1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    An unfortunate stat that I like to cite every now and again: Thurgood Marshall died on Jan. 24, 1993, four days after Bill Clinton's inauguration.

    Think how different history would be if he'd stuck out his whole term.
     
  2. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

  3. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    This lady has been NAILS her whole life!!! Thank you RBG for your sacrifices and service to our country. Keep it up!!
     
  4. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    Just make it to the new year, RBG.
     
  5. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    If Biden wins but Trumpists retain control of the Senate, she'll have to make it until noon on Jan. 20.
    If Biden wins and Democrats have cushion in the Senate -- i.e. more than 51 in order to neuter DINO Joe Manchin -- Jan. 3 will suffice.
    If Trump wins, she'll need at least four more years.
    Under any circumstances, she's an American hero whose survival pisses off Trumpists every day.
     
    Driftwood likes this.
  6. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    But if Biden wins and the Republicans keep the Senate, Moscow Mitch will do his usual crap.
     
  7. Noholesinone

    Noholesinone Well-Known Member

    I want her to retire 60 seconds after it’s too late to benefit Trump.
     
  8. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

  9. maumann

    maumann Well-Known Member

  10. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    sgreenwell and maumann like this.
  11. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    They aren't? Sure fooled me.
     
  12. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    This is my read on the SCOTUS; Scalia/Rehnquist/Kennedy I disagreed with them most times, most probably because I did not like the end result but I understood that they had substantive reasons for their decisions. You need that type of basis so you don't look like a fool in the annuals of history. I find Gorsuch and Roberts following those footsteps. Kavanaugh looks like he may as well.

    Thomas is a joke.

    I admit I have a blind spot for the liberal justices, Sotomayer/Kagen/Breyer, because they're in the dissent, which may lay the groundwork for future decisions but doesn't have any binding effect.

    That's why I hope that at the barest minimum the SCOTUS doesn't completely just make rubberstamp political decisions. I may be completely off base, I frankly haven't read a SCOTUS decision in my legal capacity in over 25 years, its way over my practice.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page