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. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    SCOTUS: The POTUS can’t regulate air pollution that drifts across state lines.

    Also SCOTUS: The POTUS is immune for crimes committed during official acts. But we don't know if it's an official act yet. We'll figure that out later.

    Seems ... odd.
     
    garrow and Driftwood like this.
  2. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Of course you're completely correct; however, the argument would be that within 2 years if Democrats could make a strong enough case to voters and people who currently sit out, then 66 is achievable. In reality, it's a pipe dream but you could say the same thing a few years ago about abortion bans and monarch presidents, and here we are.
     
    franticscribe likes this.
  3. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    They did misbehave but they’re Republicans. It’s different for them.
     
    Driftwood likes this.
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It's not a mystery that requires an interpretation. It means that judges can't be removed at will; removing a federal judge requires impeachment & conviction.
     
  5. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    The future mega (not MAGA)-sized Dem Scotus will see it differently!
     
  6. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Goes right along with the idea that a president can pardon any crook who broke federal law that he sees fit to release. But by God he better not get ideas about relieving student loan debt.
     
  7. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    I don’t disagree, and judges were actually mention by Jefferson in the Declaration for that reason.
    But if you are a “textualist” the text of the Constitution does not say “life.”
     
  8. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    It also says "emoluments" and "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
     
    Driftwood likes this.
  9. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    "Well regulated militia".
     
  10. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

  11. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

  12. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    Abba-dee abba-dee abba-dee ...

    upload_2024-7-3_3-7-8.jpeg
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page