Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Arkain2K, Apr 12, 2017.
Make The Supreme Court Great Again
Grab a seat, and have your popcorn ready.
He doesn't think a sitting president should be able to be charged or sued. How does that NOT affect his potential ruling on a related matter, should it come to the SC?
Probably not, I agree.
That was a waste of my time. You've lost your Fawlty privileges for a while.
Whichever. That's either your loss, if you're just a sheep with ignorant positions, or my gain if you're a hack and a sociopath.
He is arguing from a policy perspective regarding something Congress should do. It might be important if he were running for Congress but the job he is going for has nothing to do with making law. He is just there to be a neutral arbitrator of what the law is not what the law should be.
It's my understanding that he doesn't hold that opinion as jurist (he doesn't think the current laws or constitution support that) but thinks Congress should pass a law stating that.
I believe he also seemed to originate that opinion during Obama's first term.
It looks like he buys into earlier DOJ reasoning that Congress is the sole check on executive privilege while the executive is in office.
I don't think it's that extreme of a view historically but we find ourselves in a time where the house doesn't seem willing to act as a check on executive privilege
LOL. The Federalist Society is a pox on our country.
What is pretty interesting and funny is that many of Trumpbots were Republicans that hated and still hate Mitch.
His shady and fucked up shenanigans gave Trump 2 SCOTUS picks and Trump has picked McConnel judges.
McConnel got his SCOTUS picks which will last for decades. Trump's positions on trade, immigration trade etc will die pretty quickly.
How long and how much this erodes the soft power of the US has yet to be seen (I think this was a horrible trade off).
But Mitch has played a historic hand and let Trump bare the burden for most of his dirty work. He even shielded most of his party from culpability by not even bringing Garland to a vote
I don't know either.
John Shaw Neilson poems
You're veering off topic. No need to make this about tribes.
A stronger textualist-originalist position than the one you're taking would be to oppose the NLRA itself as unconstitutional. If you instead accept the NLRA, you must also accept inherent tension between Sections 7 and 9, and therefore accept that waiving the right to picket is at least textually plausible.
Wow wow no need to take to personal attacks. What's next calling the Center for Originalism a plague? The Federalist Society might not where the Big Firm guys go. But for working class plaintiffs' lawyers that don't have any Inn of Court to go to, it's a place where you can go to to find tolerance and acceptance. It's a place where;
When I go to Bar event which I very rarely go to, I feel out of place. Here I am this big hapa guy with cauliflower ears that just works for himself in federal court. With all these Big Firm people that make big bucks in state court. No one knows me. I feel like I don't belong when all these big firm guys are around. People are polite but that's all they are. When I am at a federalist society dinner every is hey Alan good to see ya take a seat. How's restoring the Second AMendment going for you?
Because no lawyer believes that this is what the Federalist Society stands for. It's an organization that finds it's ideology first, and then tries to cram the law into that framework. Thats why you have cries of strict textualism when it suits you, but a complete abandonment of that principle for something like magazine capacity (on which the Constitution is silent), when it doesn't.
The fact that you are so sure it would means that you don't understand a judges actual job. The fact that shouldn't means that if it didn't hes doing his job.
Why would magazine size not be considered a restriction on firearms? The constitutions prohibition on anti-firearm legislation is largely a blanket ban. It would be difficult to make a case for extracting magazine size as a separate issue.
This is utterly foreign to my admittedly limited experience with fed soc. Most of the members were Biglaw, clerkship, or bust at law school. I distinctly remember one of the officers casually disparaging any kind of long-term public service work or "shitlaw." There was also the perception that federal work was more prestigious than state, but that might just be from the clerkship thing.
I was being a little tongue and cheek. My friend from the UCSD (undergrad) college republicans runs the SD Federalist Society. My friend and former law professor runs the Center for Originalism which based out of my law school (USD). I have a lot of friends when I go to events. I know the judges that show up. The issues that get debated are stuff that I know about. And if I ever get jammed up people are willing to help me out. I was joking about the Big Law thing. We have people from every segment of the law from federal judges, Big Law to scrappy underdog 1983 practitioners.
On the rare occasion I go to a bar event because I need CLE credit, I don't know anybody there. I just don't feel like I fit in. The conversations are about stuff I don't really know anything about or care about. I pick up my CLE hours and go home. I tried going to Inn of Court once. I was really uncomfortable. I felt like I had to not talk because I was going to say something and have the place turn on me.
Separate names with a comma.