Amy Barrett disappointing Dems

[Younggun]

Care to provide some links to sources showing that?

“An unnamed source familiar with the Trump campaign”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

“An unnamed source familiar with the Trump campaign”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't provide any credibility of the statement IMO though.

 

[Younggun]

That doesn't provide any credibility of the statement IMO though.

No, but that is what you will find 99% of the time when looking for the source of some claim you see on MSM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldag]

Not one bit of this matters if the dims win the POTUS and senate majority. That is what everyone better be worried about. The Supreme Court will be stacked with socialists and we will all be screwed in every way !

Even Trump commented to his people that the senate was probably lost.

You could be right. If Dems get the WH and senate, we will see if they learned their lesson from Harry Reid's trashing the judicial filibuster.

Or attempting to pack the court could be the spark that ignites Americans to rise up.

 

[oldag]

One other significant factor pointed out by the WSJ.

If Roberts goes with the liberals and the five true constitutionalists are in majority agreement , Clarence Thomas will assign the writing of the majority opinion. And the majority opinion can have significant effect on precedence and application.

 

[Axxe55]

No, but that is what you will find 99% of the time when looking for the source of some claim you see on MSM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand that and I agree, but IMO, unnamed source isn't credible in most instances.

 

[easy rider]

Took the time during class last night to watch ACB being sworn in.

 

[gambler]

You could be right. If Dems get the WH and senate, we will see if they learned their lesson from Harry Reid's trashing the judicial filibuster.

Or attempting to pack the court could be the spark that ignites Americans to rise up.

And court packing will be only the beginning. There will easily be passed new laws on guns and taxes on them and ammo that will render the 2nd amendment useless. There will be two new solidly democratic states that will add 4 new and permanent democrat senators. There will be outrageous spending and ridiculous climate change bills. And so many other things that this country will actually cease to exist as we have known it in our lifetimes.

And I agree that it probably could and should spark a major uprising.

 

[etmo]

If Roberts goes with the liberals and the five true constitutionalists are in majority agreement , Clarence Thomas will assign the writing of the majority opinion.

Not necessarily. So yes, the most senior Justice in the majority generally can write or assign the opinion if they wish to, but, that doesn't mean they must, and, if they have just written an opinion recently, it is normal for the opinion to rotate to another Justice so that the burden is shared, and one or two Justices don't have to do all the work. There is no law on this. The Court can make up its own rules, and in the Roberts Court, the opinion writing has been distributed somewhat more equally, with a bit less regard for seniority than has historically been the case. Often Roberts has just assigned opinions across the board, so all Justices are represented as having written majority opinions.

This is why Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have already written majority opinions.

And the majority opinion can have significant effect on precedence and application.

This is true, but remember, the Justice writing the opinion for the majority is not totally in control of what that opinion says.

For example, you and I are the majority in a unanimous opinion which decides that Glocks suck. You're the senior Justice, you're going to write the opinion. You want to write that Glocks suck so bad, anyone who owns one is in violation of the Second Amendment. I say, "I agree Glocks suck, but they don't violate the 2A, they are so disgusting that they violate our 1A restrictions on public pornography."

So the final majority opinion can only say that Glocks suck, and not that they violate the 2A, if you want me to sign on to that opinion. Nor can it say they are disgusting and pornographic if I want you to sign on.
What would happen here is you would write the majority opinion saying what we all know, which is that Glocks suck, and I would sign on to that opinion. I would then write a concurring opinion which says they are so horrible they violate public pornography laws.

So if you really really really feel it's important to tell the world that Glocks suck AND they violate the 2A, you can do 1 of 2 things: You can not write the majority opinion, and you will therefore delegate that task to someone else, and the majority opinion will say only what we agree on, and no more. You will then write your concurrence about the 2A violations.
OR
you can write the majority opinion in labeled sections, where Section A says Glocks suck, Section B says they violate the 2A, and Section C says they violate the 1A. Then we can each write concurrences which say, "I'm on board with A and C" or whatever.

The big finale: What is binding on lower courts is only the holdings in the majority opinion, or the sections on which we all agree. So we would "hold" that Glocks suck, and that would bind all lower courts forever, but the 1A vs 2A stuff is NOT binding on lower courts, because we don't agree on those sections.

So a lot of majority opinion writing comes down to finding out what you can write that the others are willing to join in on.

 

[jrbfishn]

That doesn't provide any credibility of the statement IMO though.

No, but that is what you will find 99% of the time when looking for the source of some claim you see on MSM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just trying to get Trump supporters to lose hope and not bother to vote.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Not necessarily. So yes, the most senior Justice in the majority generally can write or assign the opinion if they wish to, but, that doesn't mean they must, and, if they have just written an opinion recently, it is normal for the opinion to rotate to another Justice so that the burden is shared, and one or two Justices don't have to do all the work. There is no law on this. The Court can make up its own rules, and in the Roberts Court, the opinion writing has been distributed somewhat more equally, with a bit less regard for seniority than has historically been the case. Often Roberts has just assigned opinions across the board, so all Justices are represented as having written majority opinions.

This is why Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have already written majority opinions.



This is true, but remember, the Justice writing the opinion for the majority is not totally in control of what that opinion says.

For example, you and I are the majority in a unanimous opinion which decides that Glocks suck. You're the senior Justice, you're going to write the opinion. You want to write that Glocks suck so bad, anyone who owns one is in violation of the Second Amendment. I say, "I agree Glocks suck, but they don't violate the 2A, they are so disgusting that they violate our 1A restrictions on public pornography."

