Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Let her be known not for her landmark decisions, but for her hubris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Just now, mclumber1 said: Let her be known not for her landmark decisions, but for her hubris. I don't care that she's already dead, drag her body out of the casket and fucking behead it right there in the Capitol rotunda. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Jason said: I don't care that she's already dead, drag her body out of the casket and fucking behead it right there in the Capitol rotunda. Didn't some pope do that to a dead pope back in the middle ages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Just now, mclumber1 said: Didn't some pope do that to a dead pope back in the middle ages? 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 http://en.wikipedia.org//static/favicon/wikipedia.ico Cadaver Synod - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Sources: Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court WWW.CNN.COM President Donald Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process. of course it was going to the absolute worst religious psycho 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cusideabelincoln Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 2 hours ago, finaljedi said: It kills me when someone tries to make a point with "The American people elected Donald Trump to...", he won the election, but the American people didn't elect him. It also kills me he says right in the canned email the senate has a long standing precedent of delaying nomination but he's going to do it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaku3 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 33 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: http://en.wikipedia.org//static/favicon/wikipedia.ico Cadaver Synod - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Further proof that the Catholic Church is the best Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Firewithin said: Sources: Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court WWW.CNN.COM President Donald Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process. of course it was going to the absolute worst religious psycho Absolutely fabulous we've got a decent chance to have a member of People of Praise on SCOTUS. So good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Coney Barrett would have been the second Trump nominee if Kennedy hadn’t been a planned retirement, so absolutely no surprise she is going to get the nod here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Yep, let's pick the most revolting, devastating choice. Fuck these people. I wish there was a Hell for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazatron Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 But but but, she's a woman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Amazatron said: But but but, she's a woman! "Truly Presidential." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Perhaps it is time to throw out the old constitution and write a new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Lagoa would have been the smarter choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Joe said: Lagoa would have been the smarter choice. They seem nearly identical on judicial philosophy from the brief opinion readings I did, and Coney Barrett is a little younger. Why do you think Lagoa would be the smarter choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 The cult she's in inspired Handmaid's Tale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, sblfilms said: They seem nearly identical on judicial philosophy from the brief opinion readings I did, and Coney Barrett is a little younger. Why do you think Lagoa would be the smarter choice? The Cubans really wanted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 hour ago, sblfilms said: There is a commonly held view in the, dun dun dun, legal community that an amendment itself can’t be violative of the constitution. For example, you couldn’t pass an amendment that made female votes with 1/2 of male votes because the amendment itself is an equal protection violation. Not sure that would apply to the senate situation, but I could see it. This is lulzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: This is lulzy Seriously. How can the constitution prevent amendments. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 The 13th Amendment is unconstitutional because it represented an unconstitutional government taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 22 minutes ago, Jason said: Seriously. How can the constitution prevent amendments. lol If the amendment itself is in violation of the constitution, that’s how. Going back to the example of voting, you would need to amend the constitution to remove equal protection prior to having an amendment that would restrict female voting in such a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Donald Trump appointing Supreme Court Justices is like Norman Osborn becoming Director of SHIELD and appointing his own team of Avengers filled with nothing but super-villains. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 27 minutes ago, sblfilms said: If the amendment itself is in violation of the constitution, that’s how. Going back to the example of voting, you would need to amend the constitution to remove equal protection prior to having an amendment that would restrict female voting in such a way. 28th Amendment Section 1: The 19th amendment is repealed. Section 2: Women are banned from voting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jason said: 28th Amendment Section 1: The 19th amendment is repealed. Section 2: Women are banned from voting. Section 2 would be a violation of equal protection. So you would need to repeal that first. State supreme courts have struck down state constitutional amendments on this very basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Good thing there's nothing above the federal constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Pictured: Donald Trump and his Supreme Court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 The constitution is dumb. I'm pretty sure that if the founding fathers came back to life and (once the shock wore off) had some time to observe the modern world... they would all say that the constitution in it's current form is not doing the job it's supposed to be doing. We should not be being ruled by a party that is supported by the minority of Americans. FUCK THAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Just now, Jason said: Good thing there's nothing above the federal constitution. The constitution is still interpreted by the courts, and they can invalidate an amendment that is itself in violation of the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The constitution is still interpreted by the courts, and they can invalidate an amendment that is itself in violation of the constitution. As long as the correct procedure for passing an amendment was followed, it wouldn't be in violation of the constitution because it's now part of the constitution. It's simply not comparable to a state constitution having to stay within the boundaries set by the federal constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Jason said: As long as the correct procedure for passing an amendment was followed, it wouldn't be in violation of the constitution because it's now part of the constitution. It's simply not comparable to a state constitution having to stay within the boundaries set by the federal constitution. I explicitly said state constitutional amendments have been struck down by state supreme courts on that same basis. The same would apply at the federal level if a court held such a philosophy, and being that it is a very widely held belief, I think it’s the most likely outcome if you somehow had a scenario in which a clearly unconstitutional amendment was ratified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 8 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The constitution is still interpreted by the courts, and they can invalidate an amendment that is itself in violation of the constitution. This is straight up bullshit. If something appears contradictory then an interpretation that does not make two seemingly contradictory clauses contradict, and the courts would go with that decision. If not, then the more recent amendment holds as law. See the 17th amendment and compare to the original text of the constitution with regard to selection of senators. It's not directly repealing the original text, but it is regarded as repealing the original text Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 An amendment can't be unconstitutional since it is the constitution at that point, but regardless Jim Crow laws were a thing for like 70 years and the current court would more likely than not be like Amendments are basically like patches, the newest revision overrides the older one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: This is straight up bullshit. If something appears contradictory then an interpretation that does not make two seemingly contradictory clauses contradict, and the courts would go with that decision. If not, then the more recent amendment holds as law. See the 17th amendment and compare to the original text of the constitution with regard to selection of senators. It's not directly repealing the original text, but it is regarded as repealing the original text This is not the same, and more in line with the question of whether you could make the article five amendment that started this line of discussion. The 17th amendment is not in violation of the constitution, it is implicitly a repeal. The type of amendment I described would not implicitly repeal equal protection, it simply would violate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.