SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 536
  • Views: 20K
  • Politics 
PBOHEEL said:
If you want to continue to play "ring around the roses" with the BS you are trying to spin saying the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing and would have approved a Conservative Justice please do.

It is entertaining as hell to see one of the "legal experts" showing out in the manner in which you have this morning over a situation that you wish the Dems would have been put in not only with Gorsuch but with ACB as well!!

Who was the President that coined the phrase "elections have consequences?" Refresh my memory please.

While you are at it... tell Harr Reid the GOP says "thanks!!" and "cheers" to Harry for being the pioneer in making sure the party who has the votes gets to pick the Judiciary.
Click to expand...
“They said they had considered it and found him not to be a worthy candidate“

Link, please.
 
PBOHEEL said:
If you want to continue to play "ring around the roses" with the BS you are trying to spin saying the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing and would have approved a Conservative Justice please do.

It is entertaining as hell to see one of the "legal experts" showing out in the manner in which you have this morning over a situation that you wish the Dems would have been put in not only with Gorsuch but with ACB as well!!

Who was the President that coined the phrase "elections have consequences?" Refresh my memory please.

While you are at it... tell Harr Reid the GOP says "thanks!!" and "cheers" to Harry for being the pioneer in making sure the party who has the votes gets to pick the Judiciary.
Click to expand...
The Dems had a chance to pull a McConnell in 1992. They did not. They allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas. Boy what a mistake that was. Oh, the guy who allowed the vote? Joe Biden.

Anyway, we don't have to play your "what if" games given that there is direct evidence on that point.
 
PBOHEEL said:
LOL... You don't "have to play my what if game" but glad you joined in Super.... Can't wait for a 1500 word essay on how McConnell outfoxed the Dems and reshaped the SCOTUS for a generation!

As far as the link... there are several search engines you can utilize to research the process that was 100% legal, 100% within the United States Constitution and 100% left the Democrats whining and crying like a fat kid that dropped his cake!

I think the terms a few posters would use on the old board when making fun of Conservatives was "big mad?"

Well.... as an old timer would say to the Dems...... "it's no fun when the rabbit has the gun...."

As far as the hypothetical..... I'll say it again.... there is not one single person walking the Earth that thinks that for one iota of a millisecond the Democrats would have done anything different. And given the chance to expand the court they will in an instant. They have already tried. Manchin and Sinema kept it from happening.

So if you want to discuss hypotheticals and what not you can. But let's have an honest conversation and not pretend that the Democrats are the holier than thou party that would never play the political games.

Your party coronated a nominee that received ZERO votes from the American people and odds are she would not have won judging from her showing in 2020. If she wasn't the nominee the Democrats lose in a wipeout because they would lose the black voting block by stepping over Harris.

There's your political gamesmanship. Well played Democrats... well played.
Click to expand...
Take it outside.
 
I'm not sure what is meant by "leave to file the bill of complaint" exactly in a case of original jurisdiction. It seems to me that the Court is saying, "get lost, we're not going to hear you" and Alito and Thomas would say, "we've heard you and we want to note that for the record, but you lose."

I could be wrong.
 
PBOHEEL said:
LOL... You don't "have to play my what if game" but glad you joined in Super.... Can't wait for a 1500 word essay on how McConnell outfoxed the Dems and reshaped the SCOTUS for a generation!

As far as the link... there are several search engines you can utilize to research the process that was 100% legal, 100% within the United States Constitution and 100% left the Democrats whining and crying like a fat kid that dropped his cake!

I think the terms a few posters would use on the old board when making fun of Conservatives was "big mad?"

Well.... as an old timer would say to the Dems...... "it's no fun when the rabbit has the gun...."

As far as the hypothetical..... I'll say it again.... there is not one single person walking the Earth that thinks that for one iota of a millisecond the Democrats would have done anything different. And given the chance to expand the court they will in an instant. They have already tried. Manchin and Sinema kept it from happening.

