CRT = teaching that the 14a is the Constitution and not communism.
CRT = teaching that the 14a is the Constitution and not communism.The GOP will find another wedge issue, just like Reagan found this one when he couldn't run on segregation. Running against CRT was already extremely successful in Virginia.
Please point us to a single case that has been tried on the vigilante part of that law being carried out.. I think I told you this already, go look up the rulings as to why the cases trying to block the Texas law where unsuccessful. Pay specific attention to the ruling language, which mainly applied to the plaintiff.They let the ridiculous Texas vigilante law stand for months before invalidating Roe Vs Wade. This court is capable of anything to advance the GOP agenda.
You said I am not arguing in good faith which means I am lying about my motivations.Where did I call you a liar? You don't agree that bringing up a different era (long over a decade ago, and before we had today's SCOTUS makeup) to argue what would happen today is manipulation? What other purpose would trying to use in your argument imply since that has zero relevancy to today's SCOTUS and what they have ruled on?
Where did say presidence? I said legal standing as there is no legal presidence or legal standing that supports your argument. It's never been tried, so you have zero grounds other than full fledge assumptions based off Nothing but feels.
Yes, I have thought it thru, which is why I am not making assumptions as you are. Because I recognize that it would violate not only protections in the constitution, but various federal laws as well as violate state Powers... So sorry, you are not thinking it thru.
Intent can be proven the same way intent is proven in a multitude of other criminal cases.How can intent be proven? even intent would still have to be based off a legal act outside of their jurasdictin. Are we now using minority report logic?
So you believe they can arrest them for having the intentions of going to a other state to par take in legal activities in that state?
The whole foundation of your argument is still 100% relient on legal activities conducted outside their jurasdiction, with your argument being they have the intent to do something not illegal In another state.
How is arguing a different era where the ACA is concerned (over a decade if not two decades ago) that has nothing to do with today's SCOTUS and it's rulings, arguing in good faith? Rather than admitting it doesn't have any relevance, you claim it's not intelligent/intelligible? All you are doing is trying to substantiate your assumptions as if those assumptions are fact, and ignore the examples of the same thing happening where the ACA and Trump's voter fraud crap, that the assumptions where incorrect. Heck, if memory servers, you where part of those assumptions, just as I was. The difference this time is I am not making any assumptions.You said I am not arguing in good faith which means I am lying about my motivations.
Nothing else you said here is really intelligible.
Doesn't the first step require just cause, to investigate for intent? Where are they going to get just cause to get any proof of intent? Are you arguing that getting pregnant gives them just cause? Are they going to stop every woman driving around and ask them where they are going, what they are doing, if they are pregnant? Are they going to go to the courts and ask for search warrants for their internet history and such based on the fact they are pregnant? Are they going to require all pregnancies to be reported to the authorities? Where is the just cause to investigate for intent?Intent can be proven the same way intent is proven in a multitude of other criminal cases.
Doesn't the first step require just cause, to investigate for intent? Where are they going to get just cause to get any proof of intent? Are you arguing that getting pregnant gives them just cause? Are they going to stop every woman driving around and ask them where they are going, what they are doing, if they are pregnant? Are they going to go to the courts and ask for search warrants for their internet history and such based on the fact they are pregnant? Are they going to require all pregnancies to be reported to the authorities? Where is the just cause to investigate for intent?
It doesn't really matter because there is no crime in being pregnant or considering your legal options, which includes those out of state as long as those options are legal in that state.
Having the intent to do something that is legal in another state is not a crime. Having the intent of traveling outside of the state is not a crime. The whole foundation of such a law is based on legal activities outside the states jurisdiction and not illegal or criminal in that outside state. Your argument has no merit.
Seriously, step back and think. You are trying to argue about a imaginary law that is fully based on legal activities outside of that states jurasdiction.
25th? as in amendment? that's to remove a president. which why would anyone invoke?Thought experiment.
Suppose dems manage to keep the house.
Suppose dems manage to pick up two-three seats in the Senate.
Suppose Biden flip-flops on packing the court.
25th?
25th? as in amendment? that's to remove a president. which why would anyone invoke?
or are you referencing something else that i'm totally missing?
25th amendment requires a 2/3rds vote so the bar for that is higher than to expand the court.Nope you got it
How important is it to expand the court? If Biden back flips on the issue as sole obstacle to get it done... What will you do? Anything? (Knife to a gun fight and all that)... Or would the repercussions be too severe?
It just seems to me that getting the SC aligned is mission critical and top of list.
I think if Congress actually had the votes to expand the court you would see Biden’s opinion miraculously shift.So immediate non starter, copy that, any other viable levers?
Please point us to a single case that has been tried on the vigilante part of that law being carried out.. I think I told you this already, go look up the rulings as to why the cases trying to block the Texas law where unsuccessful. Pay specific attention to the ruling language, which mainly applied to the plaintiff.
In other words you are wasting your time
Is this for real? The intent of the law was clearly to make clinics and doctors afraid to operate and it worked. If you can make people sufficiently fearful you don't even actually have to sue, just the threat is enough.
All this legalistic handwringing is farcical in the face of a court that is just making up its own facts about cases when the law can't be sufficiently contorted for what they want. Just impotence and denial personified.
Kamala Harris as President? Isn't she the queen of flip-flops?Thought experiment.
Suppose dems manage to keep the house.
Suppose dems manage to pick up two-three seats in the Senate.
Suppose Biden flip-flops on packing the court.
25th?
Unnecessary. If Dems get the 2 Senate pickups, fillibuster is gone. They will be able to push through federal abortion bill, BBB and stronger gun legislation. And voters will see what Dems can do and will continue to pickup seats in 2024. Get the supermajority in the Senate so they can impeach justices. Swing court back to 5-4 and Roberts can't do anything about it.Nope you got it
How important is it to expand the court? If Biden back flips on the issue as sole obstacle to get it done... What will you do? Anything? (Knife to a gun fight and all that)... Or would the repercussions be too severe?
It just seems to me that getting the SC aligned is mission critical and top of list.
Suppose dems manage to keep the house.
Suppose dems manage to pick up two-three seats in the Senate.
Suppose Biden flip-flops on packing the court.
SCOTUS has final say. They can declare any law unconstitutional and the only solution would be an amendment, which requires much more than a supermajority, it requires ratification by the states. Since the current court does not feel it needs to be constrained by any given reading of the Constitution, or even the facts, it will be easy to call anything they feel like unconstitutional.Who has the last word, congress and its laws or SCOTUS rulings? I though it was congress.
I saw an idea that actually sounded decent. Federal judges are appointed for life (with some exceptions), but there's nothing saying members of SCOTUS can only be supreme court justices, so rotate them out. Serve x amount on supreme court, then move to another federal court and bring another federal judge in.Unnecessary. If Dems get the 2 Senate pickups, fillibuster is gone. They will be able to push through federal abortion bill, BBB and stronger gun legislation. And voters will see what Dems can do and will continue to pickup seats in 2024. Get the supermajority in the Senate so they can impeach justices. Swing court back to 5-4 and Roberts can't do anything about it.
SCOTUS has final say. They can declare any law unconstitutional and the only solution would be an amendment, which requires much more than a supermajority, it requires ratification by the states. Since the current court does not feel it needs to be constrained by any given reading of the Constitution, or even the facts, it will be easy to call anything they feel like unconstitutional.
Why move them if one has the votes to remove them!!!! First the drunk frat boy then the one with the crazy wife. Well crosses fingers in 2024I saw an idea that actually sounded decent. Federal judges are appointed for life (with some exceptions), but there's nothing saying members of SCOTUS can only be supreme court justices, so rotate them out. Serve x amount on supreme court, then move to another federal court and bring another federal judge in.
That is true for anything isn't it? What if we all just decided to ignore Congress?SCOTUS has "final say" only if everyone else agrees to go along. Given that they seem to be on a path of inconsistency/hypocrisy, it isn't outrageous to suggest that someone may just decide to ignore what they say on certain subjects. Wouldn't be the first time, and who is going to enforce it?
That is true for anything isn't it? What if we all just decided to ignore Congress?
That is true for anything isn't it? What if we all just decided to ignore Congress?