Lincoln did as well. Ignored Dred Scott entirely.
There was a video i saw somewhere yesterday about this and FDR and even some other presidents doing just that. Cant find it now though. Maybe it was on here lol
You left out the handmaid.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 2024
Remember when the whole 'defund the police' thing was going on and a bunch of center-liners were brow-furrowing at the extremist liberals? Pepperidge farm remembers.Cops will beat the shit out of protesters but when you need them to take out a shooter murdering children in a school they just guard the fucking parking lot. Biggest waste of money ever.
Less on her. Easy perjury on Kavanaugh and valid conflict of interest with ThomasYou left out the handmaid.
It's easy for Christianity to give way because they made it easy. Just repent and all sins are wiped clean whether the sinner is sincere or not. It's no wonder why conservatives are so good at being terrible liars.I know some of them and they are mystified how their parents and friends have changed. They spent their formative years in the 90's being told by parents and authority figures that personal morality for elected officials was of paramount importance only to see those same people embrace the most utterly immoral person ever to hold the presidency, usually excusing it by either claiming all his immoral acts never happened or that he had become a true Christian now so it was all fine. The same people who said moral relativism was a great sickness infecting the country threw that out the window too.
It was very difficult for one friend of mine to accept that to a lot of her fellow church members Christianity is important, but not as important as the broader social movement so when they came into conflict, Christianity gave way.
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.
I think it's a mistake that the SCOTUS is populated by people who are given lifetime tenure after confirmations that can be based on prevarication. The 3 justices nominated and confirmed by Donald Trump all indicated that they had no misgivings concerning Roe Vs. Wade before they were confirmed, but after being seated, when the chips were down, they did an about face. There should be a term limit on the SCOTUS. Off the top of my head, 7 years would seem liberal. 4 might work much better. The current court (after appointment shenanigans by the Republican Party) is stacked with people with no moral compass and no understanding of their obligations. The same can be said for 99% of the officials of the Republican Party. We here in the USA are in a jam.Seems that it's next-to-impossible to pass an amendment under the US system. Is it not the case that most of the existing ones were only passed either during the initial period of debate before the Constitution was even ratified, or in the aftermath of of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history?
In any case, even if an amendment were passed, would the Court not be able to effectively ignore it by constructing some nonsensical legal argument around it? As things stand it looks as if (the majority on) the Court can do whatever it wants, with no constraints at all, other than, I suppose, fear of unlawful violent reprisals.
Seems like its getting into the area of a general problem with Constitutions, and indeed all formal systems of rules.
There's no Constitution that can't be subverted. Ultimately they all depend for their stability and survival on things outside themselves (in this case, the culture and attitudes of the population, and what they are prepared to tolerate). I wonder if that is related to Godel and all that philosophical-mathematical stuff?
I know some of them and they are mystified how their parents and friends have changed. They spent their formative years in the 90's being told by parents and authority figures that personal morality for elected officials was of paramount importance only to see those same people embrace the most utterly immoral person ever to hold the presidency, usually excusing it by either claiming all his immoral acts never happened or that he had become a true Christian now so it was all fine. The same people who said moral relativism was a great sickness infecting the country threw that out the window too.
It was very difficult for one friend of mine to accept that to a lot of her fellow church members Christianity is important, but not as important as the broader social movement so when they came into conflict, Christianity gave way.
Less on her. Easy perjury on Kavanaugh and valid conflict of interest with Thomas
Don't want to raise you kid? No problem:
">June 27, 2022</a>
The others can tap dance around them adhering to president. I’m referring to the perjury of Kavanaugh to the Ford allegations.Alito and Gorsucks perjured themselves on Roe vs Wade too.
The right to bodily integrity. You cannot be forced to donate blood to save a life. We cannot harvest organs from dead people without their express written consent even to save a life. A woman deserves the same control over who gets to use her body to survive....
If you try to take a purely "scientific" approach... Then what makes taking the life inside the womb ok, but not after it's left?
What scientific voodoo are you going to point to to say when precisely individual rights do or don't apply?
You need not less than 2/3 of the Senate to impeach - that's 67 votes. I don't know if there's a legal way to appoint them to another federal court with something like term limits - appointment for x years and if they die or are impeached before that, the replacement just fills out the remainder of the term.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 2024
Wouldn’t matter if they got control of the House and Senate - they couldn’t appoint anyone to fill the vacancies.You need not less than 2/3 of the Senate to impeach - that's 67 votes. I don't know if there's a legal way to appoint them to another federal court with something like term limits - appointment for x years and if they die or are impeached before that, the replacement just fills out the remainder of the term.
For packing the court, how many would they add? The Bruen decision was 6-3, suggesting a minimum of 4. Could the democrats get 50 votes to add that many? Of course, the Republicans could do the same and add even more if they ever get control of the House and Senate since the president has no say (Article III of constitution).
FDR wanted Congress to pass a bill allowing him to appoint a new justice for everyone at least 70 years old. They refused.There was a video i saw somewhere yesterday about this and FDR and even some other presidents doing just that. Cant find it now though. Maybe it was on here lol
Wouldn’t matter if they got control of the House and Senate - they couldn’t appoint anyone to fill the vacancies.
That being said, the threat of future Republican expansion of the court is nothing to fear. Then at least both parties are on equal ground, unlike now.
Sure, why not? Having a 500 member SCOTUS would be far preferable to a nine member. That's just common sense.So we might one day have a 500 member SCOTUS?
They can't appoint anyone, but they also don't have to confirm either - see Merrick Garland.Wouldn’t matter if they got control of the House and Senate - they couldn’t appoint anyone to fill the vacancies.
That being said, the threat of future Republican expansion of the court is nothing to fear. Then at least both parties are on equal ground, unlike now.
I personally vote for adding 300 million seats. Let all court cases be voted on by the public.So we might one day have a 500 member SCOTUS?
Lol kids get a vote alsoI personally vote for adding 300 million seats. Let all court cases be voted on by the public.