Predisent Donald J. Trump: Episode VII: Space Force Awakens | Keep Trumpy Bear Great

[kuronosan]

They dont do sarcasm/jokes here

We definitely don't. I mean, who has time for sarcasm on a gaming board?

[Day]

It was indeed sarcastic idiot

[kuronosan]

omg reported because it's against the rules man

[Spicyryan]

Spontaneous would be if I said that out of nowhere. Past few comments were debating lifetime appointments. I am confused how you think I invoked the statement without any premeditation.

The line in the .gif is pure sarcasm.

[Mina]

omg reported because it's against the rules man

Rule #4 protects the everyone lol

Yes I can tell you’re /s lol

[Zetanio]

This thread sucks and you all suck except for Tyrath (and Day).

I'd argue that the court's separation from the politics du jour (for the most part) has led to great change and forward movement in our country. Look at Miranda v Arizona, Roe v Wade, the many first amendment rulings, Brown vs Board of Ed, Engel v Vitale (a personal fave), NYT v Sullivan.

Cmon folks. I get the kneejerk reactions but having term limits on the Supreme Court would lead to a HEAVY influx of influence from outside politic forces.

[Salodin]

The supreme court is not equipped to handle societal problems like gay marriage and sexual assault, and after you saw this farce of a nomination how can you say otherwise? As the public becomes more aware of these shortfalls of the courts, they're going to more and more want people on that court that reflect their pov.

You cant say the court is above politics when the up and coming 9th justice is saying his sexual assault allegations are a smear campaign as payback for Clinton whatever. You cant say the court is impartial after the masterpiece cake decision. The court has been enforcing decisions not based on the merits of the argument but by the personal beliefs of the justices sitting on them. Shit, dont believe me? Ask RBG what the supreme court thought of women when she first joined them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Zetanio]

The supreme court is not equipped to handle societal problems like gay marriage and sexual assault, and after you saw this farce of a nomination how can you say otherwise? As the public becomes more aware of these shortfalls of the courts, they're going to more and more want people on that court that reflect their pov.

You cant say the court is above politics when the up and coming 9th justice is saying his sexual assault allegations are a smear campaign as payback for Clinton whatever. You cant say the court is impartial after the masterpiece cake decision. The court has been enforcing decisions not based on the merits of the argument but by the personal beliefs of the justices sitting on them. Shit, dont believe me? Ask RBG what the supreme court thought of women when she first joined them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I can say that the Supreme Court has very largely been outside of direct political influence for a very long time. Will that continue going forward? I certainly hope so. I doubt it but I hope so. I'm sorry that you hate the new nominee, I hate him as well. If people in this country had actually gone out and voted instead of assuming a victory for Hillary Clinton, we wouldn't be in this situation would we? Stop expecting Republicans to do the right thing or what you consider to be the right thing. It isn't going to fucking happen. It's completely baffling that all of the blame for this is being passed over the aisle. The reality is that Democrats didn't vote, lost, and this is what fucking happens. Jesus Christ, the circlejerk gets fucking tiresome.

[Spicyryan]

This thread sucks and you all suck except for Tyrath (and Day).

I'd argue that the court's separation from the politics du jour (for the most part) has led to great change and forward movement in our country. Look at Miranda v Arizona, Roe v Wade, the many first amendment rulings, Brown vs Board of Ed, Engel v Vitale (a personal fave), NYT v Sullivan.

Cmon folks. I get the kneejerk reactions but having term limits on the Supreme Court would lead to a HEAVY influx of influence from outside politic forces.

At the time of Roe v Wade, the Republicans were not antiabortion, and didn't believe the government should be controlling reproductive rights. If that same bench sat for the case today it would likely have failed.

Cases like Engel v Vitale has a clear answer in the separation of church and state. The things that don't have rather clear constitutional answers are societal issues and rights like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

The court is absolutely not separated from politics. Look at the nomination process.
If either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh were on the bench at the time of the Obergefell v Hodges in place of a last generation conservative, Kennedy. Then it would have been 5-4 against down party lines because of their politics. Kennedy being called a conservative centrist is only because the party has moved so far to the right that it makes him seem that way. The mere fact that the court is "split" at 4-4 is exactly because of politics.

How is there not a heavy influx of outside influence already? With the president nominating and the nuclear option in place, that is more of a cause, and clearly not term limits.

[Salodin]

What circle jerk? You claimed the supreme court is not heavily influenced by politics. I'm calling out you for that lie. It is influenced by politics, I daresay heavily influenced by politics. Theres a God damn adjective for the politics even, or do we not remember Bork? Dont hand have clear cut cases of partisanship in the highest court of the land because we learned in government 101 that judges are supposed to be impartial. They're not. A plethora of evidence has been presented that Kavanaugh is not.

