Tue May 12, 2020, 11:29 AM
dajoki (10,551 posts)
5-4; 5-4...
I've listened long enough to see where this is going, today the s. court will decide that we have a king. Our only hope is a landslide win in November wiping all of the pukes out of power. Then we must stack the courts to their fullest and never allow this to happen again.
|
26 replies, 1848 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
dajoki | May 2020 | OP |
GusFring | May 2020 | #1 | |
Drunken Irishman | May 2020 | #2 | |
jberryhill | May 2020 | #3 | |
GusFring | May 2020 | #4 | |
Bernardo de La Paz | May 2020 | #5 | |
brooklynite | May 2020 | #10 | |
SoonerPride | May 2020 | #13 | |
brooklynite | May 2020 | #15 | |
Eliot Rosewater | May 2020 | #6 | |
shockey80 | May 2020 | #7 | |
Eliot Rosewater | May 2020 | #8 | |
Miguelito Loveless | May 2020 | #23 | |
PRETZEL | May 2020 | #9 | |
Maraya1969 | May 2020 | #12 | |
qazplm135 | May 2020 | #19 | |
dalton99a | May 2020 | #11 | |
Amishman | May 2020 | #14 | |
dalton99a | May 2020 | #16 | |
Amishman | May 2020 | #18 | |
Fullduplexxx | May 2020 | #17 | |
Amishman | May 2020 | #20 | |
dalton99a | May 2020 | #25 | |
Tarheel_Dem | May 2020 | #26 | |
uponit7771 | May 2020 | #22 | |
Yeehah | May 2020 | #21 | |
BlueIdaho | May 2020 | #24 |
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:30 AM
GusFring (756 posts)
1. Are they deciding today?
Response to GusFring (Reply #1)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:30 AM
Drunken Irishman (34,025 posts)
2. No. They won't until summer.
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:31 AM
GusFring (756 posts)
4. Carey Dune is already better than Douglas fucking Letter.
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:35 AM
Bernardo de La Paz (37,158 posts)
5. In many cases, after a landslide we can get some tough laws through that would be hard to overturn
Like requiring tax returns to run. Like clear unassailable sunshine laws to require testimony and presentation of documents when requested by Congress. So much to do. |
Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:41 AM
brooklynite (68,669 posts)
10. You CANNOT pass a Federal Law requiring tax returns to run for President...
...because we don’t have a Federal Presidential Election. Per the Constitution, each STATE decides how to select Electors (an Election isn’t even necessary).
|
Response to brooklynite (Reply #10)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:49 AM
SoonerPride (9,463 posts)
13. I thought several states tried to require a tax return and those laws were thrown out
So then what?
|
Response to SoonerPride (Reply #13)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:55 AM
brooklynite (68,669 posts)
15. They were thrown out by STATE Courts...
...doesn't mean that anything is possible at the Federal level.
|
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:37 AM
shockey80 (4,379 posts)
7. If that happens, the supreme court will be torn to pieces by the news media and the people.
The majority of the American people will know that decision puts Trump above the law, all future presidents above the law.
|
Response to shockey80 (Reply #7)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:39 AM
Eliot Rosewater (26,832 posts)
8. Yeah, wont matter. Media will pay little attention to it like they do all the
vile crimes committed by the rumpster and the GOP.
Still torturing children on the border, getting sick etc. Nothing is done. |
Response to shockey80 (Reply #7)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:10 PM
Miguelito Loveless (2,992 posts)
23. And?
The only way to fix the court is expand the bench to 13-15 members.
|
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:40 AM
PRETZEL (3,075 posts)
9. Question to those more learned than I,
been trying to keep up here while still working.
It seems by most accounts, the House attorney did not have his best day, (or as others have said, he stunk), however, realistically how much weight is put on oral arguments vs. the briefs that were filed prior to the oral arguments? |
Response to PRETZEL (Reply #9)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:47 AM
Maraya1969 (17,529 posts)
12. I think you make a good point. How good is a Supreme Court if they make their decisions
based on how well an attorney argues their point?
SCOTUS is supposed to do their own research I would think and not be swayed by some impressive attorney. They are supposed to seek out the truth. |
Response to PRETZEL (Reply #9)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:05 PM
qazplm135 (5,400 posts)
19. Very little in most cases
And you can't always tell votes from questions asked.
Still I would be shocked at a decision requiring Trump to give up his tax returns. That was never going to happen. It only happens in a criminal trial after his presidency. |
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:42 AM
dalton99a (59,374 posts)
11. Democrats must expand the court, or we will be under their veto power forever.
Get rid of the Senate filibuster, and add 5 or 6 seats
|
Response to dalton99a (Reply #11)
Tue May 12, 2020, 11:49 AM
Amishman (3,360 posts)
14. yes, we must ensure one party rule
then abolish the Republicans and all other opposition parties
![]() I am so very not comfortable with court stacking. I want a functional government with multiple viewpoints, not single party rule. |
Response to Amishman (Reply #14)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:00 PM
dalton99a (59,374 posts)
16. A functional government that reflects the will of the majority of voters
not some bullshit 9-seat limitation that perpetuates minority rule
|
Response to dalton99a (Reply #16)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:05 PM
Amishman (3,360 posts)
18. needs to be some continuity and checks
otherwise we wouldn't have three branches of government with separation of duties; instead we'd just pick a political party and let them decide the rest.
stacking the courts is a red line for me. I will not support it. Picking the best candidates for openings is fine, that is not abusing the system to usurp power. expanding and stacking the courts to seize power is just as fascist as the republicans voter suppression. |
Response to Amishman (Reply #14)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:03 PM
Fullduplexxx (4,100 posts)
17. They are already stacked. dems adding to scotus would be merely a correcting
Of the republican court stacking
|
Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #17)
Amishman This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #17)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:12 PM
dalton99a (59,374 posts)
25. Exactly. The Supreme Court is not some sacred temple of law and equity
it is a political institution. |
Response to Amishman (Reply #14)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:12 PM
Tarheel_Dem (30,914 posts)
26. Perhaps the poster should have made clear that we need to "unstack" the courts. The GOP has...
been really busy doing just that since the 2016 election. So many unprecedented acts have taken place since Pukes took control of the Senate. It started with their refusal to even have hearings on PBO's nomination of Merrick Garland. Anything after that should make one feel less "not comfortable" with anything the Democrats do when/if they return to power.
|
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:07 PM
Yeehah (1,939 posts)
21. Well, I agree.
Citizens United requires drastic action.
|
Response to dajoki (Original post)
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:11 PM
BlueIdaho (9,235 posts)
24. The legitimacy of the Roberts Court
Is about to be shredded beyond repair. I don’t know of a solution to a court that has become so obviously political but there is little if any reason to respect anything coming from that kangaroo court.
|