So the final majority opinion can only say that Glocks suck, and not that they violate the 2A, if you want me to sign on to that opinion. Nor can it say they are disgusting and pornographic if I want you to sign on.
What would happen here is you would write the majority opinion saying what we all know, which is that Glocks suck, and I would sign on to that opinion. I would then write a concurring opinion which says they are so horrible they violate public pornography laws.

So if you really really really feel it's important to tell the world that Glocks suck AND they violate the 2A, you can do 1 of 2 things: You can not write the majority opinion, and you will therefore delegate that task to someone else, and the majority opinion will say only what we agree on, and no more. You will then write your concurrence about the 2A violations.
OR
you can write the majority opinion in labeled sections, where Section A says Glocks suck, Section B says they violate the 2A, and Section C says they violate the 1A. Then we can each write concurrences which say, "I'm on board with A and C" or whatever.

The big finale: What is binding on lower courts is only the holdings in the majority opinion, or the sections on which we all agree. So we would "hold" that Glocks suck, and that would bind all lower courts forever, but the 1A vs 2A stuff is NOT binding on lower courts, because we don't agree on those sections.

So a lot of majority opinion writing comes down to finding out what you can write that the others are willing to join in on.

Dayem Etmo! You are on a roll today! Very well written post sir!

 

[Axxe55]

Just trying to get Trump supporters to lose hope and not bother to vote.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I believe that may be the last card they have to play. To try and convince Trump voters there is no reason for them to vote because Biden is shoe-in to win the election.

 

[candcallen]

I watched the entire video. She is articulate, and very intelligent. She has an excellent grasp of the rule of law and how it is suppose to be applied.

I am more impressed with her than ever, and think she is going to be a fine SC justice.

If she wasn't already married, I'd marry her too!

I dont think trophy husband means to her what it means to you.

But a guy can dream I guess, right?

 

[Younggun]

I understand that and I agree, but IMO, unnamed source isn't credible in most instances.

You didn’t specify credibility. And it was meant in jest.


But whatever. Frog is dead now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

I dont think trophy husband means to her what it means to you.

But a guy can dream I guess, right?

Well, I'm not Catholic either, so there is that hurdle I need to overcome as well!

I may need to study on becoming a Catholic to improve my chances!

I'll ask my wife to see what she thinks!

 

[oldag]

Not necessarily. So yes, the most senior Justice in the majority generally can write or assign the opinion if they wish to, but, that doesn't mean they must, and, if they have just written an opinion recently, it is normal for the opinion to rotate to another Justice so that the burden is shared, and one or two Justices don't have to do all the work. There is no law on this. The Court can make up its own rules, and in the Roberts Court, the opinion writing has been distributed somewhat more equally, with a bit less regard for seniority than has historically been the case. Often Roberts has just assigned opinions across the board, so all Justices are represented as having written majority opinions.

This is why Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have already written majority opinions.



This is true, but remember, the Justice writing the opinion for the majority is not totally in control of what that opinion says.

For example, you and I are the majority in a unanimous opinion which decides that Glocks suck. You're the senior Justice, you're going to write the opinion. You want to write that Glocks suck so bad, anyone who owns one is in violation of the Second Amendment. I say, "I agree Glocks suck, but they don't violate the 2A, they are so disgusting that they violate our 1A restrictions on public pornography."

So the final majority opinion can only say that Glocks suck, and not that they violate the 2A, if you want me to sign on to that opinion. Nor can it say they are disgusting and pornographic if I want you to sign on.
What would happen here is you would write the majority opinion saying what we all know, which is that Glocks suck, and I would sign on to that opinion. I would then write a concurring opinion which says they are so horrible they violate public pornography laws.

So if you really really really feel it's important to tell the world that Glocks suck AND they violate the 2A, you can do 1 of 2 things: You can not write the majority opinion, and you will therefore delegate that task to someone else, and the majority opinion will say only what we agree on, and no more. You will then write your concurrence about the 2A violations.
OR
you can write the majority opinion in labeled sections, where Section A says Glocks suck, Section B says they violate the 2A, and Section C says they violate the 1A. Then we can each write concurrences which say, "I'm on board with A and C" or whatever.

The big finale: What is binding on lower courts is only the holdings in the majority opinion, or the sections on which we all agree. So we would "hold" that Glocks suck, and that would bind all lower courts forever, but the 1A vs 2A stuff is NOT binding on lower courts, because we don't agree on those sections.

So a lot of majority opinion writing comes down to finding out what you can write that the others are willing to join in on.

A Philadelphia lawyer in every crowd.

The writer of the majority opinion can have a significant influence even taking into account the above. And of course everyone knows that justices can write in addition to the majority opinion.

 

[candcallen]

Well, I'm not Catholic either, so there is that hurdle I need to overcome as well!

I may need to study on becoming a Catholic to improve my chances!

I'll ask my wife to see what she thinks!

If your wife tells you to go for it then it's a good bet trophy husband doesn't mean to her what you think it means either. Lol

 

[Axxe55]

If your wife tells you to go for it then it's a good bet trophy husband doesn't mean to her what you think it means either. Lol

Hey, hey hey, she knows how good a catch I am!

Plus, she likes my turtle!

 

[candcallen]

Hey, hey hey, she knows how good a catch I am!

Plus, she likes my turtle!

View attachment 231897

Catch n release?

 

[easy rider]

I just think that Amy's confirmation and swearing in is great for America!

Talking about Aaron Lewis in another thread made me think of this song. Now mind you, I'm not a big country music fan, but at his concert I listened to the words and all I could do was nod my head. I think ACB will help us keep our God and Guns: