reddogblitz Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 On 5/10/2021 at 12:22 PM, B-Man said: Haahahahahahahahaha. Adding 6 more justices is not "really" court packing. I imagine your "opinion" would change if the GOP proposed it. How would 15 judges allow them to hear more cases? Are they going to divvy them up and let 1/2 hear one and the 1/2the other? My experience tells me more people deliberating over something takes longer than fewer people doing it. 2
B-Man Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 More reaction from the court after the democrat party thinly veiled court packing threat. KAGAN Writes 9-0 Supreme Court Opinion Rejecting Liz Warren's Subversion of Immigration Law Petitioner Jose Santos Sanchez entered this country unlawfully from El Salvador. Years later, because of unsafe living conditions in that country, the Government granted him Temporary Protected Status (TPS), entitling him to stay and work in the United States for as long as those conditions persist. Sanchez now wishes to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States. The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in the opinion. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/07/breaking-unanimous-supreme-court-upholds-the-law-against-illegal-immigrants-n1452576 1
unbillievable Posted June 7, 2021 Posted June 7, 2021 On 6/3/2021 at 3:32 PM, reddogblitz said: How would 15 judges allow them to hear more cases? Are they going to divvy them up and let 1/2 hear one and the 1/2the other? My experience tells me more people deliberating over something takes longer than fewer people doing it. Not if you pack the court with puppets who all vote as a single entity. Don't need to present a case if the judgment has already been decided in advance. 1
B-Man Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 A LOT OF UNANIMITY, LATELY: Low-Level Crack Offenders Are Not Covered Under First Step Act, Unanimous Supreme Court Says. And another defeat for the Biden Administration at the hands of a unanimous, and in this case rather tart, Court. More here, pointing out the Senate’s near-unanimous support for the bill: “Also, one of those 97 senators was Joseph Robinette Biden. Indeed, Biden helped draft that crack legislation. Another friendly pat-down. Revenge is a dish best served cold after three decades.” Plus: “Justice Sotomayor offers an implied rebuke of then-Senator Biden. It turns out that the 100:1 ratio was apparently made up without any rationale. What a bunch of malarkey!” https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/low-level-crack-offenders-are-not-covered-under-first-step-act-says-unanimous-supreme-court_3857983.html Reminder: The Supreme Court will decide 16 more cases in the next two weeks. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/14/scotus-will-decide-16-cases-in-the-next-two-weeks/
ALF Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 McConnell haunts Democrats with new pledge to block Biden court nominee The Senate minority leader, whose dubious maneuvering to turn the Supreme Court to the far right still haunts liberals, just previewed a fresh scheme to bolster conservative judicial supremacy on the nation's top bench for years to come, with widespread consequences for all three branches of government. The Republican veteran indicated Monday he would implement his self-declared rule and refuse to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by President Joe Biden in election year 2024 if the GOP wins the Senate next year. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-biden-agenda-manchin/index.html
SectionC3 Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 On 6/3/2021 at 5:32 PM, reddogblitz said: How would 15 judges allow them to hear more cases? Are they going to divvy them up and let 1/2 hear one and the 1/2the other? My experience tells me more people deliberating over something takes longer than fewer people doing it. No. More judges = likely more cert grants and definitely fewer opinions/judge. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with court packing (any more comments like the one yesterday from McConnell may change that view), but there's no dispute that more judges = obvious ability to increase volume.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 12 minutes ago, ALF said: McConnell haunts Democrats with new pledge to block Biden court nominee The Senate minority leader, whose dubious maneuvering to turn the Supreme Court to the far right still haunts liberals, just previewed a fresh scheme to bolster conservative judicial supremacy on the nation's top bench for years to come, with widespread consequences for all three branches of government. The Republican veteran indicated Monday he would implement his self-declared rule and refuse to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by President Joe Biden in election year 2024 if the GOP wins the Senate next year. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-biden-agenda-manchin/index.html What’s on the other side of accusing a nominee publicly of being a rapist and sexual abuser? 1
reddogblitz Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 4 hours ago, SectionC3 said: No. More judges = likely more cert grants and definitely fewer opinions/judge. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with court packing (any more comments like the one yesterday from McConnell may change that view), but there's no dispute that more judges = obvious ability to increase volume. How will more Supreme Court judges give an obvious ability to increase volume? They will still hear one case at a time. Then with 15 Justices instead of 9 you could run into a too many cooks in the kitchen scenario. Is there a problem today of the SC not getting through cases fast enough? Since its obvious it should be easy to explain how It would speed them up. I'm just not seeing it.
