GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterGrandAdmiral
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Lapaz
Well-known member
Offline
I had not considered Thomas retiring after the election. It makes too much sense, so I would put money on that. The only question is how low would Republicans stoop. It is hard to get much lower, but there may still be room to stoop lower. I think that would guarantee court expansion, plus there will have to be revisions to the judicial nomination laws, after the court has expanded with young liberals. After that, then laws to limit the size and imposition of term limits via rotation to lower courts, and requiring a minimum amount of time as a judge.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
I just came across this bit of info:
Last month, three Democrats in the House introduced a bill to instill 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, granting presidents two nominees during each of their terms
Last month, three Democrats in the House introduced a bill to instill 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, granting presidents two nominees during each of their terms
Lapaz
Well-known member
Offline
To assure each president gets 2 nominees during a 4 year term, the justices' terms would have to be 16 years. The bill would have to allow the justices to be re-assigned to a lower court, because judges are constitutionally lifetime appointments. Would it be retroactive? I would hope it also includes a lower age limit, because I don't think supreme court justices will feel comfortable going back to a lower court. I think it should be 50, then all would be at least 66 when their term ends. Hopefully, this will encourage nominees that are at least in their mid 50s, since then they'll be in their 70s upon ending their term, and they will feel comfortable retiring, rather than going to a lower court.
wardorican
Well-known member
Offline
His son was in the bank a decade ago, so I can't see how that adds up.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Girl Scout backlash
=================
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.
The original tweet, posted Wednesday evening, said, “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”
The post featured an image of Barrett, who was confirmed Monday and sworn in at the court on Tuesday; along with currently serving justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor; former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Barrett’s predecessor, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The post was quickly attacked by critics who view Barrett, a conservative, as a potential threat to civil liberties and women’s rights..........
apnews.com
=================
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.
The original tweet, posted Wednesday evening, said, “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”
The post featured an image of Barrett, who was confirmed Monday and sworn in at the court on Tuesday; along with currently serving justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor; former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Barrett’s predecessor, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The post was quickly attacked by critics who view Barrett, a conservative, as a potential threat to civil liberties and women’s rights..........
Girl Scouts tweet, then delete post about Amy Coney Barrett
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.
apnews.com
insidejob
"Trained Marxist"
Offline
At least it wasn't the Boy Scouts.Girl Scout backlash
=================
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.
The original tweet, posted Wednesday evening, said, “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”
The post featured an image of Barrett, who was confirmed Monday and sworn in at the court on Tuesday; along with currently serving justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor; former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Barrett’s predecessor, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The post was quickly attacked by critics who view Barrett, a conservative, as a potential threat to civil liberties and women’s rights..........
Girl Scouts tweet, then delete post about Amy Coney Barrett
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
(came across this today)
About one week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the bench, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case concerning discrimination against LGBTQ people on the basis of religious liberty.
The case involves the right of a Catholic group working as a city contractor to not place foster children into homes with same-sex couples. During arguments today, the court appeared likely to side with the group, CNBC reported.
The case involves Catholic Social Services, a group that worked as a contractor for the city of Philadelphia to place children into foster homes, but would not work with same-sex couples. The city of Philadelphia stopped working with the group, saying they were violating an anti-discrimination law, prompting the group to sue the city.
The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, represents a "legal supernova clash" between the rights of LGBTQ people and the First Amendment right to religious liberty, according to Doron Kalir, professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
"This is really as big as they come I think in terms of legal battles," Kalir told Insider. He said the case could be "a serious blow to the rights of Obergefell," referring to the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage in the US.
About one week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the bench, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case concerning discrimination against LGBTQ people on the basis of religious liberty.
The case involves the right of a Catholic group working as a city contractor to not place foster children into homes with same-sex couples. During arguments today, the court appeared likely to side with the group, CNBC reported.
The case involves Catholic Social Services, a group that worked as a contractor for the city of Philadelphia to place children into foster homes, but would not work with same-sex couples. The city of Philadelphia stopped working with the group, saying they were violating an anti-discrimination law, prompting the group to sue the city.
The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, represents a "legal supernova clash" between the rights of LGBTQ people and the First Amendment right to religious liberty, according to Doron Kalir, professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
"This is really as big as they come I think in terms of legal battles," Kalir told Insider. He said the case could be "a serious blow to the rights of Obergefell," referring to the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage in the US.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
seems like it was only a matter of time
slate.com
At midnight on Wednesday, in an unsigned 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. The five most conservative Republican-appointed justices refused to block Texas’ abortion ban, which allows anyone to sue any individual who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks, which is when the vast majority of operations occur. There is no exception for rape or incest. The decision renders almost all abortions in Texas illegal for the first time since 1973. Although the majority did not say these words exactly, the upshot of Wednesday’s decision is undeniable: The Supreme Court has abandoned the constitutional right to abortion. Roe is no longer good law.
The Supreme Court Overturned Roe v. Wade in the Most Cowardly Manner Imaginable
In a threadbare, unsigned order released at midnight, five justices functionally abolished the right to abortion.
At midnight on Wednesday, in an unsigned 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. The five most conservative Republican-appointed justices refused to block Texas’ abortion ban, which allows anyone to sue any individual who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks, which is when the vast majority of operations occur. There is no exception for rape or incest. The decision renders almost all abortions in Texas illegal for the first time since 1973. Although the majority did not say these words exactly, the upshot of Wednesday’s decision is undeniable: The Supreme Court has abandoned the constitutional right to abortion. Roe is no longer good law.
SaulGoodmanEsq
Well-known member
Offline
Sharia law comes to America with thunderous applause from the right.
Mr. Blue Sky
Still P***** at Yoko
Offline
The Texas Taliban strikes again…. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned- PACK IT, STACK IT, SHELLACK IT , TALLYWHACK IT… there are no rules anymore
.
.
Mr. Blue Sky
Still P***** at Yoko
Offline
ACB definitely earning her moniker of ‘Amy Coathanger Barrett’
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Are women in TX going to be forced to marry their rapists too?
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
Of course, but the way they'll phrase it is as a punishment for the rapist and financial support for the woman.
bdb13
Well-known member
Offline
Yeah, I have a major problem with this.
SaulGoodmanEsq
Well-known member
Offline
As observed elsewhere, the natural result of this is that Red states will shortly enact laws identical to this one which will is a defacto overruling of Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Personally I think abortion is... shall we say... not the 'ideal' choice. That said, I'm vehemently against religious doctrine being codified in the law. There really is no difference between this and what happens in the Middle East -- just a different flavor of ice cream. Other Western Democracies understand that.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
I wonder how many that applaud this move are also ones that like to say "my body my choice" when it comes to not vaccinating
SaulGoodmanEsq
Well-known member
Offline
Silvio Dante/Frank Tagliano not having this!
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Good ol' Texanistan.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.