You make the claim that removing lifetime appointments would make the court more partisan, completely ignoring the context that it already is partisan. You even admit it's possibly becoming partisan, even with lifetime appointments, and your suggestion is to leave it as such? Your logic fails the smell test. Lifetime appointments do not defeat partisanship as evident by history. Now you blast even questioning it, when by your own admission is obviously isnt working as intended.

I thought you were smarter than that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

I thought you were smarter than that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

My take is Zet is extremely apathetic to politics and really doesn't give two shits unless there's something that benefits him personally.

SCOTUS appointments should be 20 year terms in my opinion.

[Salodin]

He is extremely apathetic, on Day levels. That doesnt matter.

But dont tell me the court isnt partisan when you look at shit like masterpiece cake shop where they quite literally change what their decision should be for no reason other than partisanship. When their decision is inconsistent with previous ruling for no reason other than the defendant believe in the correct God.

I'm just flabbergasted that you see America in the year 2018 and think the courts arent as partisan as the legislative and executive branches.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Inb4 america and the courts used to not be so partisan!

Yeah no shit. Thanks?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Zetanio]

My take is Zet is extremely apathetic to politics and really doesn't give two shits

Stop there, that's very accurate.

Politics is a sorry joke in this country. As I've stated many many many many many many times that I would be very happy to pay more taxes to reform healthcare to single-payer, enforce strict environmental regulations, and heavily increase infrastructure spending among many other "liberal" causes. I'm not happy to do it if it's going to be handled by the fucking retards we've allowed in to office to run things. They are clearly unable to do anything because of the leash they have from campaign financing needs. My number one issue is that there are only two ways to fix the current dumpster fire that I can see.

1) Shoot everyone, take over, and try again.
2) Changing campaign finance reform to disallow any large donations. Personal donations only. Can't use your own cash. Alternatively, have a set budget of a few million for any candidate with enough signatures.


Salodin, you're right. Looking back at my statements vs your argument. You make a really good point. I'm in error on this one and I'll suck it up. I didn't look at the evidence and just shot from the hip. My bad.

[Tyche]

The court has been political ever since the Baker vs Carr case in 1962. That changed the court's trajectory.

[Roranora]

1) kill your masters, fuck yeah

that's my kind of political apathy

[Salodin]

No you're right, this shit is fucked. I am p. mad tho that a nomination to scotus is talking conspiracy theories when credible accused of sexual assault. My concern though is any effort taken to fix it will just galvanize the party not in the majority to fight back harder. I dont know what the solution is, but more and more I'm starting to believe a solution wont be achieved unless one side forces it down the others throat. That's how Ds did it before, that's how Rs are doing it now, thats how Ds will do it when they try to right these wrongs.

Fuck it. Gonna get rich and let these animals hand wave sexual assault on their own time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Roranora]

get money, fuck bitches, smoke trees

[Zetanio]

get money, fuck bitches, smoke trees

do copious copious amount of cocaine too. you have to let people know you're serious.

[Spicyryan]

My take is Zet is extremely apathetic to politics and really doesn't give two shits unless there's something that benefits him personally.

SCOTUS appointments should be 20 year terms in my opinion.

Maybe, but with how fast things change, I think 20 is too long. I mean Ginsburg has only been on ~5 years past that and she is already too old.

Perhaps we have the wrong approach with a term limit though. As far as I know, there are actually no requirements for becoming a justice as there are with the presidency. Even foreign justices can sit on the court if nominated.
Why not have a requirement of years served as a justice of a high court (~10) and then an age limit of ~75. All people try to do now is game the system with a young appointee for life. Set the experience threshold at an average minimum age (~45+) and set the max age in the 70s.
The executive branch initially never had term limits either which was an oversight, and fixed. So why not for the highest court in the land.

The process should also have more defined guidelines as to help prevent Garland partisan hijacking.
Perhaps streamline the process to speed it up so the seat can't be vacant for years, and if the Senate fails to come to an agreement on a nominee within 120 days then either a new nomination should be put forth or the House should immediately have to vote on a margin of 60%+ to confirm. Then if the house fails since I have no faith in an uneducated mass to elect a judge. Let the supreme court themselves vote to decide. They are far more qualified to vote yes-no on a judge than the general electorate. They respect the rule of law unlike the legislative branch so establish guidelines for them as well as disqualifying behavior as a safeguard for the system being gamed to just have the supreme court feeding itself.

It would provide people an incentive to pay attention to house races instead of just the presidential one. It is a lot easier to manipulate one swing vote in the Senate than it is with the hundreds of bodies in the House.