Can't Write Much. Hurts to sit in some positions, but heck, let's talk Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
VintageBetter

VintageBetter

Senior Member
Is that politics? Mod will decide.

OK. So if the Supremes say that anything a president does gains him immunity, IF it falls under his or her official Constitutional duties, then WHERE oh where is the balance of power between the three branches of government?

One commenter is accusing the Supremes of dragging out the matter in question (which I think we should all avoid mentioning to abide by the site rules). I agree. However, I'm not a lawyer or a judge and maybe they see that as part of their duties as balancers?

I've starting re-watching The Civil War by Ken Burns and OMG, if you think the Supreme court is ALWAYS right, just read the Dred Scott decision . They Supremes have *&^%ed up throughout all of our history. They have &^%$ed up badly.

ANYWAY, to think the Supremes are not a political body is a delusion. They have been a political entity from 1789. This is why I'm not a fan of the ideology that decisions made by groups are always best and always correct. BALONEY. Individuals make great discoveries and strong leadership decisions every day.

Group consensus chose "separate but equal" for our schools for a hundred years. Stupid, non-scientific and blind group consensus there.

********
In the meanwhile, I'm gonna call the doctor to see if this much pain is normal. I hope I don't have to go in for them to check. That will be a pain in the neck.
 

I'm not sure what is being argued for here. Some sort of "benevolent elite rule" i.e. a "king and nobility" if you will? A reversion to feudalism?
 
The Supreme Court is a governing body....members of one of the 3 branches of government. The difference between the judicial branch and the executive branch is that the judicial branch is supposed to be politically neutral. The flaw is that a SC judge can be biased (even unwittingly) when interpreting the nuances and finer points of The Constitution.
 
I heard President Biden say he could add judges to the supreme court, but never heard it again and he hasn't done it.
 
CLUE: ALL branches and offices of the government are political. ALL forum discussions of said branches and offices will be infused with political opinion whether overt, subtle or implied ... usually.
 
I am not delusional and I happen to think the Supreme Court is the best functioning of the three bodies that make up our government. Sure the justices have different points of view. That’s why we have nine of them. I am impressed with how often justices will cross the artificial political boundaries that many people insist are some huge part of the court. Judge Jackson (appointed by President Biden) recently agree with some of the so called conservative justices on laws that were used to prosecute rioters in Jan 6. Justice Barrett, supposedly a conservative sided with the so called liberal justices against that decision. Justice Gorsuch has an interesting tilt towards the situation of Native Americans.

Many of their rulings are 9-0, 8-1 and 7-2. That hardly show a lot of political zeal. And some of the 5-4 and 6-3 rulings see justices crossing the so called political boundaries that others have drawn up for the court.

Nobody I know thinks the Supreme Court is always right. I have some bones to pick with them myself. And, I am glad to see that they will correct rulings that they think were wrong.

People like to fuss over what they think the justices think. But, it’s all clearly spelled out in their opinions. Agree or disagree with their opinion. That’s our right. I suggest people read those opinions rather than listen to partisan blathering from those on either side who have an agenda.

The law can be used to take your property, limit your freedoms, imprison you in jail, and even take your life. We need somebody to tell the politicians what they can and can’t do based upon the Constitution. Not on who can gather the biggest noisiest group of angry people.

Ask the lady who had her $40,000 condo taken from her and sold to pay $15000 of back taxes, and then the county kept the other $25,000 because of a state law that said the could. Only the Supreme Court stood up for her. They ruled 9-0 that the county could only keep the back taxes and had to give her back the $25000. Otherwise the politicians would have taken all of the money.
 
Last edited:
our supreme court appointees should be our best and our brightest, mature, wise and most importantly, IMPARTIAL.

The justice’s Marital partners should respect their spouse’s position enough to keep their own opinions to themselves.

Edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:
01.jpg
 
I think it’ s always important to consider the long term effects of our actions. At times we think an opponent is such a bad apple that we are willing to rip away our constitutional and traditional protections to get him or her. But, people often think that this destruction of rights will begin and end with their opponent. That is naive. Eventually, when these protections are gone, and their opponents turn on them, where will they go for shelter? Who will be left to help them? Extremists and zealots are often eaten by their children.
 
I'm cleaning out a closet, getting ready for next year when our King makes all us women wear long modest church dresses and the men all buy AR-15's.
 
So maybe President needs to go to Congress to order the Breakage of US Law. In times of obvious War or other
Nefarious acts. That keeps him legal with orders to the bunch of mongers with him.

The Donald told his supporters, "March on the Capital"__ "I will be there with You." Is he to have screwed himself?

Sure, maybe the Supreme Court is a Fixed for life of mostly a bunch of old folks living & accepting Billionaires gifts.

If it all needs a house cleaning along with the olders in government so be it. Possibly there needs to be a 69 / 70 term
of limits age for all government + appointed / approved by congress afore that maximum time runs out.

There have been so many instances of the decrepitude of our prominent people in government and legal positions in
the past few years.

So, do I start to say something, stop, think about it and say something else. Yes I still do.

Are Over the Hill & should be in a Care facility for old age people a holding a Mic & controlling our lives? Are we sick of it all?
 
Last edited:
Della said:
I'm cleaning out a closet, getting ready for next year when our King makes all us women wear long modest church dresses and the men all buy AR-15's.
Click to expand...
You know the King of England has a Fixation over the Pens that never work?
 
The USA is based on States Rights and the Fair Rule of Law, where the Innocent are Framed and pay for their misgivings.
The rest of us are protected by State and Federal Laws / Bill of Rights, Amendments etc.
Where has Decency gone. Is it just buried under $ &&&<&&&>&&&^&&& rules of law.

Yes, Women own AR and more modern Semi-Automatic Firearms just like some men and that their Kids steal and commit hell with.
Sure, having safe storage is the action Noun. Should a Automatic Weapon be sold without the appropriate Safe Safe to store it in.
That meaning it cannot be picked up by a couple of Punks and hauled away. Anchored in Cement seems a cool answer to a Semi
Automatic Rifles safe / safe. Still Crazy is Crazy and a lot them realize help is not their answer.
________________________________________
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top