Who will replace Anthony Kennedy?

[Ghostpanther]

Um, what? I know you have a long history of lying and misquoting, but at this point I'm not sure if you're joking or not. If you don't understand why I brought up that show, just ask. But please stop lying and misreporting. It will only get you infracted.

You wish. But go ahead, tell me why a fictional, diabolical attempt to control people show was used.

[cubby]

You wish. But go ahead, tell me why the show was used.

I know.

I've been referencing the show The Handmaid's Tale (it's also a novella) in my political comments lately because the show itself concerns a distopian near future of the Untied States. Which is where I feel like we're headed at times with Trump and the GOP. You could substitute the word "abyss" for Gilead (the name of the country that replaced continental United States in the show) and it would have about the meaning - neither of which are conspiracy theories. Which you falsely claimed they were, which is another word for lying. But I'd be happy for a mod to review this and see which one of us should be infracted. You're the one who brought up conspiracy theories - which are not allowed in these forums. I brought up a television show.

[Barnabas]

That's just incorrect.

It might appear that way if you're not familiar with how the Supreme Court operates. There are 13 circuits and 50 state courts from which the Supreme Court receives requests to hear a case. At least 4/9 justices must agree to hear a case. The Supreme Court receives around 7,000 requests each year. They choose around 100-150 of these to hear. That's around 2%.

The Supreme court doesn't pick cases that it likely would agree on. The chosen cases are often disputed among the lower courts, complex, and problematic, so there’s a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will decide that the lower court’s decision was wrong. If the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the case, then not enough justices disagree with the ruling (essentially, though there are other reasons to hear cases, such as setting a precedent or hearing a landmark case). If you considered this into the equation, the percent of cases overruled falls to less than 1%.

If you like sports, it's like saying "The Players always cheat, because 80% of the time a referee reviews a play, they rule against it". That's ignoring the fact that the referee doesn't review the vast, vast majority of plays because it's cut and dry. They only step in when they believe there is foul play.

no it works exactly like i described. read the above comment for more context.

[God Save The King]

well thats how the lower courts tend to work. the plaintiff usually wins.

There's also a reason for that. Suing a state or a government is insanely expensive. It costs millions upon millions to be the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case. The state has it's own legal staff (usually an Attorney General) whose job is to defend the state from suites. States are equipped and prepared to hear a challenge go to the Supreme Court.

So, only plaintiffs who have a good chance at winning usually can find representation. Lawyers have their reputation to protect. They're not going to sign up for a case suing the government that taxes are theft, or something crazy like that. This isn't like your local civil court, where you can sue basically anyone. To get to the Supreme Court, you need a complex case, several contradicting opinions in various layers of the judiciary system, a lot of money, a great argument, and an outstanding legal team.

The defense, just basically has to take it.

- - - Updated - - -

no it works exactly like i described. read the above comment for more context.

You didn't describe how the court system works, at all. I did. I can cite sources for all of the above, if it helps.

[Gorgodeus]

amy barret is a good choice. she'd have to go through confirmation again with democrats embarrassingly asking about her religion.

There is nothing embarrassing about such questions when religion dictates many decisions made by religious people.

[Ghostpanther]

I know.

I've been referencing the show The Handmaid's Tale (it's also a novella) in my political comments lately because the show itself concerns a distopian near future of the Untied States. Which is where I feel like we're headed at times with Trump and the GOP. You could substitute the word "abyss" for Gilead (the name of the country that replaced continental United States in the show) and it would have about the meaning - neither of which are conspiracy theories. Which you falsely claimed they were, which is another word for lying. But I'd be happy for a mod to review this and see which one of us should be infracted. You're the one who brought up conspiracy theories - which are not allowed in these forums. I brought up a television show.

Which is based on a hypothetical scenario, based on mainly...a conspiracy line of thinking. I do not think there is any danger of that at all. I guess one could look at it as a diabolical take over if they considered conservative views to be such. Trump's power is limited by the Constitution. Until it is amended to give the President even more power, it will stay that way. He can say all kinds of stupid things, but that is not going to change the limitations on what he can do.

The most realistic chance for you to lessen your fears of this take over, is to get out and actively campaign against him. Vote and hope for the best.
I do not want you to get a infraction. If I did..I would report your post. You are always free to report mine however. A infraction here only carries weight...for here.

[Gorgodeus]

They only step in when they believe there is foul play.

And when they want to change something in favor with their political party.

