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!

Supreme Court, start your engines

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by WaylonJennings, Dec 11, 2008.

  1. That's not true.
     
  2. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    They can issue injunctions and that is a huge amount of power concentrated in one person's hands.
     
  3. The current administration has made it a mission over the last eight years to expand the powers of the executive branch at the expense of the judiciary, which has just as much power under the Constitution as any of the other three.

    This is not a great time to argue about an out-of-control judiciary.
     
  4. Dickens Cider

    Dickens Cider New Member

    Republicans have been taking power out of judges' hands since St. Ronnie was in office.

    Mandatory Minimums, anyone?
     
  5. It's an absurd statement. Judges have too much power because they can issue injunctions. But presidents can start wars.
     
  6. Dickens Cider

    Dickens Cider New Member

    I know. I was agreeing with you, Waylon.
     
  7. I know. I was commiserating.
     
  8. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Judges ARE just like dictators.

    except they don't have a military to boss...

    and their orders are subject to reversal on appeal (except for the SC, and then 5 of them have to agree)...

    and they can be impeached...

    and many state judges can be voted out...

    and if they really piss enough people off we can amend the constitution to overrule them...

    Other than that, they're just like dictators.
     
  9. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    Other salient fact here is that it's a Scripps paper. So, this is how it's going to go down:
    The paper will not print. The Scripps lawyer will toddle around for a while, make a good show of it... and nobody will do nothing. Scripps no longer cares about the First Amendment, journalism or the public's right to information. Only the bottom line, baby. Only the bottom line.
     
  10. awriter

    awriter Active Member

    And
    I'm wondering the same thing. Why'd they wait?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page