- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 76,686
- Reaction score
- 80,121
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
That's precisely what's happening now.
if he does, the precedence is set
when the Supreme Court doesn't do what you want them to, make changes
the destruction of Democracy RIGHT IN FRONT OF US - and Liberals squeal with joy
Had this been an activist court, it would have imposed its preferred abortion law on all fifty states
Overturning an activist decision is not judicial activism. Preserving an activist decision is not judicial restraint.Had this Court shown judicial restraint, it wouldn't have done anything at all. The precedent as it pertains to Mississippi's law was well-established.
Again, rubbish. You simply don’t like the outcome from a political perspective and couldn’t care less about the legal arguments.But this is an activist Court with an ideological agenda, so precedent means nothing to it.
Overturning an activist decision is not judicial activism. Preserving an activist decision is not judicial restraint.
Overturning fifty years of precedent is not "restraint." There's a reason they all lied to the public during their confirmation hearings.
“Separate but equal” refers to the infamously racist decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that allowed the use of segregation laws by states and local governments. The phrase “separate but equal” comes from part of the Court’s decision that argued separate rail cars for whites and African Americans were equal at least as required by the Equal Protection Clause. Following this decision, a monumental amount of segregation laws were enacted by state and local governments throughout the country, sparking decades of crude legal and social treatment for African Americans. The horrid aftermath of “separate but equal” from Ferguson was halted by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) where the Court said that separate schools for African American students were “inherently unequal.” While Brown has allowed for desegregation in the United States, the history of “separate but equal” remains an unnerving past for the country and the Supreme Court.
It absolutely is. Pulling back on judicial overreach is an act consistent with restraining the judiciary.Overturning fifty years of precedent is not "restraint." There's a reason they all lied to the public during their confirmation hearings.
Confessing something Luther?https://archive.is/HFdTP#selection-559.0-559.61
While I'm quite sure that are liberal friends and neighbors on this board will be all in for these changes, and likely more drastic ones, I would suggest that these proposed changes show an inclination from the left to effectively nullify the Constitution and implement a system of government without checks and balances. We would, if the Democrats get their way, end up with a system where the political parties hold all the power and the people hold none.
At what point in our history did Democrats decide that everyone that isn't a Democrat is an enemy of the nation and must be kneecapped so that the Democrat party can maintain, consolidate and expand their power?
A President per say does not have much power over the Supreme Court, however Congress does.
Biden announcing he supports Congress exercising that power is OK by me.
Congress Has the Authority to Regulate Supreme Court Ethics – and the Duty
From oaths to retirement to impeachment, Congress already regulates the high court, and it’s time for stronger safeguards against corruption.
Congress Has the Authority to Regulate Supreme Court Ethics - and the Duty
From oaths to retirement to impeachment, Congress already regulates the high court, and it's time for stronger safeguards against corruption.www.brennancenter.org
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?