[Zython]

Joseph DeAngelo.

[cubby]

Which is based on a hypothetical scenario, based on mainly...a conspiracy line of thinking. I do not think there is any danger of that at all. I guess one could look at it as a diabolical take over if they considered conservative views to be such. Trump's power is limited by the Constitution. Until it is amended to give the President even more power, it will stay that way. He can say all kinds of stupid things, but that is not going to change the limitations on what he can do.

I really don't care about your opinion in these matters. You're a known liar on these forums - misquoting to the Nth degree. I was just clarifying that you were lying when you claimed "conspiracy theory". Which you have.

[God Save The King]

And when they want to change something in favor with their political party.

Not really. You need 4/9 to hear a case, and even that isn't always enough. They have a limit on how many cases can be heard, so they select the cases with the most support from the justices. Most cases heard get 8 or 9 votes of interest.

[Themius]

oblubber appointed two literally unfit retards and you're crying about trump's potential appointees? Wonder why everyone thinks you're a fucking loon around here.

Oh and how are they unfit?

[Gorgodeus]

Not really. You need 4/9 to hear a case, and even that isn't always enough. They have a limit on how many cases can be heard, so they select the cases with the most support from the justices. Most cases heard get 8 or 9 votes of interest.

And they will have a rock solid fairly far to the right majority. Thanks for proving my point.

As I stated earlier. it is only a matter of time before Roe v Wade is struck down. You know it and I know it, and we both know it will be done for purely political reasons.

[God Save The King]

And they will have a rock solid fairly far to the right majority. Thanks for proving my point.

As I stated earlier. it is only a matter of time before Roe v Wade is struck down. You know it and I know it, and we both know it will be done for purely political reasons.

Oh, absolutely.

[Ghostpanther]

I really don't care about your opinion in these matters. You're a known liar on these forums - misquoting to the Nth degree. I was just clarifying that you were lying when you claimed "conspiracy theory". Which you have.

You can disagree it is of course. But you have not proved I am lying. Disagreeing? Of course. and I have certainly been wrong at times. Convince me I am and I will admit it. But we both are really getting off topic. So I will drop this line of thinking and stick to the topic and not get personal.

[God Save The King]

Your reason is not relevant, when they serve an average of 24 years. An extra 3-4 years means little.

But those who started between 1966 and the present (not counting current justices) were on the court for an average of 24 years.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/110321...d-justice-ages

Okay. I fail to see how anything you've mentioned is at all relevant to my point.

[cubby]

You can disagree it is of course. But you have not proved I am lying. Disagreeing? Of course. and I have certainly been wrong at times. Convince me I am and I will admit it. But we both are really getting off topic. So I will drop this line of thinking and stick to the topic and not get personal.

You are lying. You claimed that comparing a political situation in real life with a book is a conspiracy theory. You're wrong. 100%. So you either don't know what a conspiracy theory is, or you know and did it anyone. I assumed you knew the definition of the word you used, so liar was the obvious choice. But you choose - ignorant or a liar. I don't really care.

Unless you think people comparing Trump's policies to 1984 is a "conspiracy theory".

[Ghostpanther]

You are lying. You claimed that comparing a political situation in real life with a book is a conspiracy theory. You're wrong. 100%. So you either don't know what a conspiracy theory is, or you know and did it anyone. I assumed you knew the definition of the word you used, so liar was the obvious choice. But you choose - ignorant or a liar. I don't really care.

Unless you think people comparing Trump's policies to 1984 is a "conspiracy theory".

I think it is best for us to part ways and not discuss things. As you are clearly letting your emotions over politics direct your frustrations toward others. Best wishes.

[Zoldor]

I hope this was all worth it for the Democrats. You guys did a good job in the primary. Thankfully, Trump won't be able to do anything too terrible. You know beyond appoint 3 SCOTUS judges before it is all over. RBG won't make it through his entire term. Glad they got Clinton on that ballot to fullfill her dream. It is working out really well.

[cubby]

I think it is best for us to part ways and not discuss things. As you are clearly letting your emotions over politics direct your frustrations toward others. Best wishes.

Lol, punting when faced with truth, as usual. I never cared for our conversations in the first place, I'm just glad we cleared up that you were lying, and finally admitted it. Perhaps you can take something positive away from this experience. Think before you post. And know what you're talking about before responding. Finally, if you're confused, ask questions - don't accuse.

Best wishes.

[breadisfunny]

with one that will stack the court 6-3.