|
|
| GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court (952661) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (952661) | |
GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012 People who don't like results always want to monkey with structure. They usually mean the results should be decided by one person: them.The fate of health care shouldn’t come down to 9 justices. Try 19 |
|
|
| (952663) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:26:31 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. Sounds more reasonable than what we have now, so few justices that ideology rather than the Constitution rules the day. |
|
|
| (952664) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sun Jun 24 10:29:16 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:26:31 2012. Maybe 11, but not 19. Only because the workload has increased. |
|
|
| (952670) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:37:21 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Dan on Sun Jun 24 10:29:16 2012. They need enough to water down ideology. Rumor has it that is exactly what drove the eventual decision, not the Commerce clause.Face it, republicans hate people (they offer NO alternatives to ACA while imperfect did effectively provide to those in need...so the only conclusion is that they WANT people to DIE) and I'm losing my healthcare coverage. Again. |
|
|
| (952671) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jun 24 10:40:42 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. Yea, genious. Let's have so many appointments that besides elections and the one or two confirmation hearings, we can have surpreme court appointment showdowns YEAR AROUND! We need more partisan crazies. How many psychic wise latina's do we need?This GWU professor and bingbond should get the nobel prize! |
|
|
| (952673) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:48:38 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Sun Jun 24 10:40:42 2012. I'm all for that. Then I can us eth emoney to but health insurance. Asshole.The court is being driven by RW ideology, NOT the Constitution which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, like healthcare. The mandate IS a regulation. Congress has mandated behavior of its citizens before. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about it. The result of this is people lose healthcare coverage, get sicker and die. So there fore, republicans hate people. That they're not doing anything about it proves that statement. Take your hate and move to Somalia. You'll love it there. |
|
|
| (952674) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 10:51:30 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. Rick Perry had one good idea, actually.Stick with 9 justices, but future justices would each have a single 18 year term, with a new term starting every 2 years. |
|
|
| (952677) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:56:27 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:37:21 2012. They need enough to water down ideology.Let's not be silly bingbong. You hope Republican ideology would be watered down. If this idea took effect (the dude proposes each president gets to appoint two extra justices until 19 is reached) and Romney wins in November and gets to be the first president to appoint two more justices, I bet you won't think this is a good idea. |
|
|
| (952680) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:58:42 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:48:38 2012. SO you are affirming my point; people who don't like how something is going want to change the structure so THEIR POV will be better represented, not because it's an inherently better idea. |
|
|
| (952682) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:02:29 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:56:27 2012. Rmoney isn't going to win in November.Fact is the SCOTUS has become ideologically polarized, and the Constitution is being ignored in the process. Let's not forget that denial of healthcare access does nothing to promote the general welfare of the people. |
|
|
| (952684) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:05:30 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:58:42 2012. No, it's because the court as it currently exists is ignoring the Constitution in favor of ideology. The soon to be ACA decision, if it is as rumored, will be the third ideological overstepping of the Roberts court.They're also plenty over worked as they need more circuits. Justices supervise circuits. |
|
|
| (952686) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:09:57 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:02:29 2012. I agree with you that everyone should have healthcare. For years I had to pay to continue healthcare for myself and my family (up to $1,600 a MONTH) before I finally got a job for much less money to get health benefits.So I feel your pain, both literally and figuratively, but your self-interest and my self-interest is not sufficient to change the entire structure of government. Sometimes you fix what is broken rather than change a sixth of the economy. Do you know about "Healthy New York"? |
|
|
| (952687) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:12:29 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:05:30 2012. Even allowing you to beg the question does not change the fact that increasing the number of people on the court will just kick the can down the road to the next ideological battle. Your certainly that Romney won't win in November is not a sure thing. |
