Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

thesquanderer

(12,231 posts)

15. re: "the judgement is virtually final" -- "No it's not."

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Tue Jul 2, 2024, 10:04 AM

Jul 2

You're not actually disagreeing... your point is covered by the quote's use of the word "virtually."

Though I do think there was poor phrasing in the article. It says:

When the Supreme Court hands down a ruling on a constitutional issue, the judgement is virtually final, and decisions can only be altered with a constitutional amendment and a new ruling.

That "and" should more properly be an "or." The decision can be reversed either by a constitutional amendment OR (as you said) a new ruling. (If such a constitutional amendment passed, there would be no need for a new SC ruling.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New York Dem will introduce amendment to reverse Supreme Court immunity ruling [View all] BumRushDaShow Jul 2 OP

Add to the amendment an ethics code, 18 year term limits and other sensible reforms Pepsidog Jul 2 #1

Not IF, but when. aeromanKC Jul 2 #2

Visibility is beneficial even if it's going nowhere now. /nt bucolic_frolic Jul 2 #3

I am not as worried about this type of immunity Farmer-Rick Jul 2 #4

This is little more than theatre at this time, it is going nowhere and everyone knows it. Bev54 Jul 2 #5

Ah, the inevitable naysayer NJCher Jul 2 #6

There currently are not enough votes in Congress to meet wnylib Jul 2 #9

It might NJCher Jul 2 #12

I hope that's true because, to pass it, we will need wnylib Jul 2 #16

Yes NJCher Jul 2 #22

No, I am not a writer. Not professionally anyway. wnylib Jul 2 #24

-- NJCher Jul 2 #25

"I am not saying that we shouldn't try it" BumRushDaShow Jul 2 #14

I am hardly a naysayer, quite the opposite but I am realistic. Bev54 Jul 2 #30

"Solutions need to be realistic" BumRushDaShow Jul 2 #7

Oh and have you noticed NJCher Jul 2 #8

You sure are quick to label someone, instead of calling someone down, maybe just make your argument. Bev54 Jul 2 #31

I don't need your help in what to post NJCher Jul 2 #35

Such a lovely person Bev54 Jul 2 #37

You can call it theater, but it is important to do everything we can to bring this to the attention of the public. Many Martin68 Jul 2 #29

Even if we could get the votes Miguelito Loveless Jul 2 #10

Where did he say that? NJCher Jul 2 #11

Have you been reading the rulings of late? Miguelito Loveless Jul 2 #17

of course NJCher Jul 2 #23

That does not mean you have read the ruling Bev54 Jul 2 #32

here ya' go NJCher Jul 2 #33

Roberts actually walked back some of the Clarence Thomas-written "Bruen" decision BumRushDaShow Jul 2 #28

Dead on arrival The Grand Illuminist Jul 2 #13

re: "the judgement is virtually final" -- "No it's not." thesquanderer Jul 2 #15

My complaint WAS about how it was phrased BumRushDaShow Jul 2 #18

To me, "virtually final" was a way to help explain the siginficance of this amendment being offered... thesquanderer Jul 2 #21

To follow-up BumRushDaShow Jul 2 #27

I hope I live to see the day when this SCOTUS ruling is declared null and void FakeNoose Jul 2 #19

Worth a shot. BlueWavePsych Jul 2 #20

Just wondering.... MorbidButterflyTat Jul 2 #26

Do it and good luck to you. republianmushroom Jul 2 #34

Question, Would the lynching of the VP been cover as an official act, republianmushroom Jul 2 #36