The Supreme Court Wrecking Ball (and state balls too)

[PilotMan]

There won't be anything to impeach for because there's nothing to investigate.

[Brian Swartz]

?? what?

[PilotMan]

Sorry, tense.....there would never be an impeachment because there would never be anything that could be investigated, because it's all under the scope of the immunity. I didn't think it was that difficult in all honesty.



Sure, I suppose that congress could still walk through the motions, but there are so many exit ramps for a president to get off, that his partisans could simply talk it away and it wouldn't go anywhere. Imagine just how far it would have to get now for a successful impeachment?

[Brian Swartz]

I think we're clearly understanding the distinction differently.

The immunity covers legal prosecution, it doesn't cover impeachment - again, unless there's something I don't understand. But those are two entirely different things. You don't have to be prosecuted for something to be impeached for it, and vice-versa.

That means none of the impeachment process is under the scope of the immunity. Congress can still investigate as much as it wants, censure, impeach, whatever. Prosecution after a government official is removed from office is just an entirely different thing.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think we're clearly understanding the distinction differently.

The immunity covers legal prosecution, it doesn't cover impeachment - again, unless there's something I don't understand. But those are two entirely different things. You don't have to be prosecuted for something to be impeached for it, and vice-versa.

That means none of the impeachment process is under the scope of the immunity. Congress can still investigate as much as it wants, censure, impeach, whatever. Prosecution after a government official is removed from office is just an entirely different thing.

Where the two are very different, where they come together is the investigation. Most impeachment evidence generally comes from a Special Prosecutor that is selected by the Attorney General. They generally compel testimony under oath through Grand Juries. This is what I was questioning. Now that the President is immune from criminal prosecution, then will the courts even allow Grand Juries on Presidential actions? What information from the President are they going to allow put into evidence?

Impeachment is the purview of the Congress, but most of the investigation is the purview of the Justice department and the Courts. The question is if that is true now, and if it is how?

[NobodyHere]

Big decision out of my state of Ohio

Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides | AP News

They got this one wrong. IF A WING HAS BONES THEN IT IS NOT A BONELESS WING.

Also just be a man and order the wings bone-in.

People who eat boneless wings should be thrown in a pit with people like their steak well done and then buried alive.

[GrantDawg]

To me, boneless wings just don't taste as good.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

People who eat boneless wings should be thrown in a pit with people like their steak well done and then buried alive.

Subtle.

[flere-imsaho]

Boneless wings are nuggets. Just get nuggets.

Nothing wrong with nuggets, though. I certainly wouldn't condemn nugget-eaters to the same circle of hell as steak-well-doners.

[Atocep]

Bone in wings are vastly superior but there are times when I'm not dealing with the mess that comes with eating them.

[dubb93]

He really said that a patron at the restaurant reading “boneless wings” would no more expect to be eating boneless chicken than a patron eating chicken fingers would be expecting to eat actual fingers.

A lot to unpack there. Wonder how much of a kickback these guys got? I mean if I order wings and you ask me bone in or boneless I expect there to be a difference between the two and it isn’t the sauce.

[dubb93]

DOLA:

This is great.

The dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,”

[Mota]

I make chicken fingers at home, and my son always hated them. Then we took them and tossed them in wing sauce after cooking them, and called them boneless wings, and he loves them.
He's 20.

[Brian Swartz]

Am I missing something? Wouldn't Biden's proposed Supreme Court reforms require a constitutional amendment?

[GrantDawg]

The Constitution does say that the court is organized as Congress ordained. It basically says there is one, that there is a Chief Justice that would oversee an Impeachment trial, and spells out its jurisdiction. It also says the President has the power to pick justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, but it doesn't set a term beyond "as long as in good Behaviour". That has always been interpreted as "for life." The question is going to be if Congress can set a term shorter than that.

Edot: Chief Justice John Robert's has given support for 15 year term limits before, so did former Justice Breyer. So there has at least been some on the court that suggests it is possible.

[CrimsonFox]

iT'S ALL ABOUT THE SAUCE

[Brian Swartz]

I just don't see how term limits are in any way constitutional. Obviously what's constitutional is whatever the Court is willing to say is constitutional, but in terms of what the document actually says, I can't read that in any way that supports it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The Constitution does say that the court is organized as Congress ordained. It basically says there is one, that there is a Chief Justice that would oversee an Impeachment trial, and spells out its jurisdiction. It also says the President has the power to pick justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, but it doesn't set a term beyond "as long as in good Behaviour". That has always been interpreted as "for life." The question is going to be if Congress can set a term shorter than that.