|
|
| (952691) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:29:38 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:09:57 2012. I am likely NOT going to after the ACA decision. My current coverage is dependent on that law's survival.The republicans are NOT offering ANYTHING to fix these issues. never did, never will. It took the Democrats to dust off a 40 year old proposal going back to Nixon to get a compromise that managed to pass. The republicans had years in power and did NOTHING. In fact, they allowed the whole problem to get much much worse. I have yet to hear anything beyond the platitudes you offer, a means to achieving same, out of the RW. "Healthy New York" does NOT cover pre-existing conditions. Never did. never will (thankfully that ill-conceived Pataki plan will die off should ACA survive...) Only Bridge Plans do. |
|
|
| (952692) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sun Jun 24 11:30:56 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:12:29 2012. If that Nazi gets elected, AmeriKKKa will be seen as the SHITSTAIN of the world. |
|
|
| (952694) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:35:41 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Rockparkman on Sun Jun 24 11:30:56 2012. Thanks for letting me know. It changes my entire perspective. |
|
|
| (952695) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:36:48 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:35:41 2012. He's correct, a bit over the top graphic about it, but correct. |
|
|
| (952697) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 11:38:44 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:36:48 2012. Thank you too, bingbong. You and RocKKK save my sanity. |
|
|
| (952701) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 17:09:33 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:29:38 2012. You find the Pataki plan, which has provided benefits for owners and employees of small business, dependent children and others without insurance "ill-conceived" because it doesn't include you. What about Medicaid? |
|
|
| (952705) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 17:40:29 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:29:38 2012. "Healthy New York" does NOT cover pre-existing conditions.??? I was in Healthy New York after my Cobra ran out, back in 2003 and 2004. It definitely covered pre-existing conditions then, provided you hadn't let your coverage lapse. |
|
|
| (952706) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 17:52:40 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:26:31 2012. Funny, you probably don't view the Warren Court the same way. That was an ideological court. This one is not. In fact, except for the upcoming Obamacare ruling, every ruling since Bush V Gore that the conservative majority has won has been on sound, constitutional ground and has been in line with past precedent.Supreme Courts are designed to interpret the Constitution. You can't cry every time they decide an issue in a way in which you do not agree. Corporations have 1st Amendment rights. Deal with it. |
|
|
| (952707) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 18:03:08 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:05:30 2012. No, it's because the court as it currently exists is ignoring the Constitution in favor of ideology.Roe V Wade and Brown V BOE would have been decided differently they applied your criteria. However, I am glad you are now an Originalist now. Welcome aboard. Constitutional interpretation is inherently ideological. That's why the SCOTUS exists, to provide the final say on a controversial issue so that there is clarity. |
|
|
| (952708) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 18:03:34 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 11:05:30 2012. No, it's because the court as it currently exists is ignoring the Constitution in favor of ideology.Roe V Wade and Brown V BOE would have been decided differently had they applied your criteria. However, I am glad you are now an Originalist. Welcome aboard. Constitutional interpretation is inherently ideological. That's why the SCOTUS exists, to provide the final say on a controversial issue so that there is clarity. |
|
|
| (952709) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 18:14:59 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 18:03:08 2012. +1 |
|
|
| (952712) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 18:26:58 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 17:40:29 2012. When I looked into it they didn't. |
|
|
| (952713) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 18:38:19 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 17:09:33 2012. The Pataki plan was ill-conceived since it only permitted ONE insurer, Fidelis care, which is owned by the Catholic church. It was lacking for many basic services.It did not address my concerns as an individual buyer nor as a businessperson. I do not qualify for Medicaid. |
|
|
| (952714) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 18:49:31 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 18:03:08 2012. Roe was decided on the basis of confidentiality between a doctor and a patient being a lawful expectation. It also came with stipulations and conditions. Brown had a mountain of legal bases, such as the 14th Amendment.Neither decision was made on an ideological basis. Neither were a Citizens, which established a "personhood" extension to a litigation hedge entity. That was ideologically based overreaching beyond the pale. |
|
|
