5 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

SOP refers to Congress and the Presidency...not really the Supreme Court, as its members are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. So the court is really a creature, by necessity, of the other two branches. The justices can also be removed by Congress, so again not completely independent, whereas the justices cannot on their own remove a member of Congress or the president. It's also the only branch of the federal government which doesn't derive its power from the people.

That would be your own highly idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution.  The Congress explicitly has the power to regulate the courts including the Supreme Court.  

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You misread the Constitution.  The proposed Supreme Appellate Court would be above the various district courts of appeals as just another layer of appeals courts the creation of which is left entirely to the Congress under the Constitution.  The new SAC would not be superior to the current Supreme Court since it would not have jusrisdiction over any cases to which the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction.  It would be superior to the district and appellate courts.  It could equally be called the Superior Appellate Court of the United States to avoid confusion.

 

The key provision is that the Exceptions Clause allows the Congress to strip away appellate jurisdictions that the Supreme Court now holds.  The Exceptions Clause of the US Consitution, Art. III, § 2, Cl 2, provides, “…the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make..."   So, the Congress can itemize the exceptions, i.e. the appellate jurisdictions no longer held by the SC, e.g. Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction over cases involving civil rights, interstate commerce, maritime law, reproductive rights, etc.  

 

The other important point is that Congress can at the same time deprive the Court of the power to overturn any law passed by the democratically-elected Congress, a power that does not exist in the Constitution and which John Marshall created out of whole cloth in 1803.

As I said, my reply was premised on the  proposed Appelate Supreme Court being superior to the Supreme Court. I misunderstood your proposal...if it isn't, then it would be ok.

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

That would be your own highly idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution.  The Congress explicitly has the power to regulate the courts including the Supreme Court.  

My post was in reference to a members comments re the separation of powers doctrine...not Congress's power to regulate the federal judiciary. 

Obamacare:  the raping of the American people on behalf of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies.  And if you were too poor to pay your new sky high premiums?  get fined $2000 by the IRS.

Please tell me how that was for the working class?

If the eyes are anything to go by it might be a scary ride. 

38 minutes ago, Dart12 said:

Obamacare:  the raping of the American people on behalf of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies.  And if you were too poor to pay your new sky high premiums?  get fined $2000 by the IRS.

Please tell me how that was for the working class?

If it's raping of the American people, kindly offer your view as to why majority support Obamacare. 62% support ACA including 85% Dems and 36% Reps. 

https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/29/obamacare-support-polling-supreme-court/

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

1 hour ago, Psimbo said:

Right wing religious zealot appointed- Trumpetts  on here almost cream their jeans. Set your watches back 50 years folks.

Pretty much what most republicans want. Zero gay rights. No rights for minorities. The women’s place is in the kitchen and she should only speak when spoken too.

23 minutes ago, Throatwobbler said:

Pretty much what most republicans want. Zero gay rights. No rights for minorities. The women’s place is in the kitchen and she should only speak when spoken too.

Such nice beliefs you have, and painting not all but most Republicans with the same broad stroke of your brush...Wow. Glad you have polled all republicans.

4 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Democrat Party started the "judicial wars" 30 years ago by not seating Robert Bork on the Supreme Court...the Republican Party ended them by seating Amy Barrett. The moral: Don't start something you can't finish.

 

What makes you thing these 'judicial wars' (as you put it) are finished? Isn't one of the major 'issues' raised by Trump supporters the possibility of the Democrats stacking the SC?

4 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

I see you have already made the forgone conclusion that she alone will make laws on the books disappear and take away rights and freedoms.  Why do people believe that one person alone can make things happen.  Even with a conservative majority it does not mean that laws and statutes that people believe will be changed will occur.  That in itself is just more scaremongering, and is what the Dems are pushing as an agenda and creating more hatred.  Until the day the arguments come before the High Court we will never know.  Sort of like all those that believed Kavanaugh would vote one way, but then he did not.

 

I don't think anyone believes she could single-handedly be able to change anything major. The issue is more to do with the increased conservative majority in the SC. With a 4-5 roster, there's room for surprises, with 3-6 less so. 

1 hour ago, Throatwobbler said:

Pretty much what most republicans want. Zero gay rights. No rights for minorities. The women’s place is in the kitchen and she should only speak when spoken too.

 

You mean they agreed to put a woman in the SC only after verifying she's a member of a cult where women are subservient to men?

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

Such nice beliefs you have, and painting not all but most Republicans with the same broad stroke of your brush...Wow. Glad you have polled all republicans.

I think it's called "projection."

To interpret the law without fear or favor, and putting ones own personal views aside is how rulings are made.  They are made with judicious review and a complete writ of why and what makes the ruling stand.  Very few of the cases heard by SCOTUS have been set aside by them.  Some have been modified by new legislation which makes a review of a previously heard and ruled on case needing to be revisited and modified. The US Supreme Court has rarely overturned its own precedents, only having done so approximately 236 times during its 231 years of existence.  To undertake a priorly ruled upon case is not done without a total review of the case as it was presented back when it was initially ruled upon, but a complex review of any legislative changes made which would either invalidate or possibly change a portion of that ruling.

 It was good to see her sworn in by Justice Thomas too! 

 

Terrific day for America! ???? 

6 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

 

 

52 to 48 = "nearly" ?  Definitely a Reuters article. 

Yes nearly

 One repub voted with the dems.

4 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

4 hours ago, Dart12 said:

Obamacare:  the raping of the American people on behalf of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies.  And if you were too poor to pay your new sky high premiums?  get fined $2000 by the IRS.

Please tell me how that was for the working class?

If it's raping of the American people, kindly offer your view as to why majority support Obamacare. 62% support ACA including 85% Dems and 36% Reps. 

https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/29/obamacare-support-polling-supreme-court/

Maybe they were stupid and didn't understand it?

 

ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

 

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans knows no bounds and is simply appalling. 

31 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

The hypocrisy of the Republicans knows no bounds and is simply appalling. 

Lies and deciept run on both sides of the aisle. 4 years is 4 years.  No matter who is in office they are not a lame duck the last year before a re-election year.  Maybe a lame duck in year 8 like Obama was, and of course they believed Hilary would be President.  Whatever, is said is always quickly forgotten when it does not affect anyone, but when you believe your being disenfranchised then suddenly you remember conversations from many years before so that it suits your agenda.

Looking at it from Graham's and McConnell perspective 

Graham came at the acceptance  of her two fold. One was as a constitutional  originalist, which many conservatives agree . The other approach was revenge and spite for how they treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation !

 

Mitch had a similar approach but took the controversy of him as leader of the senate denying obamas choice while explaining ,the senate and the executive branch at that time weren't of the same political  party!

 

And know today they are, with Mr. Trump and the Senate Gop in majority!

 

I think she was the best choice out of the 3 Mr. Trump nominated! 

Good for you Mr. President ,America knows what you stand for ,I can't say the same of the radical left!

 

 

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Maybe they were stupid and didn't understand it?

 

ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

 

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

I seem to recall you getting awfully upset about people referring to

others as stupid.

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Looking at it from Graham's and McConnell perspective 

Graham came at the acceptance  of her two fold. One was as a constitutional  originalist, which many conservatives agree . The other approach was revenge and spite for how they treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation !

 

Mitch had a similar approach but took the controversy of him as leader of the senate denying obamas choice while explaining ,the senate and the executive branch at that time weren't of the same political  party!

 

And know today they are, with Mr. Trump and the Senate Gop in majority!

 

I think she was the best choice out of the 3 Mr. Trump nominated! 

Good for you Mr. President !

 

 

Kavanaugh isn’t done yet.

Let the hand-wringing and court-packing begin.  "Release the hounds!!!"

36 minutes ago, riclag said:

Looking at it from Graham's and McConnell perspective 

Graham came at the acceptance  of her two fold. One was as a constitutional  originalist, which many conservatives agree . The other approach was revenge and spite for how they treated Kavanaugh during his confirmation !

 

Mitch had a similar approach but took the controversy of him as leader of the senate denying obamas choice while explaining ,the senate and the executive branch at that time weren't of the same political  party!

 

And know today they are, with Mr. Trump and the Senate Gop in majority!

 

I think she was the best choice out of the 3 Mr. Trump nominated! 

Good for you Mr. President ,America knows what you stand for ,I can't say the same of the radical left!

 

 

Absolutely!

And it's going to be 4 more years for Trump and 4 decades for ACB.  ????

Now that the supreme court is packed with conservative judges, will they push their political activism agenda and ban prostitution, alcohol, gay marriages. Geez that will be almost like the sharia law. That's not very progressive.

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Maybe they were stupid and didn't understand it?

 

ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

 

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

I seem to recall you getting awfully upset about people referring to

others as stupid.

I'm obviously using Jonathan Gruber's infamous description since it was Obama's guy who believed American voters are stupid.  By all means go ahead and completely bastardize my post and make it appear that I'm calling the American voter stupid.  So typical.

Warning to ever-trumpers: 

Chuck is coming for you. First say bye-bye to the filibuster then hello to an expanded SC. Hopefully we will be able to greet Justices Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley just to see the faces of the trump base!????

 

''You will never, never get your credibility back': Schumer warns GOP that they have no right to tell Democrats how to run things when they're the majority after Barrett's confirmation'

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Now that the supreme court is packed with conservative judges, will they push their political activism agenda and ban prostitution, alcohol, gay marriages. Geez that will be almost like the sharia law. That's not very progressive.

TV needs to add a "roll the eyes" emoji.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

TV needs to add a "roll the eyes" emoji.

I share your disdain and frustration. America you got what you want to regress courtesy of Trump.

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Warning to ever-trumpers: 

Chuck is coming for you. First say bye-bye to the filibuster then hello to an expanded SC. Hopefully we will be able to greet Justices Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley just to see the faces of the trump base!????

 

''You will never, never get your credibility back': Schumer warns GOP that they have no right to tell Democrats how to run things when they're the majority after Barrett's confirmation'

I don't get Schumer's statement.  The Democrats have never granted the Republicans credibility so how can Schumer and the Dems give something back that was never given in the first place.  Makes no sense.

 

 

People say this is a big victory for Trump. You could argue otherwise as :

Trump has no personal stake except to win the election. You think he really believes in the ideas of a fundamentalist right wing Christian who believes the opposite of Trump. He probably believes in nothing except himself; and

Trump may win a few votes amongst conservatives  but he  may have energised a part of the populace who, though they may think she is nice, sincere and intelligent in a certain way, don't want to live by 19th or 10th century rules and standards and ideas  in the 21st century.