|
Kaal posted:Actually it would not, there's no constitutional mandate for lifetime appointments at all. They "shall" hold their offices "during good behavior." There is no other explanation for that clause besides "lifetime appointments, except for impeachment."
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah. It's a one way ratchet but the only recourse is to exercise political power wherever and whenever you can. Well the parties could also just shrink the size of the court and boot justices they don't like. That also would only take a majority in both houses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I agree, especially after the stolen Scalia seat. I'm just not very confident that voters will agree. It's not voters you have to convince, it's old senators who haven't fully accepted that the Senate of the 1970s is gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/879341731493400580 This response made me chuckle. https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewgruhn/status/879342050705014784 https://mobile.twitter.com/matthewgruhn/status/879342629279813632
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
There is nothing inherently wrong with lifetime appointments to the supreme Court. The idea is that once appointed you are no longer beholden to party or politic and can focus solely on law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Yeah big, fat nothing burger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well the parties could also just shrink the size of the court and boot justices they don't like. That also would only take a majority in both houses. It would require impeachment of the sitting justices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
That man doesn't know anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:There is nothing inherently wrong with lifetime appointments to the supreme Court. The idea is that once appointed you are no longer beholden to party or politic and can focus solely on law. So hopefully Gorsuch realizes God is a lie, conservatism has failed, and starts applying the law utilizing a present day interpretation based on logic. right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well the parties could also just shrink the size of the court and boot justices they don't like. That also would only take a majority in both houses. Likewise unconstitutional. I believe every court shrink that occurred in history simply provided that the next vacacy that opened would not be filled. No court shrink has ever proposed that certain justices would be eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That man doesn't know anything. His lack of knowledge is infinitely more interesting than anything you post in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's not voters you have to convince, it's old senators who haven't fully accepted that the Senate of the 1970s is gone. Pretty sure they all realize that by now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They "shall" hold their offices "during good behavior." There is no other explanation for that clause besides "lifetime appointments, except for impeachment." Teddybear posted:I'd argue holding for good behavior necessarily implies lifetime appointments. That constitutional mandate also applies to all inferior courts, and yet the "lifetime appointment" interpretation only is applied to the Supreme Court. We change and limit the terms of the vast majority of our judges. It's clearly a misinterpretation that could be easily rectified - either by narrowly recognizing that the line is discussing Good Behavior as grounds for impeachment, or by prima facie interpretation that Good Behavior means holding office for 10 years. Either way, there is no bright line there that a determined congress would have to cross.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If FDR, who was insanely popular and had a supermajority in Congress couldn't get away with court packing, I don't think anyone can Counterpoint: nothing loving matters FDR couldn't have been elected with a history of rape and fraud, either, but Trump did The only thing that matters is winning. Win once and lock in future wins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
SCOTUS will hear the travel ban case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
lmao eventually a bomb will drop, at some point, regarding something can you guys follow me on twitter I can make this prediction too
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That constitutional mandate also applies to all inferior courts, and yet the "lifetime appointment" interpretation only is applied to the Supreme Court. We change and limit the terms of the vast majority of our judges. It's clearly a misinterpretation that could be easily rectified - either by narrowly recognizing that the line is discussing Good Behavior as grounds for impeachment, or by prima facie interpretation that Good Behavior means holding office for 10 years. Either way, there is no bright line there that a determined congress would have to cross. ... no, no we don't. I think you might be confusing state and federal judges?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That constitutional mandate also applies to all inferior courts, and yet the "lifetime appointment" interpretation only is applied to the Supreme Court. We change and limit the terms of the vast majority of our judges. It's clearly a misinterpretation that could be easily rectified - either by narrowly recognizing that the line is discussing Good Behavior as grounds for impeachment, or by prima facie interpretation that Good Behavior means holding office for 10 years. Either way, there is no bright line there that a determined congress would have to cross. It applies to lower courts too. Literally the only federal "judges" who it doesn't apply to are bankruptcy judges, who (as a necessary constitutional result) have limited jurisdiction and for non-core bankruptcy matters are officially just an advisor to the district court who is making the actual decision, or magistrate judges who are purely official "advisors" to the district courts and handle matters the district judge doesn't feel like handling but likewise can't actually enter a final order on anything. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Every judge appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate is a lifetime appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Also, we know lifetime appointments were intended from the Federalist Papers and the notes from the Constitutional Convention. And no federal judge is ever going to rule against his own lifetime appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:lmao his story got torpedoed, lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:It would require impeachment of the sitting justices. evilweasel posted:Likewise unconstitutional. I believe every court shrink that occurred in history simply provided that the next vacacy that opened would not be filled. No court shrink has ever proposed that certain justices would be eliminated. Actually it also would be constitutional. There's nothing barring it at all. The judges hold their Offices - but without an Office they have no grounds to stand on for Continuance. This is an issue that has come up many times in the inferior courts. The reality here is that while we think of the SCOTUS as having a firm constitutional role and grounding, the reality is that most of our rules for it are based entirely on precedent that could be easily changed (and often has been in the past).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
