Knock off the "National Injunctions" or whatever the legal term is.

That some loon in a place like Hawai'i can dictate whats going to happen, or not going to happen in Alaska is nuts.

Judge in hawaii says alaska can't drill. Judge in alaska says hawaii can't fish. K, then what?

Only nationally covered injunctions come from SCOTUS, that'd clean a lot of this mess right on up.

(07-10-2019 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census
Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.
We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.
Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

Unless of course Trump puts the question on the census anyway. I think there is a chance that might happen.

I think we need a law providing that 1) only the Supreme Court, and not lower courts, has the power to declare a law unconstitutional, or 2) no court can issue a ruling that applies outside its jurisdiction (district or circuit, as appropriate), or both. That would stop a lot of legislating from the bench.

You got it.

Minority really smacked the majority in census decision.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/15/joh...y-corrupt/

"...Thomas wrote:

For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency [Commerce Department] action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale…The Court’s holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions.

Unable to identify any legal problem with the Secretary’s reasoning, the Court imputes one by concluding that he must not be telling the truth. The Court therefore upholds the decision of the District Court—which, in turn, was transparently based on the application of an administration-specific standard.

This Court has never held an agency decision arbitrary and capricious [and therefore unlawful] on the ground that its supporting rationale was ‘pretextual.’ Nor has it previously suggested that this was even a possibility. (Emphasis mine.)

Supreme Court justices are not prone to toss around words like “unprecedented” lightly. That should tell the observer something about the handling of this case...."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a four-time cancer survivor, misses oral argument with stomach bug

Quote:Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral argument Wednesday because of a stomach illness, less than three months after completing treatment for her fourth bout with cancer.

Ginsburg, 86, was "indisposed," Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench. But he said she would participate in deciding the two cases argued Wednesday by reading briefs and the transcript of the oral argument.

So, will we get Amy Coney Barrett, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to help counteract Roberts?

(09-18-2020 07:54 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So, will we get Amy Coney Barrett, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to help counteract Roberts?

That is the trending pick. My Son in Law clerked for 2 Federal judges over a 4 years period....He says she has been the clear favorite for over a year in their circles. She has 7 kids..2 of which are adopted and she is a practicing Catholic...and only 48 yrs old.

(09-18-2020 08:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-18-2020 07:54 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So, will we get Amy Coney Barrett, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to help counteract Roberts?

That is the trending pick. My Son in Law clerked for 2 Federal judges over a 4 years period....He says she has been the clear favorite for over a year in their circles. She has 7 kids..2 of which are adopted and she is a practicing Catholic...and only 48 yrs old.

Most importantly is a Domer.

But did she get drunk and sexually assault some woman at a frat party years? We must believe all women!




**** Except the ones who accuse Biden

(09-18-2020 08:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-18-2020 07:54 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So, will we get Amy Coney Barrett, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to help counteract Roberts?

That is the trending pick. My Son in Law clerked for 2 Federal judges over a 4 years period....He says she has been the clear favorite for over a year in their circles. She has 7 kids..2 of which are adopted and she is a practicing Catholic...and only 48 yrs old.

She worked with Scalia, who is sorely missed by the Court and by this country.

(09-18-2020 08:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-18-2020 07:54 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  So, will we get Amy Coney Barrett, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to help counteract Roberts?

That is the trending pick. My Son in Law clerked for 2 Federal judges over a 4 years period....He says she has been the clear favorite for over a year in their circles. She has 7 kids..2 of which are adopted and she is a practicing Catholic...and only 48 yrs old.

After how the Kavanaugh nomination went I'd be shocked if Trump didn't nominate a woman this time around.

Imo the fact that Supreme Court politics inspire such passion out of everyone just goes to show how much the federal government and SCOTUS are far too powerful than they were intended (or should be).

(09-18-2020 08:21 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  But did she get drunk and sexually assault some woman at a frat party years? We must believe all women!




**** Except the ones who accuse Biden

CNN- Sources say Amy Coney Barret raped three men in 1992.

High quality meltdowns right here folks. A glimpse into the twisted minds of prog filth

https://www.democraticunderground.com

watching the biden feed

game over. this bumbling guy has no business being presiedtnt.

Recall that Ginsburg antagonized Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign in a series of media interviews, including calling him a faker.

revenge is a B.

Go Trump!

(09-18-2020 08:45 PM)EagleX Wrote:  watching the biden feed

Our President comments.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GretaLWall/st...0826641408

i would sacrifice the senate for this SCOTUS seat.

Amy Comey Barrett will almost certainly be the one to get the nod. She will be hard for anyone to ***** about rushing thru, because most members of this senate already vetted her a couple of years ago.

(07-10-2019 02:54 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 09:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...020-census
Roberts set a really dangerous precedent. Now any single random power hungry appointed for life judge can stop any administration policy. Roberts didn't rule the census question illegal, which it obviously wasn't since it has been used many times before, but he allowed the lower court judge to run out the clock.
We will see a lot more of these dictatorial unelected judges do these types of injunctions over the next year and a half. And President Trump's reelection may not stop this.
Its a very dangerous step that Roberts took trying to make a "minimalist conservative" ruling.

Unless of course Trump puts the question on the census anyway. I think there is a chance that might happen.

I think we need a law providing that 1) only the Supreme Court, and not lower courts, has the power to declare a law unconstitutional, or 2) no court can issue a ruling that applies outside its jurisdiction (district or circuit, as appropriate), or both. That would stop a lot of legislating from the bench.

You got it.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on that. Its just that some progressive judges like to ignore that.

(09-18-2020 08:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  i would sacrifice the senate for this SCOTUS seat.

Nope, as impeachment is tried in the Senate, and I have zero trust in the Blue team. Why not aspire to a truly better future, vice compromising before the battle begins. Win the House, keep the Senate, and hold the White House with a 5-4 majority of Conservative judges. That is THE GIFT we can give our children if we play the current hand dealt us properly.

(09-18-2020 08:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  i would sacrifice the senate for this SCOTUS seat.

I wouldn't. Unless abortion is the only issue that matters to you, that's a losing trade. And if dems take the senate, they will push to pack the court to offset te value of this one seat.

Think about it. We've gotten along for 27 years with a powerful justice who was only slightly to the right of Karl Marx in the seat. We can survive with whomever replaces her. A leftist majority senate and HOR can do mare damage tan a SCt justice can.