• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Ginsberg??????

Choctaw said:
A bit off the subject but I recently saw a guest on Fox who said that he has been saying for years that we should have many more supreme court justices. He mentioned 19. His point of view was/is that this weakens the power of every justice making things likely to be more fair. He feels like with just 9 a justice has too much power. He also said that we are the only country with such a small number of supreme court justices. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot more opportunities for triple-tap "suicides" of conservative justices by the dims. no thanks.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Up through the Obama picks for SC, the Senate operated pretty much on a "judicial merits" basis for SC judges.
Click to expand...

I think Bork and Thomas would disagree with you on the pre-Obama "judicial merits" argument, that standard was only followed by Republicans when a Democrat President's nominee was involved. Republicans overwhelmingly respected "judicial merits" and deference to POTUS' choice even when there were no judicial merits to speak of (Kagan). It finally took the Kavanaugh shit-show for Republicans to wake up and smell the coffee. I think Republicans should nominate two more justices and slam them through before the mid-terms, I'm positive the next time Dems have the White House and a simple Senate majority that's exactly what they'll do.
 
Choctaw said:
A bit off the subject but I recently saw a guest on Fox who said that he has been saying for years that we should have many more supreme court justices. He mentioned 19. His point of view was/is that this weakens the power of every justice making things likely to be more fair. He feels like with just 9 a justice has too much power. He also said that we are the only country with such a small number of supreme court justices. What do you think?
Click to expand...

So Trump would get to nominate 10 additional justices to the Supreme court and stack it 15 to 4?
 
Choctaw said:
A bit off the subject but I recently saw a guest on Fox who said that he has been saying for years that we should have many more supreme court justices. He mentioned 19. His point of view was/is that this weakens the power of every justice making things likely to be more fair. He feels like with just 9 a justice has too much power. He also said that we are the only country with such a small number of supreme court justices. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Not a new idea: Roosevelt announces “court-packing” plan
In February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.
...
In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22.
Click to expand...
 
I watched a show called RBG. It was about Ruth of course. While I disagree with much of her opinions it was fascinating. She became a lawyer when women didn't become lawyers. She fought to end sex discrimination by challenging the military on their "housing allowance" that was not paid to women, just men, and of course other cases (VMI denying admittance to women). She has had cancer twice - colorectal and then pancreatic cancer. She has survived both of those. She truly should retire IMO as she has been known to nap while hearing cases. How the hell do you make a decision? Oh right, you already have.
 
Obie1 said:
”Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.”


Allen Ginsberg in 1979
Click to expand...

Getting off topic here, but this reminds me of the Dr Oblivion character in the movie Videodrome. Wonder if the writers of the movie drew inspiration?

Brian O'Blivion: The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena: the Videodrome. The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye. Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it. Therefore, television is reality, and reality is less than television.

https://schlockwave.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/brianoblivion.png
 
Mike Stanton said:
I LOVE THIS PIC.

I am old and ugly as sin - but it warms my cockles to know there are others so much more repulsive than I.

JFC - GET A FN HAIRCUT. They don't cost that much with the SENIOR DISCOUNT.
Click to expand...
Well, he died 21 years ago, so there is that.
 
Mike Stanton said:
Obie1 said:
Click to expand...
I LOVE THIS PIC.
Click to expand...
He's one of those people who look like their heads are on upside-down.
7e63292e8f3f2f85591dccdc7645fb60.gif
 
PennyPincher said:
I watched a show called RBG. It was about Ruth of course. While I disagree with much of her opinions it was fascinating. She became a lawyer when women didn't become lawyers. She fought to end sex discrimination by challenging the military on their "housing allowance" that was not paid to women, just men, and of course other cases (VMI denying admittance to women). She has had cancer twice - colorectal and then pancreatic cancer. She has survived both of those. She truly should retire IMO as she has been known to nap while hearing cases. How the hell do you make a decision? Oh right, you already have.
Click to expand...

Ain't it the truth.
 
buckfarack said:
I think Bork and Thomas would disagree with you on the pre-Obama "judicial merits" argument, that standard was only followed by Republicans when a Democrat President's nominee was involved. Republicans overwhelmingly respected "judicial merits" and deference to POTUS' choice even when there were no judicial merits to speak of (Kagan). It finally took the Kavanaugh shit-show for Republicans to wake up and smell the coffee. I think Republicans should nominate two more justices and slam them through before the mid-terms, I'm positive the next time Dems have the White House and a simple Senate majority that's exactly what they'll do.
Click to expand...

I'd like to agree with this, I really would. Sadly I don't think the Republican politicians really understand the new rules.
 
+-
Lip said:
Yeah but rbg will die sooner.
Click to expand...

Kagan is a better human being than every single one of the filthy Dem Senators who voted en-bloc against Kavanaugh.

At least she actually THINKS about the ruling at hand.

Yes, although I will disagree with Kagan most of the time, she is not beyond hope.

So, yeah, I like her.
 
Mike Stanton said:
I LOVE THIS PIC.

I am old and ugly as sin - but it warms my cockles to know there are others so much more repulsive than I.

JFC - GET A FN HAIRCUT. They don't cost that much with the SENIOR DISCOUNT.
Click to expand...

Seriously, he reminds me of a Halloween mask my dad had around the same time the photo was taken (late 70s or so). Only difference was the mask had grey hair.
 

Similar threads

RB Ginsberg openly admits to wanting to reverse Heller
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
10thSFFD
10thSFFD
Back
Top Bottom