Land Shark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-04-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #83 |
| 85. it gets worse, it may NEVER be able to be overturned, because they |
|
have the option, in an appropriate case that could challenge Bush v. Gore, to say "it's a political question" and we can't/won't hear it, as even Gore's attorney Larry Tribe admits, saying "I confess my error" in not raising the objection of political question doctrine.
So it Tribe is right, then they improvidently got up to SCOTUS, performed constitutional surgery that never should have been done on Equal Protection, got out, and now that door is slammed shut with a gate that says "POLITICAL QUESTION".
On the other hand, if Tribe is wrong, and he really didn't "err" or malpractice or whatever it was, then when and if we have another, probably presidential election we wish to sacrifice at the altar of the SCOTUS, we can send it back up there and hope for the best. They probably won't take a case that involves less than the presidency.
|
| -Winning the Direct Attack on Democracy & Obama (Sup Ct Bush v Gore Pt. II decision due Friday 12-5) |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 02:59 AM |
#0 |
 -
K&R for democracy! nt |
2 Much Tribulation |
Dec-04-08 03:16 AM |
#1 |
| -
Stop fear-mongering. Every filing submitted to the Supreme Court is considered. |
zlt234 |
Dec-04-08 03:27 AM |
#2 |
 -
This is not "fear mongering" this says "go on offense" and it also says... |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 03:33 AM |
#3 |
 -
Someone uninformed about legal issues might look at your article and reasonably worry |
zlt234 |
Dec-04-08 03:18 PM |
#30 |
| -
Your missing the parts about what happens when Obama runs the table perfectly |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:16 PM |
#35 |
| -
You've convinced me - you're not a lawyer. |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:52 AM |
#101 |
| -
If someone fires a bullet at your head, you know it missed by a mile, so talking about it is "fear"? |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 03:40 AM |
#4 |
| -
it seems obvious that they are not seen that way... |
tomp |
Dec-04-08 06:30 AM |
#5 |
| -
anticipated that. There you go again, telling yourself "not to worry" |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 06:45 AM |
#6 |
| -
actually this fits with my theory that obama is in office (soon)... |
tomp |
Dec-04-08 09:52 AM |
#15 |
| -
Did you consider the risk that an uprising is precisely what they want? |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:42 AM |
#13 |
| -
It "got to the supreme court" by being laughed out of every other court along the way |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:46 PM |
#63 |
| -
Legal establishment taking these cases seriously, not laughing it off. see |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:00 AM |
#7 |
| -
The right wing |
H2O Man |
Dec-04-08 09:04 AM |
#9 |
| -
Article argues lawsuits would lack standing under Article III, not the political question doctrine. |
Renegade08 |
Dec-04-08 09:23 PM |
#79 |
| -
True, that's just one example of a wider body of scholarship referencing PQ |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:42 PM |
#81 |
| -
Here's the deal - the Supreme Court DID hear Bush v. Gore. |
Renegade08 |
Dec-04-08 09:52 PM |
#83 |
| -
it gets worse, it may NEVER be able to be overturned, because they |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:57 PM |
#85 |
| -
Okay, but, the point is, the political question doctrine is not the slam dunk |
Renegade08 |
Dec-04-08 10:01 PM |
#88 |
| -
It's an option, PQ doctrine is. An unappealable option for SCOTUS. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:05 PM |
#89 |
| -
a shitstain on the law |
Nuisance Man |
Dec-04-08 11:22 PM |
#94 |
| -
Minor Note |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:59 AM |
#102 |
| -
consideration is always limited to 'cases and controversies" |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 01:27 PM |
#113 |
| -
You have finally convinced me - you are not a lawyer |
jberryhill |
Dec-06-08 10:44 PM |
#119 |
| -
Chicago Tribune coverage of political ad and Supreme Court Friday docket here |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:58 AM |
#8 |
| -
Dude, get a sense of humor. Tinfoilhat nuttery often will bring cases to the SCOTUS |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 09:10 AM |
#10 |
| -
Read the University of Michigan Law review link for analysis well beyond "9th grade civics" |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:30 AM |
#11 |
| -
Saw no links in your post |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 09:59 AM |
#16 |
| -
The U of MI link is in the replies. You're making the case here for a new election, in the Congress |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:04 AM |
#18 |
| -
Damn, you can't read, can you? |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 10:06 AM |
#19 |
| -
Um, reading is searching for information |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 01:16 PM |
#23 |
| -
Then you reject the constitution |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 04:13 PM |
#34 |
| -
be specific, cite your power and your provision. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:35 PM |
#41 |
| -
Sure thing |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 07:08 PM |