| (952715) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 18:58:11 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 17:52:40 2012. THis is not the same court. The Rhenquist court was close ideologically to this one, but not quite as activist.Howeverbush v Gore was a completely political decision, as the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to interfere in states' election issues until all possibilities for resolution have been exhausted at the state level. The state court ordered a recount, well within their powers. SCOTUS blindsided America and stopped it before it could be completed. Corporations aren't people. They have no such right. Citizens is a bad decision that should be either legislated or retried away. (note they didn't exist in modern form, which is a liability hedge,in those days. Business owners were personally responsible and liable for their losses) |
|
|
| (952717) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 19:03:54 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 17:52:40 2012. This one is not. In fact, except for the upcoming Obamacare ruling, every ruling since Bush V Gore that the conservative majority has won has been on sound, constitutional ground and has been in line with past precedent.Citizens United broke with precedent in a huge way. |
|
|
| (952719) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Sun Jun 24 19:07:26 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 19:03:54 2012. Citizens United broke with precedent in a huge way.so did lawrence v. texas. |
|
|
| (952724) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 19:27:01 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by DaNd124 on Sun Jun 24 19:07:26 2012. And also District of Columbia v Heller. |
|
|
| (952725) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Sun Jun 24 19:28:35 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 19:27:01 2012. there was much precedent either way on that one.my point was that no on really cares about precedent. |
|
|
| (952726) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 19:41:21 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 18:49:31 2012. You don't think it was ideological because it fits your ideology. q.e.d. |
|
|
| (952728) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 19:44:22 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 18:49:31 2012. Roe was decided on the basis of confidentiality between a doctor and a patient being a lawful expectation.No, it was decided on a (then) unprecedented expansion of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. |
|
|
| (952732) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 19:59:19 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 19:41:21 2012. I don't think it was ideological because it wasn't ideological. |
|
|
| (952734) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 20:02:03 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jun 24 19:44:22 2012. Obviously you never read the decision. It was very very focused. It was not the broad expansion of rights many onthe RW make it to be. It was a focused decision on a focused issue...the doctor patient relationship. |
|
|
| (952737) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 20:15:01 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 20:02:03 2012. Even if we accept your premise about how focused it was, the advocates on your side of the aisle pushed the camel's nose so far into the tent that now some of you think partial-birth abortion is a right.And the doctor-patient relationship as an excuse is vile. Even as a supporter of the necessity for safe abortion to be available (up to a point) I will tell you that that rationale is an invitation to a consiracy to murder. |
|
|
| (952744) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 25 09:55:00 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 20:15:01 2012. "Partial birth abortion" is not the problem, it's just a procedure. It's late term abortions in general that are wrong. |
|
|
| (952745) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 10:25:57 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 25 09:55:00 2012. "Partial birth abortion" isn't a procedure. The procedure is called D&X, and does not involve "partial birth". In fact,it is a less invasive procedure (the less invasive a procedure is, the less risk of infection,bleeding and other complications are, and the likelihood of future successful pregnancy is increased. Bleeding issues typically require hysterectomy or result in sterility...as a future pregnancy cannot implant in a distorted or insufficient endometrium) than what they are doing now, with higher risk of infection (forced labor of stillbirth....the basic parameter for late term abortion being stillbirth or a non-viable fetus..... being the riskiest). |
|
|
| (952751) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jun 25 10:32:12 2012, in response to GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:14:59 2012. These are the same people who have no problem with a one-party system.I went to law school. Law profs are some of the most radical people around. |
|
|
