Jump to content
Motor City Sonics

The Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Both. She only has three years as an appeals court judge. 

three more years than elena kagan...

she's very qualified for the supreme court.  the ABA rated her as well qualified.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

Does she suck because she is a mean conservative or because she is not qualified?  

 

she's more than qualified.  people here dont like her politics, which is understandable.  but she's absolutely qualified.  she was rated as "well qualified" by the American Bar Association.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buddha said:

there's a "movement afoot" in the same areas where there is a movement afoot by some liberals to 

 "There's a movement afoot", yes I prefer the Black Jeopardy category "They out there sayin' ".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren’t willing to go on record in support of Roe/Casey being settled law or super precedent or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think you are qualified. 
 

That’s my personal standard for determining who is qualified and who sucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shelton said:

If you aren’t willing to go on record in support of Roe/Casey being settled law or super precedent or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think you are qualified. 
 

That’s my personal standard for determining who is qualified and who sucks. 

the shelton standard of qualifications = you must agree with shelton.  got it.

she answered their ridiculous "questions" the way a judge is supposed to answer them: be evasive and dont make statements on issues that you may have to rule upon later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Buddha said:

the shelton standard of qualifications = you must agree with shelton.  got it.

she answered their ridiculous "questions" the way a judge is supposed to answer them: be evasive and dont make statements on issues that you may have to rule upon later.

Well, yeah. Isn’t that the same personal standard every senator is using during this confirmation process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shelton said:

Well, yeah. Isn’t that the same personal standard every senator is using during this confirmation process?

he's got a point there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I’m not really talking about her answers during this questioning period. I’m talking about her position, which everyone has known about and is the very reason she is being rammed through this process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

Well, yeah. Isn’t that the same personal standard every senator is using during this confirmation process?

that's why they have neutral industry organizations like the ABA that give their opinions on her level of qualifications.

and she was rated well qualified.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Oh, and I’m not really talking about her answers during this questioning period. I’m talking about her position, which everyone has known about and is the very reason she is being rammed through this process. 

ok.  has nothing to do with whether she's qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buddha said:

ok.  has nothing to do with whether she's qualified.

I set forth my qualification standard. It’s very objective and clear. 
 

I think being a lock to overturn well established precedent is disqualifying. 
 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

If you aren’t willing to go on record in support of Roe/Casey being settled law or super precedent or whatever you want to call it, I don’t think you are qualified. 
 

That’s my personal standard for determining who is qualified and who sucks. 

"Super Precedent" is a term reserved for decisions that have become so accepted, uncontroversial, or settled that no one seriously considers them open to challenge -- like Marbury v Madison or Brown v Board of Education.  No one today questions that courts have the power to review laws for constitutionality and strike them down if they do not pass constitutional muster; or that states cannot segregate students by race or provide any other supposedly "separate but equal" accommodations v\based upon race. 

With  that standard, Judge Barrett is absolutely correct that Roe and Casey don't  come close to meeting it.  They are still very controversial decisions -- in fact among the most controversial of all time -- with a wide spectrum of views about them:  they were wrongly decided in full; they were wrongly decided in terms of the reasoning but correct in striking down state laws prohibiting abortion; they did violence to the Constitution for reasons unrelated to abortion; they were correct in part; they were correct in full; and many other variations.  And many people and states still want or pass laws seeking to challenge or modify or clarify those cases.  They are the very antithesis of "Super Precedent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I set forth my qualification standard. It’s very objective and clear. 
 

I think being a lock to overturn well established precedent is disqualifying. 
 

 

as long as you agree with the "well established precedent," right?

i mean, you're surely not a big plessy v ferguson fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

"Super Precedent" is a term reserved for decisions that have become so accepted, uncontroversial, or settled that no one seriously considers them open to challenge -- like Marbury v Madison or Brown v Board of Education.  No one today questions that courts have the power to review laws for constitutionality and strike them down if they do not pass constitutional muster; or that states can segregate students by race or provide any other supposedly "separate but equal" accommodations v\based upon race. 

With  that standard, Judge Barrett is absolutely correct that Roe and Casey don't  come close to meeting it.  They are still very controversial decisions -- in fact among the most controversial of all time -- with a wide spectrum of views about them:  they were wrongly decided in full; they were wrongly decided in terms of the reasoning but correct in striking down state laws prohibiting abortion; they did violence to the Constitution for reasons unrelated to abortion; they were correct in part; they were correct in full; and many other variations.  And many people and states still want or pass laws seeking to challenge or modify or clarify those cases.  They are the very antithesis of "Super Precedent."

the illustrious and apparently infallible ruth bader ginsburg once said Roe was a not a well reasoned decision and questioned it, prompting calls from naral that ginsburg might not be the staunch protector of "well established precedent" that democrats have to have for every nominee.  ie, they must support abortion on demand.

its a good thing she's no longer on the court to act on her obviously biased and radically dangerous views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that matters is if the ABA says she's qualified. Just pick a name out of a hat of ABA approved judges. Their positions don't matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is good to know that the board definitely agrees that no supreme court judge should ever vote to overturn the precedents set by previous courts.

so citizens united, heller, and shelby county should never be overturned.  got it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Motown Bombers said:

All that matters is if the ABA says she's qualified. Just pick a name out of a hat of ABA approved judges. Their positions don't matter. 

Lee asked if she was qualified.  her positions dont matter as to whether she is qualified.

if the question is "do you think she should be confirmed," then the answer can be "no, because i dont agree with her judicial philosophy."

but she's more than qualified for a supreme court position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles Liston said:

 "There's a movement afoot", yes I prefer the Black Jeopardy category "They out there sayin' ".

Do you use "Car Tape" or "Long *** wire"?

:alien:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Ronz said:

Do you use "Car Tape" or "Long *** wire"?

:alien:

 

I shouldn't laugh at "car tape" but when Darnell Hayes is saying it I have no choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Buddha said:

the shelton standard of qualifications = you must agree with shelton.  got it.

she answered their ridiculous "questions" the way a judge is supposed to answer them: be evasive and dont make statements on issues that you may have to rule upon later.

I thought the shelton standard was more "you must believe precedent is precedent", maybe I misread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Buddha said:

that's why they have neutral industry organizations like the ABA that give their opinions on her level of qualifications.

and she was rated well qualified.

 

The GOP has put at least several judges on the federal bench that were rated as unqualfied.  So Shelton's point stands - senators confirm based on whether they agree with them.  You seem to have higher standards for shelton's advise and consent standards than US senators which is weird since one side of that comparison has power in the matter and the other side is shelton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

"Super Precedent" is a term reserved for decisions that have become so accepted, uncontroversial, or settled that no one seriously considers them open to challenge -- like Marbury v Madison or Brown v Board of Education.  No one today questions that courts have the power to review laws for constitutionality and strike them down if they do not pass constitutional muster; or that states can segregate students by race or provide any other supposedly "separate but equal" accommodations v\based upon race. 

With  that standard, Judge Barrett is absolutely correct that Roe and Casey don't  come close to meeting it.  They are still very controversial decisions -- in fact among the most controversial of all time -- with a wide spectrum of views about them:  they were wrongly decided in full; they were wrongly decided in terms of the reasoning but correct in striking down state laws prohibiting abortion; they did violence to the Constitution for reasons unrelated to abortion; they were correct in part; they were correct in full; and many other variations.  And many people and states still want or pass laws seeking to challenge or modify or clarify those cases.  They are the very antithesis of "Super Precedent."

Trump nominees have refused to say that Brown is rightly decided as well, so your definition of the term is quite problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Buddha said:

it is good to know that the board definitely agrees that no supreme court judge should ever vote to overturn the precedents set by previous courts.

so citizens united, heller, and shelby county should never be overturned.  got it.

You really don't see that much of a complaint on citizens united anymore now that the money is rolling in for democrats.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You really don't see that much of a complaint on citizens united anymore now that the money is rolling in for democrats.

uh the money is rolling in for democrats b/c we're giving it to them

even cocaine mitch says it's actblue that's killing them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...