SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 46K
  • Politics 
Maybe more than Alito and Thomas. People at SCOTUSblog think ACB is undecided. Hopefully that isn't true. I mean, the challengers only have text, history, tradition and precedent on their side.

Alito is the most justice since the 19th century. What an utter disgrace. 100% chance that, had he been on the court at the time, he would have dissented in Brown v. Board.

If the conservative majority manages to talk their way into holding for Trump, then they should be summarily removed and dropped in an ocean. It is no exaggeration to say this could destroy the country. The aftershocks would be incalculable. So, so, so much would have to be redone and it will prompt fights at every turn. The country would no longer be administrable.
 
It's a trip reading 19th century cases (I've gone back to read Wong Kim Ark). They are so disorganized. Typewriters and word processors have changed so much. We take for granted that we can just cut and paste text, move it around in our document, etc. In the 19th century, they drafted by hand and moving things around would be laborious and very time consuming.
 
superrific said:
It's a trip reading 19th century cases (I've gone back to read Wong Kim Ark). They are so disorganized. Typewriters and word processors have changed so much. We take for granted that we can just cut and paste text, move it around in our document, etc. In the 19th century, they drafted by hand and moving things around would be laborious and very time consuming.
Click to expand...
Just think about the scribes copying the books of the bible 1900 years ago. Copy and paste would have resulted in a much different bible.
 
Incredible lack of preparation by Sauer? Unsurprising. Most conservative Supreme Court attorneys are vastly overrated. Usually their case is won before they even file a brief. Sauer hasn't needed to prepare the whole term.
 
This was always a stretch. This is a congressional issue, not SC issue. Although I thought Wong argued it was cemented in perpetuity and not subject to be changed. Board lawyers, did I misunderstand her comments? I thought she was very effective.

I agree with trump that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but again, it’s congress’s job to solve it. I think trump just rolled the dice because this approach was much quicker.
 
Callatoroy said:
This was always a stretch. This is a congressional issue, not SC issue. Although I thought Wong argued it was cemented in perpetuity and not subject to be changed. Board lawyers, did I misunderstand her comments? I thought she was very effective.

I agree with trump that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but again, it’s congress’s job to solve it. I think trump just rolled the dice because this approach was much quicker.
Click to expand...
How is congress going to “solve” the problem? Do you understand the question before the court?
 
Callatoroy said:
This was always a stretch. This is a congressional issue, not SC issue. Although I thought Wong argued it was cemented in perpetuity and not subject to be changed. Board lawyers, did I misunderstand her comments? I thought she was very effective.
Click to expand...
This is why it's helpful to have knowledge. You would benefit from reading a lot more, way more broadly, and spouting less.

Wang was quoting or referring to contemporaneous statements by the people who wrote the 14th Amendment. They didn't mean it literally in perpetuity, but rather that it would require a constitutional amendment to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top