| (952756) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 10:42:38 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 20:15:01 2012. You obviously don't know the law or medicine. First, there is no inherent "right" to choose to terminate a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester. Roe itself designated such rights to the first trimester and in some cases the second. After that, it is limited to medically necessary cases.There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion". The outlawed procedure is called D&X and it is done completely in utero, does not involve any variety of "birth" and is the less invasive, less likely to have complications that could affect the ability of the woman (who is involved here, something the RW seems to forget, there's an already living human person involved) to have a successful future pregnancy. Should a patient faced with a life threatening medical problem get the best possible care to resolve that problem? The RW doesn't think so. |
|
|
| (952852) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 13:39:54 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Sun Jun 24 10:48:38 2012. "Then I can us eth emoney to but health insurance. Asshole."If you wanted health insurance, maybe you shouldn't be living in the most restrictive state for health insurance. Don't be an ass, go buy yourself some. Although I don't see the point, aren't you getting it for free like I am from Obama? It solved the deficit you know, ask Itallionstallion who regaled us with those tales daily. [paragraph two omitted for nonsensical South African gibberish] "The result of this is people lose healthcare coverage, get sicker and die." They are already dead, there is no more problem. But thanks to amensty to a very obese group of people, we now have our mumps and TB and Whooping cough back. I hope you're innoculated! "Take your hate and move to Somalia. You'll love it there. " A black muslim country that frowns on immunizations from whites and doesn't give out free condoms for public sex. I don't know. Right Wingers love Black and Muslims we all know from Kansas that it's tempting. The only thing I hate is you, who have blood on your hands. |
|
|
| (952855) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 13:42:18 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by SLRT on Sun Jun 24 10:58:42 2012. We already know that bingdong thinks she's going to get free pills and condoms and if they don't grant it, and make the good people of America, and the Catholics and Muslims pay for it, then the court is idealogical. It's spelled out in the posts...the horses mouth.And we have to all become sickly with our now decaying health structure and put up with her hate filled vile or else we're evil people. Isn't the left great? |
|
|
| (952859) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Jun 25 13:47:34 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 10:25:57 2012. The procedure is called a D&C (dilation and curettage) not a D&X, but why am I confusing the issue with facts? Please continue, Professor. Harvard Law and the Yale School of Medicine are waiting to hear what you're going to say next. |
|
|
| (952861) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Jun 25 13:48:44 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by Dave on Mon Jun 25 13:47:34 2012. Whoops, my bad. You're talking about a dilation and extraction. Apologies! |
|
|
| (952862) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 13:49:12 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 10:25:57 2012. Why are you talking about throwing babies in the closet to die with the fact that ACA is going to permanently throw 60million people off the the healthcare system like they already do with unemployment? |
|
|
| (952863) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by DaNd124 on Mon Jun 25 13:51:04 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 13:49:12 2012. what on earth are you talking about? |
|
|
| (952867) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 13:55:53 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Jun 25 13:39:54 2012. Free condoms are for people like you to prevent reproduction. That's doing the species a favor.....Somalia is an excellent fit for you. They have no government, so there's nobody to stop you from moving in. All haters welcome there. RW are anti immunization anyway. Immunization saves lives. RW haters aren't in favor of that. You admit you're a hater. Go where you fit in. Blood? No, that's strawberry juice. Local berries that contain flavor are in. |
|
|
| (952869) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jun 25 13:57:24 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Mon Jun 25 13:55:53 2012. He doesn't need condoms.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (952880) | |
Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jun 25 14:08:09 2012, in response to Re: GWU Law Prof Wants 19 Member Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 24 19:03:54 2012. You're saying that TWO different powers can try you for aspects of a single offense committed in ONE jurisdiction.If by claiming past precedent was wrong in it's entirety (like Brown V BoE and Roe V Wade) than yeah, you're right. Read Citizens United. All it says is that corporations HAVE to be treated the same as individuals when it came to political contributions. It did not give them any special rights and did not make them immune from the same campaign finance restrictions placed on individuals, unions, non profits or religions because the 1st Amendment is supreme. Prior to Brown V BoE, the "precedent" was to maintain a system that kept African Americans as 2nd class citizens (Plessy V Ferguson). The SCOTUS is the only institution that can effectively tell the judicial system beneath it "hey, you got it wrong, repeatedly. Now here's how you are supposed to rule". In fact, that's the main reason they exist. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|