#50 |
| -
Easy to take those apart |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:07 PM |
#65 |
| -
Ah, but here's my possibly premature question, before reading the rest of the thread.... |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 02:02 PM |
#26 |
| -
Here is the answers |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 04:12 PM |
#32 |
| -
please cite the "final authority" on the PRESIDENCY language, not other offices. nt |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:43 PM |
#44 |
| -
Amendment 12, Section 3, specifically sentence 2. n/t |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 07:18 PM |
#53 |
| -
and where does it say "congress decides" and not states, state legislatures or the people's votes? |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:22 PM |
#68 |
| -
Congress decided the elections of 1800 and 1824 |
jberryhill |
Dec-06-08 10:56 PM |
#120 |
| -
You can't think of any principled distinction between slavery or segregation & electing youngsters |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:41 PM |
#43 |
| -
Where one makes a "principled distinction" depends upon one's principles |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 06:53 PM |
#49 |
| -
The Constitution binds and restrains the government, not the people, or even corporations |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:20 PM |
#67 |
| -
You should write labels for Dr. Bronner, you know |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 08:48 PM |
#70 |
| -
The move you perhaps are missing is that some laws are void if they |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:03 PM |
#73 |
| -
"never WARNED THEM" |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 09:59 PM |
#87 |
| -
You can fail to qualify in the states. And that happens sometimes. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:14 PM |
#90 |
| -
I'll take the final question.... |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:14 AM |
#95 |
| -
Boy, it is INCREDIBLY easier to stop candidate from office, than to kick out President w/ power |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 01:38 PM |
#114 |
| -
Uh, no, it's just as easy either way |
jberryhill |
Dec-07-08 12:02 AM |
#121 |
| -
The 20th Amendment does not give congress the power to determine eligibility. |
Renegade08 |
Dec-04-08 09:28 PM |
#80 |
| -
". . .Bong hits for Jesus. . .!!!" |
stellanoir |
Dec-04-08 09:33 AM |
#12 |
| -
The irony is that some of the same wingnuts or their followers are |
treestar |
Dec-04-08 09:42 AM |
#14 |
| -
They want citizenship to be statutory and not a birthright, making it a political football |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:00 AM |
#17 |
| -
Yes, it seems to be one of the extraordinary compendium of tricks they use, or |
KCabotDullesMarxIII |
Dec-04-08 04:13 PM |
#33 |
| -
Next thing you know... |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:19 AM |
#97 |
| -
A couple of questions... And unlike some, I actually read beyond the first paragraph. |
jobycom |
Dec-04-08 10:20 AM |
#20 |
| -
Thanks for the questions, here are the answers |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:38 AM |
#21 |
| -
You are forgetting the statutory high bar to disqualify a President Elect |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 10:48 AM |
#22 |
| -
Statutes can not invade the constitutional structure, they can EXPAND not contract peoples' rights |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 01:18 PM |
#24 |
| -
yeah... tell that to the Bush v. Gore majority |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 02:07 PM |
#28 |
| -
Yeah so do you worship the Bush v. Gore majority, or the higher principles they ignored? |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:34 PM |
#39 |
| -
The answer to that question should be apparent in context here... |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 04:41 PM |
#42 |
| -
Ok, I don't ever equate court "majorities" and popular majorities, but I can understand why you did. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:09 PM |
#66 |
| -
WTF is that supposed to mean? /nt |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 08:51 PM |
#72 |
| -
You spoke of majorities on courts, i spoke of majorities of voters nt |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:09 PM |
#76 |
| -
No... |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:22 AM |
#98 |
| -
You are right on that point. But that's precisely why I'm pointing similar dynamic |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 12:57 PM |
#111 |
| -
Point 4 sounds like advocacy of "mob rule" |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 02:05 PM |
#27 |
| -
Actually, it sounds like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and drafters of the 12th Am. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 06:12 PM |
#48 |
| -
You take away individual rights by giving too much power to a simple majority. |
jobycom |
Dec-05-08 01:45 AM |
#106 |
| -
It's a mistake to look just to the constitution to define one's rights, or the american people's |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 01:37 PM |
#25 |
| -
I never did. |
jobycom |
Dec-05-08 01:56 AM |
#107 |
| -
To simplify |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 02:10 PM |
#29 |
| -