Edot: Chief Justice John Robert's has given support for 15 year term limits before, so did former Justice Breyer. So there has at least been some on the court that suggests it is possible.

Breyer and Roberts suggested support for 15 to 18 yr term limits, but they never said that Congress could implement such a plan. It would take a Constitutional Amendment.

Hamilton talks about what Good Behaviour means in the Federalist papers, and why it was necessary for the Judiciary to be composed that way. There's no rational debate about that that term means in the Constitution.

Term limits definitely require an Amendment. An ethics code would require an Amendment if it has any punishment that removes/suspends a judge from power or financially punishes them.

[Brian Swartz]

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Passacaglia]

I haven't read all the details, but one 18 year term just makes sense. You've got nine justices, replace one every two years. All this "for life" stuff is just morbid.

[PilotMan]

All good until the Senate refuses to have a hearing on an appointee from the opposing party.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I haven't read all the details, but one 18 year term just makes sense. You've got nine justices, replace one every two years. All this "for life" stuff is just morbid.

For life makes zero sense as a federal employee. Clarence Thomas complains about SCOTUS pay but if he retired from the court after 18 years he could have coasted on speaking engagements, "gifts" from "friends", and political/court commentary while getting free Healthcare and a pension.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

All good until the Senate refuses to have a hearing on an appointee from the opposing party.

Simple, add that if the Senate fails to have a hearing within 90 days of nomination then the President is free to directly appoint.

Even without reform Obama could have likely made the argument that by failing to have a hearing on Garland senate waived its right to do so. No one thought Trump was going to win so they didn't push back at all. Handling of the courts was the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Simple, add that if the Senate fails to have a hearing within 90 days of nomination then the President is free to directly appoint.

Even without reform Obama could have likely made the argument that by failing to have a hearing on Garland senate waived its right to do so. No one thought Trump was going to win so they didn't push back at all. Handling of the courts was the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.

Really should be a Senate rule that a vote is required on at least certain level Judges and confirmable positions (say Appellate and Secretary level) by a certain time, or they are automatically confirmed.

[Lathum]

Thomas and Alito truly are out of fucks and have zero intention of even trying to be unbiased anymore.

[cuervo72]

Wonder if this is Melvin ApprovedTM.

https://newrepublic.com/post/184799/...-arizona-water

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the Air Force and National Guard to develop a plan to address the pollution, which would cost them an estimated $25 million—just 0.1 percent of the Air Force’s budget. The Air Force refused, stating that “the EPA’s order can not withstand review” and therefore it wouldn’t be beholden to it, according to The Guardian.

[JPhillips]

They found a Trump judge who just put a national stay on the no-compete rules.

[flere-imsaho]

That judge should be canned and forced to sign a non-compete.

[dubb93]

Does anyone have any idea how the ruling in Arizona is going to effect the race there? How many voters just got ruled ineligible with the ruling?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Does anyone have any idea how the ruling in Arizona is going to effect the race there? How many voters just got ruled ineligible with the ruling?

From what I understand, there were around 41,000 people on the list they were trying to exclude. Apparently everyone on the list is allowed to vote in federal elections, but may be ineligible for state and local elections. It is still kind of a cluster.

[GrantDawg]

My understanding is it only says they can require people registering to vote to prove citizenship if they use the state registration form. They can still register for federal elections using the federal firm without that proof. It doesn't affect anyone currently registered.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Thomas and Alito truly are out of fucks and have zero intention of even trying to be unbiased anymore.

No question about it. At least Barrett has dissented with the conservative majority on several key rulings.

The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court upheld parts of a lawsuit brought by Republicans, which will require voters to register with an ID.https://t.co/gwL8aatbyy

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) August 22, 2024

[Vegas Vic]

MAGA is livid.

What the hell is wrong with Amy Coney Barrett? She voted with the liberals on the court to block a requirement for proof of citizenship in AZ to vote!

She's a disaster! pic.twitter.com/7AaYh44jWi

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) August 22, 2024