• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Deacfreak07 said:
lol

Why would he have a problem with it? Junebug has been pretty honest about his desire for a conservative court above all else since RJ’s rib gave birth to this site.
Click to expand...

Just laying bare the flexibility of Jbugs, supposed, principles.
 
Junebug said:
What? The principle is that when the country is divided, as evidenced by split control of the Senate and Presidency, the Senate should wait to confirm a SCOTUS nominee in the presidential election year until after the inauguration.

At least that’s what I understood Biden / Schumer to have meant.

Surely you aren’t implying that Biden / Schumer were playing politics ? ! ?
Click to expand...

But they didn't do it. No one has done before McConnell, but don't let history get in your way.
 
it's not the Senate's job to determine if they like a candidate or not, just to affirm the President's selection is fit for the position. and yes, Kavanaugh fit under this.
 
Junebug said:
Are you upset that the non-delegation doctrine may be coming back to life?

That the SCOTUS may be overturning an old holding?

That conservatives are leading the charge?

Or is this just faux outrage as a way to put pressure on the Court to refrain from overruling Roe?

Don’t you agree that stare decicis is at its weakest in constitutional cases?
Click to expand...

Pretty clear I'm upset about the false notion that it's liberal judges who are activist and not conservatives judges. I don't agree that stare decisis is at its weakest in constitutional cases - I would think a conservative judge would agree, but not anymore apparently. I would say it is incredibly activist to try to blow up our entire administrative state. It's not faux outrage, just more evidence that conservatives, as usual, are hypocrites and full of shit.
 
Junebug said:
So what? They said they would do it. The situation just never came up.

There is no high ground when it comes to judicial nominations.
Click to expand...

WHATABOUTISM

WHATABOUTISM

Rather than historical fact...
 
Junebug said:
So what? They said they would do it. The situation just never came up.

There is no high ground when it comes to judicial nominations.
Click to expand...
You are just making stuff up. McConnell would be proud.
 
Junebug said:
You know that the ACLU wrote an amicus brief asking the Court to strike the statute at issue down, right? The case was about the AG’s ability to create crimes. Gorsuch would have held that Congress cannot delegate that function to the AG.
It’s not about dismantling the administrative state. It’s about making sure that Congress provides direction so the agencies aren’t operating without oversight or accountability.

There’s nothing “activist” about it.
Click to expand...

You do know that I am not talking about the statute at issue, right? I would think someone as conceited as you would understand that I am talking Alito saying that “if a majority of this Court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort.”” Good ol' rapey Kavanaugh wasn't there when this case was heard, so they didn't have the majority, and they will now. Are you being dense or intentionally disingenuous?
 
The SC overturning the Curtis Flowers murder conviction was a great decision by them as that was some serious racist bullshit down in Mississippi. The prosecutor on that case, or six cases I should say, should be disbarred for his complete and total disregard for the law in addition to just being a racist ass clown.
 
Junebug said:
So what? They said they would do it. The situation just never came up.

There is no high ground when it comes to judicial nominations.
Click to expand...

We are saying there should be and it shouldn’t be defended when there isn’t.
 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/supre...erts-isnt-the-conservative-you-thought-he-was

Today, the court, including Chief Justice Roberts, took a much more robust line. Justice Kagan noted that Auer was rooted in a “long line of precedents” and that “adherence to precedent is ‘a foundation stone of the rule of law.’”

If this approach to stare decisis, rather than Justice Thomas’, is applied to the long line of cases beginning with Roe v. Wade, it would lead to upholding the right to abortion.

Imagine how angry conservatives will be with Chief Justice Roberts then.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top