• 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

yeah, serving as a President's hatchet man when he is openly defying lawful orders/investigations to hide his criminal activities should be a disqualification to be a Supreme Court Justice in any normal ethical reality. It seems that junebug's principaled takes are very partisan in nature.
 
Last edited:
Biden gave a speech about a hypothetical opening in late June of an election year mooring his comments to a potential nomination occurring at the same time the two national conventions would be ongoing. He cited concern to the overt politicization of the confirmation process and believed it would be difficult to have a fair hearing in a polarized climate with the nominees recently selected. Biden also said that he would have no problem with a confirmation process of the president were to work with the senate or moderate their selection. Further Biden said he had no problem if Bush were to nominate someone after the election (whether or not his loss would have impacted the senate’s decision certainly open for debate - I presume it would have).

Garland was nominated over three months earlier in the election year than when Biden gave his speech and none of the other mentioned issues would have been an issue from a timing perspective. Garland was by all accounts a moderate selection was he not? He was not a Clarence Thomas selection which provided the concern for Biden.

An incredible hill for anyone to die on ascribing this “rule” to Biden.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Biden gave a speech about a hypothetical opening in late June of an election year mooring his comments to a potential nomination occurring at the same time the two national conventions would be ongoing. He cited concern to the overt politicization of the confirmation process and believed it would be difficult to have a fair hearing in a polarized climate with the nominees recently selected. Biden also said that he would have no problem with a confirmation process of the president were to work with the senate or moderate their selection. Further Biden said he had no problem if Bush were to nominate someone after the election (whether or not his loss would have impacted the senate’s decision certainly open for debate - I presume it would have).

Garland was nominated over three months earlier in the election year than when Biden gave his speech and none of the other mentioned issues would have been an issue from a timing perspective. Garland was by all accounts a moderate selection was he not? He was not a Clarence Thomas selection which provided the concern for Biden.

An incredible hill for anyone to die on ascribing this “rule” to Biden.
Click to expand...

Conservatives in 2019: No Hill too Incredible
 
While this conversation about nominations in an election year is riveting, we all know what will happen in 2020 if a seat comes open, so that's that and it doesn't matter.

Much more important is that the SCOTUS might be hearing a case that is quite clearly moot just to expand 2nd Amendment rights even further than Heller already did. I am actually interested to hear what Junebug, numbers, and (considerably less interested but nevertheless) others think. It's pretty clear to me that this is judicial activism at its most rampant, but I'm just a guy.
 
Seems clear to me as well that the case is moot. Not only did NYC change the law (which alone IMO would be enough to moot the issue) but the state decreased the power given to cities to pass these types of laws in the future. There are multiple cases directly on point regarding mootness, specifically Department of Treasury v. Galiato where the Supreme Court held that where Congress enacted a new statutory scheme subsequent to the District Court’s ruling the outstanding issues were rendered moot as the Court’s discussion of the underlying topics no longer existed.

This is not a case that is “capable of repetition yet evading review” as a case could come forward in the future where the state legislature and local government did not change the laws governing guns (nor is there a temporal issue like abortion where the justice system moves too slowly to address the issue before the issue ends). I don’t see any other exceptions to the justiciability requirements so it seems this is a moot issue - and a straightforward one at that.

I agree that taking this case and reaching a substantive decision would be judicial activism. I’m interested to hear Junebug’s thoughts on if there is a distinction here compared to Galiato and that line of cases or if he believes that another exception exists for justiciability.
 
If the Dems win the Senate and WH, they should expand the SC. There is nothing about the specific number in the Constitution. It's a simple law.
 
I wouldn't start talking about packing the court until you actually were in a position of power to do it.
 
You want to see some judicial activism? It's coming. Don't listen to a fucking word Junebug says.
 
Setting aside everything else in the article, the following is irrefutable evidence of how terrible our system is:

Meanwhile, the biggest problem facing Democrats for the foreseeable future is Senate malapportionment. Currently, the Republican Senate “majority” represents 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority,” and that’s a significant Republican gain over the previous Senate. In the Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Republican “majority” represented almost 40 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”

Similarly, when the Republican Senate “majority” refused to give a hearing or a confirmation vote to Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, Democratic senators represented about 20 million more people than Republicans.

Republicans, in other words, owe their Supreme Court majority to the fact that the Senate, which gives each person in Wyoming about 66 times more representation than residents of California, is malapportioned to strongly favor the GOP. That same thumb on the scale in favor of Republicans, moreover, also gives Republicans an enormous advantage in the legislative process.
 
No one is under any delusion that you are fair-minded, especially when your definition of fair minded is calling 80 years of settled law "lib decisions". Activism is overruling 80 years of settled law for purely political purposes and to give the court the ability to substitute its judgment for the judgment of legislators based on a vague pretense, which conservative members of the court used to be against.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
I’m confused. Are you talking about “restoring legitimacy”? Or just winning?
Click to expand...

It is totally legitimate to change the number of people on the Supreme Court.

In fact, if you were truly an originalist, the first Supreme Court had six justices-
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August,”
 
I think we should follow the McConnell rule. Get power and then Ram through as many changes to change the balance of all courts as we can.
 
Junebug said:
And?

I mean, even if you conclude the above is a problem (and you assume that without arguing it), it is baked into the constitution, and, practically speaking, it’s never changing, for the same reason as the reason it’s there is the first place—small states aren’t giving up their power now any more than they did at the founding. Small states would be required to support an amendment to the constitution changing the structure of the senate, and they aren’t going to be doing that anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I know -- it's all true. It's just a shitty system is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top