Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Supreme Court discussion thread The Supreme Court discussion thread

11-12-2022 , 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
Another hollow victory for the little boy? Why are you cutting his response in half?
I always try to be conservative in all things.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-12-2022 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstacker
I always try to be conservative in all things.
Nice to have the more restrained Laggy back!
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-12-2022 , 01:21 PM
Lagtight that was his name. It had been bothering me for a few days. Used to have a really tilting avatar too
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-12-2022 , 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucularburro
Lagtight that was his name. It had been bothering me for a few days. Used to have a really tilting avatar too
Quite so. I have a "face made for radio", as the sayin' goes.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-12-2022 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
Nice to have the more restrained Laggy back!
Thanks!

I'm avoiding posting anything controversial of the sort that got me in trouble last time around.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-17-2022 , 11:40 AM
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...otus-rcna57362

Quote:
Trump’s Supreme Court strikes again — this time in the House of Representatives

one major Supreme Court case and two shadow docket orders almost
certainly allowed the Republican Party to gerrymander its way into this victory

judges in three different states have found that congressional district maps likely violate the Voting Rights Act

a five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court said Republican-drawn congressional
districts in Alabama should remain in effect despite the fact that a three-judge panel
(two of whom are appointees of former President Donald Trump) ruled that those
congressional districts likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

a bare majority of the court, in a so-called shadow docket ruling, let Alabama’s likely illegal maps stand.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito suggested that there simply wasn’t time to draw
legal district lines before the primary elections, when — spoiler alert — there absolutely was

In Georgia, a district court judge found that that state’s House map likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
The judge concluded that the state should draw another majority-minority district. But because the Supreme
Court had already signaled in the Alabama case that it was too late in the game (again, it wasn’t) to redraw the maps

in Louisiana, a district court judge found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act and ordered
that the state’s House legislative district maps be redrawn to include another majority-minority district.
Before this could happen, the Supreme Court granted Louisiana’s emergency
appeal, allowing the likely illegal district lines to be used for the midterm elections
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-17-2022 , 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steamraise
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...otus-rcna57362

Trump’s Supreme Court strikes again — this time in the House of Representatives

one major Supreme Court case and two shadow docket orders almost
certainly allowed the Republican Party to gerrymander its way into this victory


judges in three different states have found that congressional district maps ]b]likely violate the Voting Rights Act[/b]

a five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court said Republican-drawn congressional
districts in Alabama should remain in effect despite the fact that a three-judge panel
(two of whom are appointees of former President Donald Trump) ruled that those
congressional districts likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

a bare majority of the court, in a so-called shadow docket ruling, let Alabama’s likely illegal maps stand.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito suggested that there simply wasn’t time to draw
legal district lines before the primary elections, when — spoiler alert — there absolutely was

In Georgia, a district court judge found that that state’s House map likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
The judge concluded that the state should draw another majority-minority district. But because the Supreme
Court had already signaled in the Alabama case that it was too late in the game (again, it wasn’t) to redraw the maps

in Louisiana, a district court judge found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act and ordered
that the state’s House legislative district maps be redrawn to include another majority-minority district.
Before this could happen, the Supreme Court granted Louisiana’s emergency
appeal, allowing the likely illegal district lines to be used for the midterm elections
That's a lot of "likely's" "suggestions", and "almost certainly's".
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-18-2022 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steamraise
Quote:
Trump’s Supreme Court strikes again — this time in the House of Representatives

one major Supreme Court case and two shadow docket orders almost
certainly allowed the Republican Party to gerrymander its way into this victory

judges in three different states have found that congressional district maps likely violate the Voting Rights Act

a five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court said Republican-drawn congressional
districts in Alabama should remain in effect despite the fact that a three-judge panel
(two of whom are appointees of former President Donald Trump) ruled that those
congressional districts likely violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act

a bare majority of the court, in a so-called shadow docket ruling, let Alabama’s likely illegal maps stand.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito suggested that there simply wasn’t time to draw
legal district lines before the primary elections, when — spoiler alert — there absolutely was

In Georgia, a district court judge found that that state’s House map likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
The judge concluded that the state should draw another majority-minority district. But because the Supreme
Court had already signaled in the Alabama case that it was too late in the game (again, it wasn’t) to redraw the maps

in Louisiana, a district court judge found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act and ordered
that the state’s House legislative district maps be redrawn to include another majority-minority district.
Before this could happen, the Supreme Court granted Louisiana’s emergency
appeal, allowing the likely illegal district lines to be used for the midterm elections
It has become a game for the SC where after lower courts rule that 'yes this is illegal gerrymandering' they say 'looks that way but there is not enough time to fix it, so it will have to be fixed AFTER the election', meaning they let it stand such that the GOP gains power making it likely to be cemented after the fact in a way that cannot be challenged.

In one of these cases, the SC made zero sense, as their logic of 'too late to change and would cause havoc' was dealt with in the lower courts as the order was simply to revert to the prior districting maps, which were already in place, which was LESS work, than the SC allowing the new gerrymandered map, which then would have to be implemented and voters notified of the changes. And yet the SC stuck to the 'too late to change it, would cause problems' logic to allow it to stand.

There is a growing body of fact showing this SC often starts with a premise or 'decision' in mind and then won't allow any fact or reason deter them from working their opinion to get to that. Even if they, the SC Justice have to tell clear lies in their decision to justify it as Alito was busted doing in the 'Coach prayer on the sidelines and changeroom, Church and State' case. It was one of his fellow Justices who busted him for the bare faced lie he needed to tell, with video, to rationalize his decision.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-19-2022 , 12:03 PM
absolutely shocked that Alito was prob the leaker. Yhtsi
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-19-2022 , 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
@Rococo,

I am curious if you think it is judicial over reach and if Congress (the House) is allowing their powers to be transferred to the SC by not telling Roberts to stay out of this matter?

it seems to me Roberts should have done what the Appeals court prior did and refused to hear the case as there seems to be a clear Separation of Powers thing going on here.


The House Ways and Means committee is no subject to judicial review on a finding like this than the SC is should a House committee want to question and review a finding of theirs. I mean, go ahead and ask the House to review a finding the SC made you don't like, but the House will likely not reply or tell you they don't have that jurisdiction.


Similarly when the House decides they have a 'legit purpose' and submits it there is no expectation that the individual at issue (Trump) has to agree nor that the any Court gets to second guess them. It is a finding similar to a SC finding, as co equal branches rendering judgement at the top levels get to do.


For a similar and more clear issue i offer the defiance of House Subpoena's by individuals who say 'I refuse until a court hears my case and decides'. The courts have no role in that actually. The House can roder the House Sergeant of Arms to arrest the person and impose sanction in just the same way the Courts do for defiance. The House does not require court sign off to do that, due to separation of powers, but they are ceding them that power.


Now the question I am asking you above is not if you agree they 'should cede it' because you think it beneficial, for whatever reasons, but if you agree the Courts do not have a roll in this area. That a House Ways and Means committee determination that 'we have legit purpose and the documents SHALL be furnished' is a co equal branch equivalent to Court finding that might order the same, and one is not subject to the others review, in either case?

Not suprising, two days before Cupid blessed us with his poorly paraphrased opinion, the attached opinion piece appeared on Think NBC. I will let you judge whether he properly cited to this article when he suddenly wanted in inform us of his opinion on this issue. It is also not a shock that Cupid shows he truly does not comprehend the matters he loves to fight with attorneys about in here, he just simply does not understand them and cannot be taken seriously in a debate about the merits.

POLITICS & POLICY
Trump's subpoena stalling highlights the growing hubris of America's judges
What business do the courts have in the dispute between the Jan. 6 committee and Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters from the Ellipse near the White House in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021.Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images file
Oct. 29, 2022, 8:00 AM EDT

By Allen Sumrall, Ph.D. student in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin and Josh Chafetz, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center
On Oct. 21, the House issued a subpoena to former President Donald Trump requiring him to testify before the Jan. 6 committee and to produce documents about his role in the Capitol attack. The House of Representatives serves, as the common 18th-century phrase had it, as the “grand inquest of the nation,” a representative body charged with looking into abuses of the public trust, publicizing its findings and contemplating remedies. It is hard to imagine anything more central to the House’s constitutional role than thoroughly investigating an attempt to overthrow the government by force. The Trump subpoena clearly aids that function.
That defiance will set up a dispute between Congress and a former president. But why is everyone talking about the judiciary?
There is little doubt that Trump will attempt to defy the subpoena, just as he consistently has done his best to frustrate all attempts to oversee his conduct in office. That defiance will set up a dispute between Congress and a former president. But why is everyone talking about the judiciary? Why, for example, does this New York Times story come with a headline reading “Jan. 6 Panel Subpoenas Trump, Setting Up Legal Battle over Testimony”?
The fact that, in this conflict between Congress and a former president, political observers’ thoughts immediately turn to the courts illustrates just how central the judiciary has become to American politics. Rather than simply defy the subpoena and see what the House does next, Trump is likely to sue and ask a court to quash it. Even if he loses, as he probably will, the dispute will take many months if not years to resolve. If Democrats lose control of the House before a court enters final judgment, a new Republican majority almost certainly will withdraw the subpoena. In other words, simply by going to court, Trump can most likely ensure that he never has to comply. Congress's legitimate demands for information about a matter of the utmost national significance will be frustrated.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Why should the courts be open to a lawsuit like Trump’s in the first place? When courts issue subpoenas (as many have to Trump and his businesses over the years), no one thinks that the subpoenaed party can run to the legislature asking it to intervene and quash the subpoena. Here, a duly authorized subpoena has been issued; Trump has a duty to respond to it. If he thinks he has a legal privilege not to disclose some of the subpoenaed information, he can raise that with the House, just as a party responding to a court-issued subpoena can challenge the scope of the subpoena before the court. There is no need for another institution to poke its nose into the matter.

Closing in on Trump? Criminal probes intensify amid historic subpoena
What would this look like in practice? When Trump runs to the courts, they should say that this is a nonjusticiable political question, meaning that it is not suitable for judicial resolution. They should toss the case on that ground, decline to opine on the merits of the House’s subpoena, and refuse to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena while Trump appeals. If Trump wants to defy the subpoena, he should have to do so in contempt of Congress, at his own peril.
If the House does hold Trump in contempt, it could use its sergeant-at-arms to arrest him itself. Alternatively, it could refer him to the Justice Department for prosecution under the contempt of Congress statute (yes, the same one that Steve Bannon was convicted under). At that point, Trump undoubtedly would argue that the subpoenas are invalid, but note how different the setting would be: When a judge rightly rejects his argument, Trump would be convicted of a crime carrying jail time. Rather than using the courts to delay compliance at no cost to himself, Trump instead would have to open himself to criminal liability, which he could escape only by convincing a judge he had the better legal argument about whether he violated the contempt of Congress statute. A judiciary that took congressional power seriously would force Trump to go that route.
Alas, that is not the judiciary that we have. As we have both written, the judiciary repeatedly has used cases arising out of congressional oversight disputes as opportunities to aggrandize itself at Congress's expense. And now we can already see that dynamic beginning to play out again.
Courts are not designed to play such a central function in American constitutional politics. The Constitution does not condition Congress’s power to investigate on getting a court’s permission. Courts are not the only, or even the best, remedy to congressional overreach, when it exists. Yet, because of the courts’ continued project of self-aggrandizement, the federal judiciary occupies a privileged position in the American constitutional system. By embracing the idea that they are the ultimate arbiter of political disputes, courts and judges position themselves as standing above separation-of-powers disputes—that is, they claim to be neutral arbiters setting the ground rules for other governing institutions. But this is a decidedly non-neutral posture: it empowers the courts themselves and consistently disempowers Congress.
Not every aspect of constitutional politics creates an actionable question for a court. Courts are designed to be a co-equal branch with Congress and the Executive branch, not the institution that decides when other institutions may govern. Congress — the first branch of government — has taken the extraordinary step of exercising its broad investigatory powers and sending a subpoena to a former president to determine his role in a violent insurrection that tried to prevent a peaceful transition of power. If Trump is allowed to sue to quash the subpoena, the courts in effect substitute their judgment for Congress's. That is not their constitutional role. The courts should sit this one out.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-20-2022 , 12:16 PM
Never seen that article before now.

Funny that you think it is the only opinion piece and thus my opinion MUST come from one article when I have prior cited that most of my legal opinions come from a group of legal podcasts I listen to each and every day in the background during my workday and while out walking my 1-2 hours each evening.


I have about 12 legal expert podcasts I listen to and this is just a sample of them:

- LAWYER 2 LAWYER

- The Lawyerist

- Bloomberg Law

- Amicus

- Stay Tuned with Preet

- Strict Scrutiny

- Sisters In Law
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-20-2022 , 12:16 PM
And since I know (we all know) what jjjou will do next to flex his idiocy, I will cite it.

In very uke like fashion he will insist his opinion which is wrong above, and that he has cited as if fact is correct and that he knows better than I do, that I am wrong. He will be confused by him having a strongly held opinion, and thinking that then makes it equivalent to fact (which I am the only that has here) and thus he will continue this pointless line.

And when I argue on, as I also do with uke, you guys will see this as something I should not do. That when OTHERS tell me what i did wrongly, I should just leave it sit as if correct and fact, and no one will ever call out the persons like jjjou making such idiotic pronouncements of fact, when they hold no facts.

/Carlin Meme
/jjjou mocking Carlin meme as not having any meaning despite continually tripping in to it
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-20-2022 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
And since I know (we all know) what jjjou will do next to flex his idiocy, I will cite it.

In very uke like fashion he will insist his opinion which is wrong above, and that he has cited as if fact is correct and that he knows better than I do, that I am wrong. He will be confused by him having a strongly held opinion, and thinking that then makes it equivalent to fact (which I am the only that has here) and thus he will continue this pointless line.

