Author Topic: SCOTUS  (Read 24129 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 572
  • -Received: 474
  • Posts: 4913
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #540 on: January 08, 2019, 04:54:42 PM »
Hopefully RBG will be able to retire with dignity and not pass before her appointed time. I'm amazed at how much ghoulish stuff about RBG being posted on the intarwebs right now. Besides RBG and her present suffering, the person I'd feel sorry for is whomever will be nominated to replace RBG or any other SCOTUS Justice for that matter. It will be an utter crucifixion, live streamed for all to witness every gory detail.

Nice to see the following regarding Kavanaugh's 1st written opinion from the bench:

"....and we are not at liberty to rewrite the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President.... We vacate the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals".

That's what I wanted in a SCOTUS appointee - the refusal to legislate from the bench. (PS - this was a 9-0 decision - so good all around)

My .02c

Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government.

is that why we have so many congress members offering their legal opinions on everything trump? co-equal!

I will respond once that sentence makes sense.

Offline Soylent Green Is People

  • Abiding Dude. Housing focused
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 588
  • -Received: 898
  • Posts: 1883
  • Mmmm....people.....
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #541 on: January 08, 2019, 06:03:57 PM »
"Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government"

It seems like you're saying this is Schrödinger's SCOTUS - it's a judiciary and a legislature, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. OK.

I continue to lean on a 9-0 SCOTUS concurring opinion that means what it says.

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 572
  • -Received: 474
  • Posts: 4913
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #542 on: January 09, 2019, 08:49:37 AM »
"Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job.  Co-equal branches of government"

It seems like you're saying this is Schrödinger's SCOTUS - it's a judiciary and a legislature, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. OK.

I continue to lean on a 9-0 SCOTUS concurring opinion that means what it says.

all three branches of government have multiple roles...it's a feature...not a defect.

Online morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 258
  • -Received: 291
  • Posts: 2777
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #543 on: January 10, 2019, 01:22:00 PM »
Here we go again...

Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure
After an ailing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments, the Trump team began early groundwork for another potential confirmation battle.

"It would be a brutal confirmation,” said John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.”

“But if you are replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee, that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas,” Malcolm added. “It would mark a large shift in the direction of the court."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102

Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 205
  • -Received: 207
  • Posts: 1037
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #544 on: January 14, 2019, 02:27:20 PM »
when all is said and done, the only notorious thing about rgb will be how long the democrats fight over her corpse to stop trump's 3rd nominee.  you thought kavanaugh was bad?  prepare yourselves for ww3

Offline Happiness

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 361
  • -Received: 303
  • Posts: 1490
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #545 on: January 17, 2019, 06:00:27 PM »
when all is said and done, the only notorious thing about rgb will be how long the democrats fight over her corpse to stop trump's 3rd nominee.  you thought kavanaugh was bad?  prepare yourselves for ww3
The Kavanaugh victory and Trump's conservative RGB replacement is entirely the result of the spectacular arrogance of the dems.

The Dems changed the rules to only require 51 votes to confirm a justice because they were convinced Hillary would be president, the 2016 election being a mere formality since the DNC had already anointed Her Majesty.


Another example of Dems doing dumb shit that comes back to bite them in the ass.

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Online morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 258
  • -Received: 291
  • Posts: 2777
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #546 on: January 17, 2019, 06:07:32 PM »
In addition to notorious RBG getting replaced there are now rumblings that Clarence Thomas will voluntarily retire in the coming year so Trump can safely replace him with a conservative jurist. Something RBG should have done while Obama was President, another miscalculation on the Dems part.  #winning Nice

Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 173
  • -Received: 206
  • Posts: 1707
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #547 on: January 17, 2019, 07:31:52 PM »
this thread is now a bonafide circle jerk among the same few republicans -- all gloating and gushing over their good fortune that an old lady is about to pass away and be replaced by another  "guy who likes beer, a lot of beer " :)

what happened to "not legislating from the bench" ?

seems like after losing popular votes , the house , being out of step with a vast majority of the country's mood and values and now likely the presidency in 2020, all they have left is nursing the fantasy of "owning " the supreme court forever -- as if it is going to make a twit of a difference in their lives .

Online morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 258
  • -Received: 291
  • Posts: 2777
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #548 on: January 17, 2019, 07:35:28 PM »
No the gloating is on other threads too but this one is a specific SCOTUS gloat in keeping with its topic.

Offline Ready2Downsize

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 15
  • -Received: 170
  • Posts: 1384
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #549 on: January 17, 2019, 09:25:29 PM »
when all is said and done, the only notorious thing about rgb will be how long the democrats fight over her corpse to stop trump's 3rd nominee.  you thought kavanaugh was bad?  prepare yourselves for ww3
The Kavanaugh victory and Trump's conservative RGB replacement is entirely the result of the spectacular arrogance of the dems.

The Dems changed the rules to only require 51 votes to confirm a justice because they were convinced Hillary would be president, the 2016 election being a mere formality since the DNC had already anointed Her Majesty.


Another example of Dems doing dumb shit that comes back to bite them in the ass.

Now, now...… the dems are going to be in control after Trump is gone. They will inherit quite a mess, lots of debt, an even larger divide between the haves and have nots. I anticipate that the bear market will be over (no I think the ultimate low is not in) and we'll have new highs.

What is the fed supposed to do in that case? They can't keep the not raise rate thing going forever and the debt is going to be a real problem for the dems who will of course try to redistribute that wealth and means test everything.

I got my plan in place though...…. been offloading my wealth so they can't take it from me.

Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 173
  • -Received: 206
  • Posts: 1707
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #550 on: January 18, 2019, 04:44:55 AM »
Everyone else — Enjoy the MAGA circle jerk spectacle from a distance

But don’t take investment advice or advice on what the Fed will do from people who thought the equity sell off was because the markets were scared about democrats taking over the house ...   enough said :)


Online morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 258
  • -Received: 291
  • Posts: 2777
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #551 on: January 18, 2019, 08:07:55 AM »
You're the only one who presumes to give investment advice on this site (maybe Panda) ;), but you are right, anyone who would take investment advice from an anonymous web site posting is a fool.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 08:51:01 AM by morekaos »

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 173
  • -Received: 206
  • Posts: 1707
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #552 on: January 18, 2019, 09:07:37 AM »
You're the only one who presumes to give investment advice on this site (maybe Panda) ;), but you are right, anyone who would take investment advice from an anonymous web site posting is a fool.

Really ?

Then what are all these MAGA circle jerk pronouncements about

The (Trumps) economy ?
Trade Policy ?
Why is the market up or down ?
Bond bubble ?
Housing market ?

The only thing I have done is exposed the hucksterism of people who claim to know it all but aren’t held accountable

And yes , my advice is pretty simple and free of financial advisor comissions. That’s the whole point — to expose the scam of the so called “experts “

And those who have followed my advice have made a nice chunk of change on every front — be it interest rates , stock market , or bonds .  You can hold me accountable :)

Online morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 258
  • -Received: 291
  • Posts: 2777
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #553 on: January 18, 2019, 09:18:15 AM »
Worth every penny someone pays for it...until and as soon as you guess wrong.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 09:23:22 AM by morekaos »

Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 205
  • -Received: 207
  • Posts: 1037
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #554 on: January 18, 2019, 10:53:04 AM »

The following member(s) thanked this post:


 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Related Links

Recent Posts