

newrepublic.com

 

[rjs330]

And in those grey areas, the rulings do seem to be more influenced by politics lately, rather than sound legal arguments.

I don't know about lately. I think it's been going on for sometime.

 

[RDKirk]

While I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying here, in some ways, we've stepped beyond the bounds of "reasonable scenarios". The point is that an argument could be made that killing a political rival is an official act. It would require some convoluted reasoning and a friendly court, but that's the exact scenario we're seeing play out in Florida right now (the convoluted reasoning with a friendly court, not the political assassination).

And, let me be clear, I don't think that we're at a point now where this could happen. But we seem to be moving in that direction with the polarization of politics, the ramping up of doomsday rhetoric when it comes to political candidates, and the growing bias seen in the courts. I worry that this Supreme Court decision just opens the door wider, and I don't see what purpose it serves other than protecting Trump.

Give me an example of an unreasonable scenario, and we'll discuss it.

 

[Pommer]

NBC​

Barack Obama's billionaire backers​

Ever since he ran for the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has had a wealth of 10-figure tycoons advising — and funding — him.

Jan 20, 2009
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, right, endorsed Barack Obama last fall and is currently a technology adviser in his transition team. Schmidt and Google co-founder Larry Page have each contributed $25,000 to the inauguration events.

Only Hillary & Michelle are eligible to run for POTUS, which one were you suggesting was going to attempt that?

 

[civilwarbuff]

It is amusing seeing these old talking points trotted out even though the candidate they target is no longer in the running. Shows how powerful right wing programming is in generating irrelevant knee jerk reactions when inconvenient facts are brought up about Trump.

Last time I checked (and correct me if I am wrong) Biden is still the president.

From post #44: I can agree that he will “make a difference“, with the nature of that difference being DJT gets his cut, right off the top.

Maybe you can enlighten all of us here as what "facts" are being brought up about DJT? I don't see any; do you?.....or are you just reading fiction into every comment now?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That used to be true, but wasn't the case of the web designer who didn't want to design for gay weddings a bit different in that there never was a case? There was no gay would be customer. No one sued them, no damages happened - yet the supreme court heard the case.

This is exactly the case that came to mind first when I thought of an out of control USSC becoming an unaccountable super legislature whenever it suits them. They need to be brought to account.

Supreme Court rules for Christian designer in gay rights case

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

www.pbs.org

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

newrepublic.com

 

[JSRG]

That used to be true, but wasn't the case of the web designer who didn't want to design for gay weddings a bit different in that there never was a case? There was no gay would be customer. No one sued them, no damages happened - yet the supreme court heard the case.

Hearing cases before any lawsuit or damages occurs occurs in various cases; they're called (I believe) pre-enforcement challenges. In the case of an argument about whether a law is unconstitutional, a pre-enforcement challenge is you saying unconstitutional law is preventing you from doing what you want, and needs to be struck down so you can do it. There are, of course, various restrictions on pre-enforcement challenges, but there is nothing wrong with bringing a challenge to a law before there is any lawsuit or damages. The ability to have pre-enforcement challenges is actually really important, because otherwise the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional would be to break it and hope to heck that the appeals court agrees it's unconstitutional, because otherwise you'd have to suffer any penalties for breaking it.

Supreme Court rules for Christian designer in gay rights case

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

www.pbs.org

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

newrepublic.com

So the second link does refer to something that happened in that case, which is that it was claimed (as evidence that someone wanting her to make a gay wedding website, meaning it wasn't just a hypothetical it could happen) that someone did contact her about it and wanted a website made for a gay wedding. Much later on, after it had gone to the Supreme Court and arguments had been done, a reporter looked into the legal documents and thought to contact the person, as their contact information had been given... apparently no lawyer on either side had bothered to. Anyway, the reporter discovered that the person who supposedly contacted them about it turned out to not be gay and to have had no knowledge whatsoever about making such a request. This information only came out very last-minute, literally the day before the opinion was issued. Where the request came from is unclear; there have been accusations that it was made up by the plaintiff or her lawyers, but I think it's more likely that it was just some troll who had noticed the case and gave someone else's contact information.

But this ultimately doesn't really have an impact on the case. The case had gotten started in the courts before it was ever received or mentioned in any court filing, and its existence didn't really change anything in the Supreme Court opinion. It was really just a minor piece of evidence.

 

[DaisyDay]

Is that before or after Donald Trump gives his presidential paycheck away to charity?

It never went to charity. The annual paycheck is less than half a million, but Donald received multi-millions from foreign states while serving as president.

 

[Truth7t7]

It never went to charity. The annual paycheck is less than half a million, but Donald received multi-millions from foreign states while serving as president.

Of course Donald J. Trump charitably gave his presendential paycheck to various causes​

​

Snopes​

Where Did President Trump Donate His Salary?​

A list of announced recipients of U.S. President Donald Trump’s donated paychecks since January 2017.​

Trump has repeatedly followed up on his pledge to donate his presidential salary. The following list documents what government projects or departments have been chosen to benefit from Trump’s quarterly paychecks so far:

 

[DaisyDay]

Of course Donald J. Trump charitably gave his presendential paycheck to various causes

I see what you did there - you switched "gave to charity" to "charitably gave".

Snopes
Where Did President Trump Donate His Salary?
A list of announced recipients of U.S. President Donald Trump’s donated paychecks since January 2017.

Trump has repeatedly followed up on his pledge to donate his presidential salary. The following list documents what government projects or departments have been chosen to benefit from Trump’s quarterly paychecks so far:***

Do you think governmental agencies are charities? I don't.

People are saying that by not keeping his salary, he believed the Emoluments Clause would be nullified. As it happens, the Trump family did receive millions upon millions from foreign states. Did he give up the rent monies from the Trump Tower letting entire floors and luxury suites to foreign governments? Why did his daughter receive patents and trademarks from China when she was visiting with her father, the president, on official business - that is shady as heck?

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/exclusive-foreign-government-leases-at-trump-world-tower-stir-more-emoluments-c-idUSKCN1S80PO/

*** The actual list seems to have gone missing

 

[Truth7t7]

I see what you did there - you switched "gave to charity" to "charitably gave".


Do you think governmental agencies are charities? I don't.

People are saying that by not keeping his salary, he believed the Emoluments Clause would be nullified. As it happens, the Trump family did receive millions upon millions from foreign states. Did he give up the rent monies from the Trump Tower letting entire floors and luxury suites to foreign governments? Why did his daughter receive patents and trademarks from China when she was visiting with her father, the president, on official business - that is shady as heck?

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/exclusive-foreign-government-leases-at-trump-world-tower-stir-more-emoluments-c-idUSKCN1S80PO/

*** The actual list seems to have gone missing

Yes Donald J. Trump charitably gave away his presidential paychecks

 

[civilwarbuff]

It never went to charity. The annual paycheck is less than half a million, but Donald received multi-millions from foreign states while serving as president.

And you evidence of that is.......?

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes Donald J. Trump charitably gave away his presidential paychecks

Except the last one. And he got back so much more than he gave away.

 

[DaisyDay]

And you evidence of that is.......?

https://www.reuters.com/article/wor...d-tower-stir-more-emoluments-c-idUSKCN1S80PO/ .

 

[civilwarbuff]

People are saying that by not keeping his salary, he believed the Emoluments Clause would be nullified. As it happens, the Trump family did receive millions upon millions from foreign states.

One more time.....your evidence......? besides 'people are saying'......

Did he give up the rent monies from the Trump Tower letting entire floors and luxury suites to foreign governments?

Would you?