B-Man Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 Sorry liberals............... Unanimous Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom in Foster Care. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/17/breaking-unanimous-supreme-court-upholds-religious-freedom-in-foster-care-n1455278
BillStime Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 11 minutes ago, B-Man said: Sorry liberals............... Unanimous Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom in Foster Care. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/17/breaking-unanimous-supreme-court-upholds-religious-freedom-in-foster-care-n1455278 Discrimination is so on brand for you.
B-Man Posted June 17, 2021 Posted June 17, 2021 More: "The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless [Catholic Social Services] agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment." The Supreme Court has just ruled in Fulton v. Philadelphia. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined as to all but the first paragraph. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Discrimination is so on brand for you. And all the Justices of the Supreme Court apparently. 😂
B-Man Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 Another UNANIMOUS ruling. THIS IS BIG: BREAKING: Unanimous Supreme Court Rules for Student Athletes Against NCAA. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/21/breaking-unanimous-supreme-court-rules-for-student-athletes-against-ncaa-n1455955 Plus, thoughts on the business implication from Points and Figures. http://pointsandfigures.com/2021/06/21/fascinating-ruling-by-scotus-on-athletes-vs-the-ncaa/
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 On 6/15/2021 at 7:44 AM, SectionC3 said: No. More judges = likely more cert grants and definitely fewer opinions/judge. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with court packing (any more comments like the one yesterday from McConnell may change that view), but there's no dispute that more judges = obvious ability to increase volume. Don’t they all need to hear each case in its entirety? 4 hours ago, B-Man said: Another UNANIMOUS ruling. THIS IS BIG: BREAKING: Unanimous Supreme Court Rules for Student Athletes Against NCAA. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/21/breaking-unanimous-supreme-court-rules-for-student-athletes-against-ncaa-n1455955 Plus, thoughts on the business implication from Points and Figures. http://pointsandfigures.com/2021/06/21/fascinating-ruling-by-scotus-on-athletes-vs-the-ncaa/ That’s wild. Student athlete is a job now?
B-Man Posted June 23, 2021 Posted June 23, 2021 Victory for property rights in Supreme Court union trespassing case. Washington, D.C.; June 23, 2021: In a victory for property owners, the Supreme Court of the United States today affirmed that the government cannot force people to allow third parties to trespass on their property. https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/victory-for-property-rights-in-supreme-court-union-trespassing-case/
B-Man Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 Supreme Court Strikes Down California Policy Forcing Disclosure Of Non-Profit Donors To State Regulators https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/supreme-court-strikes-down-california-policy-forcing-disclosure-of-non-profit-donors-to-state-regulators/
B-Man Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 About that court-packing plan... nevermind https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/07/01/about-that-court-packing-plan-nevermind-n399904
B-Man Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 (edited) Supreme Court Justice Breyer Breaks His Silence on Retirement Plans Democrats have been pinning their hopes on Justice Stephen Breyer retiring while they still have a majority in the Senate. Liberal groups have launched billboard campaigns pressuring the 82-year-old justice to call it quits, suggesting his “legacy” is at risk. But Breyer crushed Democrats’ hopes when he told CNN in an exclusive interview that he has no plans to retire anytime soon and that he’s happy in his new role as the senior liberal on the bench. President Bill Clinton nominated Breyer in 1994. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/07/15/supreme-court-justice-breyer-gives-a-hint-on-when-he-might-retire-n1462061 Edited July 16, 2021 by B-Man 1
B-Man Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 Backlash in states starts over Biden court-packing scheme. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/backlash-in-states-starts-over-biden-court-packing-scheme
Recommended Posts