And when I argue on, as I also do with uke, you guys will see this as something I should not do. That when OTHERS tell me what i did wrongly, I should just leave it sit as if correct and fact, and no one will ever call out the persons like jjjou making such idiotic pronouncements of fact, when they hold no facts.

/Carlin Meme
/jjjou mocking Carlin meme as not having any meaning despite continually tripping in to it
/Cuepee being maybe the only P&S reg who doesn't understand the Carlin meme.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-21-2022 , 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee

I have about 12 legal expert podcasts I listen to and this is just a sample of them:
You respond with an appeal to authority resulting from your podcast education after railing Rococo for allegedly doing the same a few pages back? Lol.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-21-2022 , 01:22 AM
Who knew that Cupid would claim he just happens to have the same opinion following the same factual analysis as a PhD and a law professor not before, but two days after, they publish the same.

Cuepee gonna cuepee. Damn, he must think we are gullible.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-21-2022 , 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
You respond with an appeal to authority resulting from your podcast education after railing Rococo for allegedly doing the same a few pages back? Lol.
Boy you have to be one of the dumbest posters on this site. You do not even understand the Appeal to Authority which requires me say 'I am right because I am citing these experts' when what i said was 'these experts are what I listen to that inform my OPINION'.

I do not say with any authority my opinion is right. I argue why I believe it is correct which is what EVERYONE does. We all utilize the various sources of information we access to inform our view.

That you think if someone says they were informed with regards to their opinion because 'it was taught by a Prof', 'it was said by a historian on a podcast', 'it was a discussion between legal experts', and you think someone citing those sources equals an Appeal to Authority, just shows the depths of dumb of the people I ended up ensnared in arguments with.


It is FACT that i find legal debates and issues fascinating. I listen to more podcasts in that area than anything else. I head experts argue all sides, including sides Rococo often sides with. I am well aware of the arguments. MOst of these issues are not clear cut nor litigated to a conclusion. And from that I draw my opinion. SOmetimes it agrees with Rococo and the lawyers that side with his view, and other times on the side of the experts who disagree with his view.

The issue we have on this forum is once one of the 'Two Plus Two Lawyers' stakes out a position, none of the other lawyers will disagree, due to sides. It has NEVER happened because there is a feeling that sticking together lends them authority to say stuff like 'well now you are disagreeing with ALL of us, the lawyers'. That IS an Appeal to Authority and a bad use of it, just so you know in future.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-21-2022 , 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
Who knew that Cupid would claim he just happens to have the same opinion following the same factual analysis as a PhD and a law professor not before, but two days after, they publish the same.

Cuepee gonna cuepee. Damn, he must think we are gullible.
Yes because that is all original PHD work in which no other legal experts on the planet, paid to discuss these issues 24/7 on podcasts would have also have come to.

In your view, these authors are the only ones on the planet to come up with this PHD thesis material, so unique that no one else touched it thus it had to be the only this article that could be the source despite the FACT this specific topic was being discussed on Podcasts between legal experts constantly at that period of time.


Everyone stay tuned for jjjou next stunning insight where he finds out I referenced something that he sees similarly explained on MSNBC about the Special Counsel appointment by Garland. His sleuthing skills will inform him that what I am saying seems to be drawn from the MSNBC segment and thus it HAS to be from there. Meanwhile he does not know that PBS, CNN, and about a dozen other outlets did the same analysis and held similar discussion.

NOPE. Has to the be the singular one he saw. Solved it.

You jjou are uniquely too stupid to argue with and are at Washoe levels. There is just no point as there is nothing to argue in you saying 'you got that from MSNBC...I figured it out... har har har I got you QP...'. I am good with any raucous debate, but the depths of your stupidity leave nothing to debate. Welcome to my ignore. Take a seat over there with Washoe.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-21-2022 , 09:46 AM
Lol, the parrot is mad this morning! So many words to say absolutely nothing of value simply because he is caught in another set of lies.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-24-2022 , 09:00 AM
Again, why the SC would benefit from being packed so they can create a separate category under their Original Jurisdiction to hear cases like this directly to avoid the ridiculous type delays that powerful people like Trump will take advantage of to use TIME to make the law an ass.



The above should not celebrate as the House Committee is about to lose its mandate to the GOP who will simply shut this down. There is talk now that the Senate Committee, that has the same authority to ask for tax Returns would demand them ('Shall') but that means Trump would just start the lawsuit process all over again from the lowest court and appeal it all the way back up adding again another 1300+ days to any justice on this.

I do not give Trump much credit but he is the worlds greatest master of using TIME to thwart the legal system.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
11-24-2022 , 11:38 AM
America has the best Justice System that money can buy.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote

      
m