SCOTUS has also limited travel ban injunction to only cover those who have a "bona fide" connection to the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
I read that completely differently. He's hinting his story is about collusion, doesn't involve Comey, and is coming soon. Wittes IS the guy Comey told about all his meetings with Trump with "don't tell anyone as long as I'm director" which as soon as he was fired Wittes started to let people know. He's not some rando.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Every single one of these dumbfuck twitterati who try to coyly tease big stories need to get their teeth bashed in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Actually it also would be constitutional. There's nothing barring it at all. The judges hold their Offices - but without an Office they have no grounds to stand on for Continuance. This is an issue that has come up many times in the inferior courts. The reality here is that while we think of the SCOTUS as having a firm constitutional role and grounding, the reality is that most of our rules for it are based entirely on precedent that could be easily changed (and often has been in the past). I agree with Teddybear, I'm pretty sure you're confusing federal judges and state judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:SCOTUS has also limited travel ban injunction to only cover those who have a "bona fide" connection to the US. What's that mean in stupid person talk?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:SCOTUS has also limited travel ban injunction to only cover those who have a "bona fide" connection to the US. https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/statuses/879346316618461184 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/879347048654483456 https://twitter.com/NPR/status/879344271849132033 Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:What's that mean in stupid person talk? It means that the ban is in place for now unless the person in question had a legitimate and significant connection to the US through family or some other avenue. If you're just showing up from a ban country, it appears that you can be blocked now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:SCOTUS has also limited travel ban injunction to only cover those who have a "bona fide" connection to the US. This sounds extremely ominous. Didn't the original ban have a specific time period that's already passed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:This sounds extremely ominous. Didn't the original ban have a specific time period that's already passed? The court ordered the parties to brief the question of if it already became moot because of that. I keep looking for the actual orders entered, haven't found them yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:It means that the ban is in place for now unless the person in question had a legitimate and significant connection to the US through family or some other avenue. If you're just showing up from a ban country, it appears that you can be blocked now. Have they said anything on how this affects Green Card holders or people from third countries (example: my coworker needs to travel frequently to the US from work, and even though she's a born German, one of her parents is Iranian and per Iranian law, she has non-renouncable Iranian citizenship).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
No Justice retirements announced. Thank gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I agree with Teddybear, I'm pretty sure you're confusing federal judges and state judges. Nope, there's plenty of federal judges who have limited tenures, they're just considered "Non-Article III judges". In addition to bankruptcy courts, there's also a variety of tax and claims courts, territorial courts, and military courts helmed by judges without lifetime appointments. And of course magistrate judges, if you want to consider them as well. Not to mention that judges can change Offices or be promoted out of them, despite the nominal "lifetime" duration. I understand that there's an orthodoxy here that considers lifetime appointments to be constitutionally based, but it really isn't. All it would take would be a determined congress to change it. It would go up to the SCOTUS for review of course, but so long as Congress made it clear that it was a political issue, then I think the Supreme Court have little choice but to acquiesce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Here's the travel ban order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Cool, so effectively we have a religious ban in the US. Neat-o.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Drone posted:Have they said anything on how this affects Green Card holders or people from third countries (example: my coworker needs to travel frequently to the US from work, and even though she's a born German, one of her parents is Iranian and per Iranian law, she has non-renouncable Iranian citizenship). Haven't read it, not sure-- I'd expect analysis in the next couple hours. Kaal posted:Nope, there's plenty of federal judges who have limited tenures, they're just considered "Non-Article III judges". In addition to bankruptcy courts, there's also a variety of tax and claims courts, territorial courts, and military courts helmed by judges without lifetime appointments. And of course magistrate judges, if you want to consider them as well. Not to mention that judges can change Offices or be promoted out of them, despite the nominal "lifetime" duration. I understand that there's an orthodoxy here that considers lifetime appointments to be constitutionally based, but it really isn't. Yeah, we're all talking about article III judges here. The whole conversation has been article III judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
No Butt Stuff posted:So hopefully Gorsuch realizes God is a lie, conservatism has failed, and starts applying the law utilizing a present day interpretation based on logic. Gorsuch never should have been appointed, unfortunately. The court has become increasingly viewed as political and gorsuch is purely on the court for political reasons rather than his ability as a judge. We can tell by his insipid and terrible writing style that he doesn't belong there, so his opinions and his opinions make him a poor choice imo 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Gorsuch never should have been appointed, unfortunately. The court has become increasingly viewed as political and gorsuch is purely on the court for political reasons rather than his ability as a judge. Yeah but Turtle McFuckerson was pissy the democratic senators were obstructionists. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:40
|
|