Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
unless they find a pillow over the heads of all the Supreme Court justices in the morning, it's just for show.
They have all been too liberal for too long, otherwise we wouldn't have forced people to buy a product they might not want (obamacare) against their wishes, or pay a big fine to the government.
Both sides are trying to get mileage out of nothing really.
same old song and dance.
what would be nice is if they couldn't be appointed for life, but with term limits.
Actions like what the GOP is doing with the appointment are precisely part of the type of behavior that lead to the rise of Trump who they disdain.
Yes and no. The TEA Party movement wanted this as well. Trump is supported in part by this group who continually feels unheard due to Washington being Washington.
There is a risk to both sides on this play.
Which is why Obama nominated a moderate who is 63 years old.
Less downside for the Repubs to confirm.
Finally! Had to wade through endless meaningless rants to get at one sane post.
By choosing an older nominee it lessens the "legacy" of the appointment in theory. In practice the guy could live to be 100 and never retire thus have thirty years on the SCOTUS.
Going with a moderate judge with an established record and known inside the Beltway as well as outside of it in theory should also mean less of a reason to fight.
If the Republicans are smart they'd take this deal rather than risk the fallout from several high profile cases potentially coming back with split 4/4 decisions. That and risk the even greater threat of a POTUS Hillary Clinton sending a younger and far more liberal/progressive nominee.
Going with a moderate judge with an established record and known inside the Beltway as well as outside of it in theory should also mean less of a reason to fight.
If the Republicans are smart they'd take this deal rather than risk the fallout from several high profile cases potentially coming back with split 4/4 decisions. That and risk the even greater threat of a POTUS Hillary Clinton sending a younger and far more liberal/progressive nominee.
Why is a 4/4 decision (a tie) worse than a 5/4 decision (loss)?
However the gist of the matter is lower court rulings stand when there is a even split decision. However it only applies to said particular jurisdiction. In practical terms it would mean sooner or later the SCOTUS would be asked to revisit the matter.
There are many reasons for having a panel of any sort seated with odd numbers. Avoiding even split decisions is one of them.
Merrick Garland has a record of being hostile to the second amendment. It is not the job of the SC to rewrite the Constitution.
What you call "rewriting" is seen by some as interpretation.
SCOUTUS over its history has deemed "men" in the USC to mean white males only and or that African-Americans were not included. Then it moved to "separate but equal", then finally totally equal.
Women, gays, and other civil rights followed the same path.
Late Justice Scalia took a very strict view of the USC which in legal and other circles some say was never the intent of the writers.
However the gist of the matter is lower court rulings stand when there is a even split decision. However it only applies to said particular jurisdiction. In practical terms it would mean sooner or later the SCOTUS would be asked to revisit the matter.
There are many reasons for having a panel of any sort seated with odd numbers. Avoiding even split decisions is one of them.
I am sorry most of us prefer a tie to a loss. It is really that simple.
And most of us support the Heller decision:
Quote:
65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny
Friday, January 18, 2013
Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.
They should put Garland through the process so they can educate Americans on what is at stake here.
I am sorry most of us prefer a tie to a loss. It is really that simple.
And most of us support the Heller decision:
They should put Garland through the process so they can educate Americans on what is at stake here.
Ties are only preferable to a loss if that is the end to it, however the federal judicial system does not work along those lines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
