Reply With Quote
No he contributed that chart that one time.
That's a harsh thing to say about TP.
No he contributed that chart that one time.
Try it on, see how it fits.
How is this any different from those PEACEFUL protests no one on the left complains about? If people want to protest or go to church, it should be their choice.
SOCTUS conservatives want churchgoers to die.
People who protest face consequences for breaking the law, why should it be different for anyone else?
sidebar: SCOTUS reform
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/...ointments.htmlDon't Pack the Court. Regularize Appointments.
The basic idea is this: The President appoints a new Justice in every odd-numbered year. Congress creates two en banc courts: The first is an en banc court for deciding cases under the Court's original jurisdiction, consisting of all the active Justices. The second is an en banc court for deciding cases under the Court's appellate jurisdiction, consisting of the nine Justices most junior in service.
The more senior Justices retain life tenure and their salaries, and the Chief Justice remains the administrative head of the Judicial Branch of government. The more senior Justices remain on the Court to hear cases Justices involving the Court's original jurisdiction, to pinch-hit when a junior Justice is recused from the appellate en banc panel, to consider the mountain of pe ions for certiorari the Court receives every year, and to hear cases on the federal courts of appeals. The precedent for requiring Justices to "ride circuit"-- to hear cases in the lower federal courts-- goes back to the country's founding. The number of Justices deciding Supreme Court appeals always remains nine, but the composition of the appellate en banc panel changes every two years like clockwork.
Note that because the proposal simply creates two different en banc panels for original and appellate jurisdiction, and allocates duties of circuit riding, it is completely consistent with the commissions of existing Supreme Court Justices. Thus, it can be applied to existing Justices as well as to new ones. One might insist that this proposal does "pack" the court with respect to original jurisdiction, but for the most important cases, involving appellate jurisdiction, the number of Justices does not increase.
What does this approach mean in practice? Suppose we begin the new system in 2023. The most senior Justice, Clarence Thomas, would no longer regularly be on the appellate en banc panel as soon as the Senate confirmed the first new appointment. Two years later, in 2025, it would be Justice Stephen Breyer's turn, followed by Chief Justice John Roberts (who would remain administrative head of the federal judiciary), Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Sonia Sototmayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and so on.
There are no surprises. The date when a Justice leaves the appellate panel is fully predictable. There are always nine Justices to decide every appeal, and the Court is never short-handed as it was for a year after Justice Scalia's death. If a Justice dies or retires in the interim, we stock the vacancy from the pool of senior Justices, in reverse order of seniority, until the next regular appointment is made. There would be nothing that politicians could do to game the system, as Senator Mitch McConnell did in 2016.
In the new system, politicians no longer have incentives to nominate very young judges, because Justices' most important decisions will occur in their first 18 years of service. So if politicians want to influence the composition of the Court, the best way is to keep winning presidential elections. Each president gets two appointments, no more and no less. No president is shut out like Jimmy Carter. No president gets a windfall, like Warren Harding or Donald Trump.
The point of this system is to lower the stakes of judicial appointments, and to take egregious forms of cons utional hardball off the table. Politicians can still fight hard for judicial appointments. But the new rules would make it less likely that they will engage in cons utional hardball that will undermine confidence in our system of justice. If politicians of both parties understand that they are guaranteed two appointments every time their party wins the White House, and that the other party cannot gain any greater advantage, they are more likely to accept a system that promises stability and predictability.
Deep background: the Yellow Fever pandemic of 1793
The mayorMatthew Clarkson organized the city's response to the epidemic. Most of the Common Council members fled, along with 20,000 other residents. People who did not leave Philadelphia before the second week in September could leave the city only with great difficulty, and they faced road blocks, patrols, inspections and quarantines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1793_P...fever_epidemicAs the death toll in the city rose, officials in neighboring communities and major port cities such as New York and Baltimore established quarantines for refugees and goods from Philadelphia. New York established a "Committee appointed to prevent the spreading and introduction of infectious diseases in this city", which set up citizen patrols to monitor entry to the city. Stage coaches from Philadelphia were not allowed in many cities. Havre de Grace, Maryland, for example, tried to prevent people from Philadelphia from crossing the Susquehanna River to Maryland
Catholic freak cult member ACB enabling weaponization of "free expression".
We ain't seen nothing, yet.
The ed up Cons ution is now a Road To .
Also SCOTUS signals to Freedumbers that it approves personal rights as the first, supreme right, as a sociopathic bludgeon, before any, if any, social responsibility.
"I, John-Galt-wannabe, got my rights and I will YOU OVER (and your rights) with them."
Social responsibility for the common good, any love and respect for fellow humans, for the general welfare is predatory, USSR collectivist communism.
Goddamn, Capitalism as religion is as irrational, as ing crazy, as inhumane as nominal religion.
Because protesting outdoors is the same exact thing as sitting inside.
No they don't. And its not different. If you are scared, don't go. People don't have to live in fear like you
You're still reeling from Jussie.
Yeah, that Gorsuch opinion was vintage Fedsoc intellectual dishonesty a la Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder.
I was wrong about him being the swing vote, I think Kavanaugh will be. 5-4 decisions will basically depend on whether Roberts can convince Kavanaugh to make it so the Roberts Court isn't remembered as a 21st century version of the Lochner Era.
I think they at least should have put an age limit, maybe 60 or 65
An age limit on what, SCOTUS justices? If so I agree but 60-65 is way too low. Maybe 75 or 80, but I want a SCOTUS justice to be someone with decades of experience as a lawyer and/or judge.
IMO it should be 18 year terms, with each president getting a nomination in the 1st and 3rd year of a term, and with said nomination requiring no senate confirmation. If a justice steps down/dies before his/her term is over, some kind of special election for who gets to serve out the remainder of that justice's term.
Term limit maybe. Lol that you think 65 is old
No
Age limit on in-person church
Especially in the era of zoom/skype/webex church seminars
church age limits
Only until covid pandemic is fully resolved.
I'm not sure if you've heard, but anyone of any age can get covid
Oh yeah, age based religious discrimination would never be overturned by SCOTUS.
Get covid? Yes. Die of covid? Unlikely. For instance? Hundreds of pro athletes (20-45) have contracted it with a zero percent mortality rate.
Right, but I'm just saying for practical reasons even if unrealistic.
There’s no cons utionally plausible way that could work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
