The President is Above the Law
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
No you just don't understand! They are great historians and definitely know the history of this country! The early founders just somehow always make right leaning decisions that vaguely take way our liberties, mere coincidence really. |
Anonymous
| This decision shouldn’t sit well with state’s rights advocates. How will Governor Parson react if Trump sends troops into St. Louis for example. |
Anonymous
They will welcome their new fascist overlord in that case because “states’ rights” was always a lie. |
Anonymous
Interesting point. |
Anonymous
|
As we’ve been saying: Wilhoit’s Law: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. David Frum: If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy. It’s fascism. Or autocracy with a soupçon of oligarchy. Or Christian nationalism. I don’t think they care specifically about the flavor, but it ain’t democracy. Republicans have to cheat across multiple layers in order to achieve their “wins,” rather like frat boys drugging women in order to rape them and counting that as sleeping with women, as their politics are generally unpopular and unwanted with most people. They don’t really care about what people want, it’s what the tiny cult of crazies wants. |
Anonymous
| All conservatives are domestic terrorists. Period. End of story. |
Anonymous
| I have yet to see anyone point out that Kavanaugh was one of the lead prosecutors on Kenneth Starr's independent counsel team investing Clinton. Let's remember that the investigation ended up being about Clinton's relationship with a WH staffer and Clinton lying about it. According to the SCOTUS opinion that Kavanaugh signed onto, discussions with staff and advisors is an official act, presumptively immune, and no evidence about them whatsoever could be introduced at a trial. Kavanaugh must have forgotten to tell Starr about presidential immunity. |
Anonymous
That hasn't been problem for over 200 years - why would it be a problem now? And it's not just that Supreme Court found immunity for official acts, they made that immunity so absolute that it even protects a President who orders sham prosecutions and investigations. That is NEW. From the opinion 
|
Anonymous
| Lawyer friends, can anyone explain the purpose of Justice Jackson's dissent? Who is the intended audience for this paradigm discussion? |
Anonymous
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-purpose-of-dissenting-opinions-104784 What Happens When a Supreme Court Justice Dissents? The question is often asked why a judge or Supreme Court justice might want to write a dissenting opinion since, in effect, their side "lost." The fact is that dissenting opinions can be used in a number of key ways. Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/Wikimedia Commons/Pubic Domain Ideas and Issues Issues The U. S. Government U.S. Legal System History & Major Milestones U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights U.S. Political System Defense & Security Campaigns & Elections Business & Finance U.S. Foreign Policy U.S. Liberal Politics U.S. Conservative Politics Women's Issues Civil Liberties The Middle East Race Relations View More By Martin Kelly Updated on July 12, 2019 A dissenting opinion is an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion. In the U.S. Supreme Court, any justice can write a dissenting opinion, and this can be signed by other justices. Judges have taken the opportunity to write dissenting opinions as a means to voice their concerns or express hope for the future. What Happens When a Supreme Court Justice Dissents? The question is often asked why a judge or Supreme Court justice might want to write a dissenting opinion since, in effect, their side "lost." The fact is that dissenting opinions can be used in a number of key ways. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Portrait Read More The Power of Supreme Court Majority Opinions By Martin Kelly First of all, judges want to make sure that the reason why they disagreed with the majority opinion of a court case is recorded. Further, publishing a dissenting opinion can help make the writer of the majority opinion clarify their position. This is the example given by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her lecture about dissenting opinions. Secondly, a justice might write a dissenting opinion in order to affect future judgments in cases about situations similar to the case in question. In 1936, Chief Justice Charles Hughes stated that “A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal...to the intelligence of a future day...” In other words, a justice might feel that the decision goes against the rule of law and hopes that similar decisions in the future will be different based on arguments listed in their dissent. For example, only two people disagreed in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case that ruled that enslaved Black people should be viewed as property. Justice Benjamin Curtis wrote a forceful dissent about the travesty of this decision. Another famous example of this type of dissenting opinion occurred when Justice John M. Harlan dissented to the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ruling, arguing against allowing racial segregation in the railway system. A third reason why a justice might write a dissenting opinion is in the hope that, through their words, they can get Congress to push forward legislation to correct what they see as issues with the way the law is written. Ginsburg talks about such an example for which she wrote the dissenting opinion in 2007. The issue at hand was the time frame within which a woman had to bring a suit for pay discrimination based on gender. The law was written quite narrowly, stating that an individual had to bring suit within 180 days of the discrimination occurring. However, after the decision was handed down, Congress took up the challenge and changed the law so that this time frame was greatly extended. |
Anonymous
Thanks but I know what a dissent is. I just don't know that I get the purpose of justice Jackson's above and beyond justice Sotomayor's |
Anonymous
Lets be real. We are witnessing the return of the Jim Crow area. |
Anonymous
Conveniently |