So if you want to discuss hypotheticals and what not you can. But let's have an honest conversation and not pretend that the Democrats are the holier than thou party that would never play the political games.

Your party coronated a nominee that received ZERO votes from the American people and odds are she would not have won judging from her showing in 2020. If she wasn't the nominee the Democrats lose in a wipeout because they would lose the black voting block by stepping over Harris.

There's your political gamesmanship. Well played Democrats... well played.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton won. HRC got 3M more votes than Trump. Biden won by 7M over Trump. Where is this Wipeout you are talking about. Ahh it's turnout. That's why ee saw all the anti-Voting rights laws being pushed.
 


“…
The chief justice’s Feb. 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document.

The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it.

… The chief justice wrote the majority opinions in all three cases, including an unsigned one in March concluding that the former president could not be barred from election ballots in Colorado.

…
In April, the chief justice assigned Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to write a majority opinion saying that prosecutors had gone too far in bringing obstruction charges against some Capitol rioters. But in late May, the chief justice took it over.

Who initiated the change, and why, is not clear. The switch came days after The Times reportedthat an upside-down flag, a symbol of the Stop the Steal movement, had flown outside the Alito home following the Capitol attack. While that timing is suggestive, it is unclear whether the two are linked. (All nine justices declined to respond to written questions from The Times, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.) …”
 


"The Supreme Court left in place Friday two Biden administration environmental regulations aimed at reducing emissions of planet-warming methane and toxic mercury from coal-fired power plants.

The justices did not detail their reasoning in the orders, which came after a flurry of emergency applications to block the rules from industry groups and Republican-leaning states. There were no noted dissents.

The high court is still considering challenges to a third rule aimed at curbing planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants. ..."

_____

These would have been temporary blocks pending the cases working through the system.
 
www.scotusblog.com

Justices take up “false statement” dispute and rare capital case - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments early next year in a case involving a member of one of Chicago’s most prominent political dynasties, a relatively rare capital case, and Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers. In a short list of orders, the justices on Friday added 15 new cases to
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

"... The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments early next year in a case involving a member of one of Chicago’s most prominent political dynasties, a relatively rare capital case, and Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers. In a short list of orders, the justices on Friday added 15 new cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term, which starts on Monday.


The order granting the new cases came from the justices’ “long conference” on Sept. 30 – the first conference since early July in which they have met to consider petitions for review. Another list of orders from that conference (among other things, denying review of hundreds of petitions that have accumulated since July) is expected on Monday, Oct. 7. ..."
 


www.nbcnews.com

Supreme Court declines to hear Biden appeal in Texas emergency room abortion dispute

The dispute mirrors a similar case the court decided in June concerning the tension between a federal law requiring emergency room care and state laws that ban abortion.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

"...The decision, months after the court wrestled with a similar case from Idaho without reaching a conclusive decision, constitutes a setback for the Biden administration.

The decision leaves intact a ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Texas on the question of whether a federal law concerning emergency room care in some cases trumps state abortion restrictions.

... The 1986 federal law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, requires that patients — including, the federal government says, pregnant women with serious complications — receive appropriate emergency room care. The law applies to hospitals that receive federal funding via the Medicare program.

In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning the constitutional right to abortion in 2022 and the strict bans that followed in some states, the Biden administration issued guidance saying states could not enforce parts of abortion bans that would conflict with the federal law.

... In the Idaho case, the Supreme Court in June sidestepped a major ruling on the issue, with some justices indicating that the court was being too quick in taking up the legal question. In the meantime, a lower court ruling that allows emergency room doctors to perform abortion in some situations remains in place.

In Texas, a federal judge ruled against the administration, saying that the federal government had overstepped its authority by issuing the guidance. The decision was upheld on appeal.

The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to hold the case until it decided the Idaho dispute. Over the summer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the court to throw out the appeals court ruling so that new developments could be considered afresh.

Separately, the court declined to hear another abortion-related case, this one from Guam, about whether the territory’s Supreme Court had the authority to rule that a 1990 abortion ban no longer remains on the books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top