Looks like the Senate Democrats won. Roberts to join the 4 liberal judges and declare gun case moot.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Sackeshi, Dec 4, 2019.

  1. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
  2. trickyricky

    trickyricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Robert's may indeed vote that the case is moot, after New York removed a law they knew to be unconstitutional when they enacted it.
    As noted in other publications, this isn't the only case that could be ruled on.
    And since Democratic senators cant vote on Supreme Court issues, I fail to see where they are responsible for anything.
    If the court rules on this, in favor of the plaintiffs, it will simply preclude other municipalities and states from attempting to pass other unconstitutional laws that mirror New Yorks faux pas.
    I wouldn't get too cocky, had York not backed down quickly, they most certainly would have lost. And the two new Justices will be on the court for a long time.
     
    drluggit and roorooroo like this.
  3. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Remember the letter? It was a direct threat to use congressional power in Article 3 to change the court as we know it if they riled in favor. Them ruling that they can not rule changes nothing. It does infact mean that municipalities can just pass laws on the off season then remove them before the case starts.
     
  4. trickyricky

    trickyricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Then the court will rule. They specifically asked for assurance from New York that the law would not be re-instated. If New York hadn't gave that assurance, then the court WOULD have ruled on the case.
    And threats are empty.....
     
    garyd likes this.
  5. Jestsayin

    Jestsayin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    16,798
    Likes Received:
    17,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You misses the whole point of the ruling. It is a set up. The court sent it back for a reason.
     
  6. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone that wasn't fear mongering already knew that they would rule this as a moot case. NY removed the law because they knew it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if it ever got to SCOTUS. And they only did so when they realized that it would actually get to SCOTUS. If not for that then they would have left it in place.

    And not sure what Democratic Senators had to do with this? Unless you think that their letter threatening SCOTUS had an effect? Tell me, what are your thoughts on that letter that threatened SCOTUS? I'm guessing that you supported it from that one line statement of yours? If so then why? Why would you support Dems threatening another Branch of our Government in order to try and sway their rulings? What would you say if Trump did such?
     
    trickyricky likes this.
  7. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I Support the the Constitution let's the Congress create and change the court. The supreme Court is a creature of Congress and the creator can discipline it's creation.
     
  8. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Congress did not create SCOTUS, the Founders did. And while Congress does have the power to change SCOTUS that does not mean that it should be done just because SCOTUS doesn't rule in a particular party's favor. Do you want a SCOTUS that tries its best to be neutral, or do you want a SCOTUS that believes that every time it rules against the majority in power then it will be "disciplined" as you put it?
     
    trickyricky likes this.
  9. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    18,097
    Likes Received:
    14,910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, in your mind, democratic senators threatening the court is coolio with you? This is what power in democratic hands looks like?
     
    trickyricky and Gatewood like this.
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    18,097
    Likes Received:
    14,910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet, the SCOTUS is not a creature of the Congress. They are their own constitutionally underpinned org. The congress might reconstitute its numbers, but that kind of threat assumes that those who made the threat could actually accomplish their threat, which they couldn't for now. But think about what you're advocating here. If, Trump wins again, and the republican senate decided to go down this road to allow Trump to pack the court with his choices, I doubt you'd be thankful anymore, would you.... So transparent, and so laughable...
     
    vman12 likes this.
  11. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems like an obvious decision.
     
  12. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Congress gets to decide what domestic authority the court has. Yes I prefer a neutral court but this court is anything but. Regardless it's clear as day that Congress has the power to restrict or remove domestic powers from the supreme Court.
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps it is time to have each and every senator who signed onto that letter threatening the united state supreme court, arrested on charges of terrorism.
     
    trickyricky likes this.
  14. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh really they are not a creature

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
     
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet the united state congress cannot tell the united state supreme court which cases it will and will not rule on, or how it is to rule on said cases.
     
    trickyricky likes this.
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    18,097
    Likes Received:
    14,910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, I get it. You don't know what those words actually mean. Thanks for the explanation.
     
  17. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,628
    Likes Received:
    48,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alas, leftist academicians have deliberately watered down education to the extent that this is probably what the average college educated leftist in this nation now THINKS; i.e., that the Legislature is over the Supreme Court rather than the two being coequal bodies with the third branch.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  18. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Then what does that bolded text mean?
     
  19. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You can see how much of an afterthought the judiciary was in the Constitution. It's article is like 1/10 the size of congresses and half of it is powers of Congress.
     
  20. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What do they mean?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  21. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never claimed that Congress did not have such power. In fact I specifically stated that it does in the second sentence. But since you ignored my question...do you really want a SCOTUS that is afraid to make a ruling that the majority in power may not like? You may think that our current SCOTUS is "anything but" neutral, but plain fact of the matter is that a majority of their cases end up in unanimous consent. Those just don't make it into the news and therefore are not in your awareness. It is only the times that the court is split that it makes it to the news. Something that even WAPO recognized.

    Link: Those 5-to-4 decisions on the Supreme Court? 9 to 0 is far more common.

    And there has been no change in that as far as I know. Do you have any evidence that 9-0 commonality has changed?
     
  22. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Tbh yes I want a court that is afraid to rule against the majority unless the words of the Constitution back them 100%
     
  23. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any clue what it is that you're advocating?
     
  24. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    End to activism on the court
     
  25. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,026
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And to make sure that every unconstitutional law instituted that one party likes and the other hates gets thrown out when the party that hates it gets in majority power and a new law that they like gets put in and round and round we go. Why even have a Judiciary Branch at that point? Judicial activism is a problem, but your solution would nullify the reason for the Judiciary Branch completely.
     

Share This Page