IF the candidate openly proclaimed their real age during the election |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 04:03 PM |
#31 |
| -
The concept here is "issue preclusion" not "the truth of the matter" |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:20 PM |
#36 |
| -
Your last sentence.... |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 04:34 PM |
#38 |
| -
Again, I disagree. The qualifications are very clear. |
IWantAnyDem |
Dec-04-08 07:16 PM |
#51 |
| -
It would have been interesting.... |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:28 PM |
#58 |
| -
And then the Congress should be all removed for colossal fraud on the people: Fake Election |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:49 PM |
#71 |
| -
No, it wouldn't -be- an issue before the election |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:28 AM |
#99 |
| -
Do the research, it's happened already, 6 times or more with federal office |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:29 PM |
#37 |
| -
The joy of asking folks who have done the research |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 04:35 PM |
#40 |
| -
Did you read the OP? First name there is Henry Clay. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 04:57 PM |
#45 |
| -
Good for him - Have you ever heard of D.B. Cooper? |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:19 PM |
#54 |
| -
Mind telling me where you're coming from? You're making fun of the American people |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 08:42 PM |
#69 |
| -
Again with the personal insinuations.... |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 12:39 AM |
#100 |
| -
I asked you to clarify how you feel about the outcomes you seem to be urging |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 01:16 PM |
#112 |
| -
Good for him - Have you ever heard of D.B. Cooper? |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:20 PM |
#55 |
| -
Ummm.....yeah. Two words: |
BullGooseLoony |
Dec-04-08 05:03 PM |
#46 |
| -
Ummmm.... yeah, you don't want to be understood by anyone else? |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 06:05 PM |
#47 |
| -
I understood his point clearly |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:44 PM |
#62 |
| -
Clarence Thomas needs to be IMPEACHED - he's a DISGRACE to the Judicial System. |
blm |
Dec-04-08 07:16 PM |
#52 |
| -
He's not enough of a judicial figure to qualify as a "disgrace" |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:22 PM |
#56 |
| -
heheheh.....I will happily stand corrected.... |
blm |
Dec-04-08 07:26 PM |
#57 |
| -
always good to find major points of agreement. :) nt |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:11 PM |
#77 |
| -
k/r |
Fridays Child |
Dec-04-08 07:31 PM |
#59 |
| -
Brilliant post |
malaise |
Dec-04-08 07:38 PM |
#60 |
| -
Thanks, and thanks for keeping me "brief"! :) |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:05 PM |
#74 |
| -
I'm thinking the justices have relatives who will be looking for loans. |
aquart |
Dec-04-08 07:39 PM |
#61 |
| -
You underestimate the seductiveness of love affairs with The Law /nt |
jberryhill |
Dec-04-08 07:53 PM |
#64 |
| -
AS your sig says "Democracy is slow and annoying; every voice counts" |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:08 PM |
# |
| -
All of this presumes that Barack Obama was elected. Who can prove it? |
Peace Patriot |
Dec-04-08 09:08 PM |
#75 |
| -
While you make some points, I think McCain stipulates he lost (or would do so) nt |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:53 PM |
#84 |
| -
Well, so much for consistency |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 01:15 AM |
#103 |
| -
Obama was born on American soil. |
Renegade08 |
Dec-04-08 09:18 PM |
#78 |
| -
I'm fine if you want to believe that. The RW has such a huge VOLUME of crap to throw |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 09:51 PM |
#82 |
| -
Uh, how about insisting on Hawaii because Obama was born there? |
Renegade08 |
Dec-04-08 09:59 PM |
#86 |
| -
I've no personal knowledge of where I myself was born. Much less Obama. |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:27 PM |
#92 |
| -
Oh please..... |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-08 01:31 AM |
#104 |
| -
Well I think their case is more powerfully misleading by far than what you say |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 01:46 PM |
#115 |
| -
By "their case", I'm assuming you mean Donofrio's |
jberryhill |
Dec-06-08 10:30 PM |
#118 |
| -
Well said. k&r n/t |
Laelth |
Dec-04-08 10:19 PM |
#91 |
| -
Thanks for the nice mix with the thread's constructive criticism! ;) nt |
Land Shark |
Dec-04-08 10:56 PM |
#93 |
| -
Not a problem. |
Laelth |
Dec-05-08 07:56 AM |
#108 |
| -
Kicking and recommended to read tomorrow. |
Stand and Fight |
Dec-05-08 12:15 AM |
#96 |
| -
Thanks, if I may presume a tad of credit, I'll share with JBerryHill on thoroughness of discussion |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 01:49 PM |
#116 |
| -
too much to digest at the moment |
amborin |
Dec-05-08 01:43 AM |
#105 |
| -
You're right, the case is complete horseshit |
HughMoran |
Dec-05-08 07:59 AM |
#109 |
| -
In my experience, people have to go through an evolution of thought on this topic |
Land Shark |
Dec-05-08 12:52 PM |
#110 |
| -
kick for interesting discussion. nt |
2 Much Tribulation |
Dec-05-08 04:00 PM |
#117 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread