Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Future of the U.S Supreme Court

2016 Election U.S. Supreme Court Labor Unions Corporate Personhood Voting Rights Act

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#121
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,113 posts

Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public

 

https://www.nbcnews....vidence-n915566

 

Introduction:

 

(CBS News) WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

 

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

 

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

 

 

1810101-kavanaugh-ramirez-inline-circles

From left, Deborah Ramirez, Kerry E. Berchem, Doug Millet, Karen Yarasavage, Kevin Genda, Brett Kavanaugh and David White pose for a photo at the rehearsal dinner before the wedding of Yarasavage and Genda in 1997.

Photo obtained by NBC News

 

 

 

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#122
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,113 posts

Undermining the Supreme Court is incredibly dangerous

 

http://theweek.com/a...dibly-dangerous

 

Introduction:

 

(The Week) What does it look like when the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy? We don't want to find out.

 

Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been appointed to the court after a long and incredibly messy confirmation process, some have suggested this is the moment the institution loses its standing in the eyes of the American public.

 

It's the perfect assertion for our overheated times. But the court building still stands, the justices are still hearing arguments — Kavanaugh will apparently start hearing cases on Tuesday — and they'll still make rulings that span the range of American political and legal life. Does the court really need legitimacy to do its work?

 

Well, yes.

 

For more than 200 years, the Supreme Court has served as the final word, more or less, on the hot constitutional issues of the day. But that power, known as "judicial supremacy," isn't written into the Constitution — the court claimed it back in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Americans have mostly agreed to go along with it ever since.

illegitimate.jpg?itok=vDrikMjV&resize=12

 

Illustrated | ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images, Zakharova_Natalia

Illustrated | ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images, Zakharova_Natalia


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#123
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,113 posts

Roberts Asks Federal Judges to Handle Kavanaugh Complaints

 

https://www.courthou...ugh-complaints/

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts is referring ethics complaints against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to federal judges in Colorado and neighboring states.

 

The complaints deal with statements Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearings. They were filed originally with Kavanaugh’s old court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

Roberts took no action on them while Kavanaugh’s nomination was pending. He received the first three of 15 eventual complaints on Sept. 20, a week before Kavanaugh’s angry denial of a sexual assault allegation by Christine Blasey Ford.

 

It’s possible the complaints will never be investigated if the lower-court judges determine they have no jurisdiction over a Supreme Court justice under the judiciary’s ethics rules. The judges may be forced to conclude “that intervening events have rendered the allegations moot or make remedial action impossible,” said Arthur Hellman, an ethics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

 

Another ethicist, Stephen Gillers of New York University, disagreed that the complaints are moot. Kavanaugh remains a federal judge and the complaints “allege misconduct that occurred while Kavanaugh was on the D.C. Circuit and subject to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Any violation of the Code does not disappear because he is now on another federal court,” Gillers said in an email.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#124
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,113 posts

Liberal Voters Finally Notice the War Over the Courts — Decades After Conservatives Did

 

http://prospect.org/article/liberal-voters-finally-notice-war-over-courts-decades-after-conservatives-did

 

 

Introduction:

 

(American Prospect) Buried in an October 9 Washington Post poll of battleground congressional districts, one set of numbers jumped off the page for those of us who have, for two painful decades, tracked the slow-motion train wreck of the Supreme Court.

 

In this poll of likely voters in 69 districts, the issue most cited as “extremely important” was the “Supreme Court and other judicial nominations.” Sixty-four percent picked it, ahead of Donald Trump (60 percent), health care (57percent ), and the economy (55 percent).

 

To be sure, these numbers reflected the just-pushed-through confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Court. What was more striking, and, one hopes, less ephemeral, was the partisan balance of those respondents. Among those who prioritized judicial nominations, 50 percent supported the Democratic candidate in the district, while 47 percent supported the Republican. Five days later, a Washignton Post-­ABC News national poll reinforced those numbers: 66 percent called Supreme Court nominations “highly important,” and a near-majority (49 percent) “trusted” Democrats more than Republicans on that issue (38 percent trusted the Republicans more). 

 

In prior decades, although particular decisions periodically caught the public eye, court appointments figured so little in voters’ electoral choices that pollsters rarely if ever bothered to ask about it. However, there was one critical exception—social conservative voters, especially evangelical Christians. For them, the make-up of the federal courts was persistently at or near the top of their list. Of course, the particular legal issues that fired up social conservatives—gender equality, gay rights, contraception, religion in the public square, and above all, abortion—also fired up their social liberal adversaries. But liberal culture warriors’ focus on the courts didn’t translate into ballot box clout. With the exception of pro-choice advocates, most of the beneficiaries and enthusiasts of liberal Supreme Court precedents took that regime for granted, dismissing the possibility of any looming existential political threat. For Democratic constituencies with a primarily economic, foreign policy, or environmental focus, control of the courts has generally been less than a blip on their election-time radar scree

 

ap_18279833177496.jpg?itok=NiiTL0xH

Bob Bland, left, raises her fist as activists protest on the steps of the Supreme Court after the confirmation vote of Brett Kavanaugh on October 6, 2018.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#125
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,762 posts

Trump has a very high chance of getting 1 or maybe 2 more supreme court seats...If he can hold the senate the court will probably be right wing for the next 35 years.



#126
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

Trump has a very high chance of getting 1 or maybe 2 more supreme court seats...If he can hold the senate the court will probably be right wing for the next 35 years.

Yeah, Breyer and Ginsburg are the two oldest justices at 80 and 85 and are both left leaning.  If either of them or both of them retire before Trump leaves office, I'm going to be in my 50s before the courts have a chance at being left again.


John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#127
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

Ginsburg, 85, Hospitalized After Fracturing 3 Ribs in Fall

 

Washington (AP) -- The Supreme Court says 85-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractured three ribs in a fall in her office at the court and is in the hospital.

 
The court says the justice went to George Washington University Hospital in Washington early Thursday after experiencing discomfort overnight. The court says the fall occurred Wednesday evening.
 
Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital for treatment and observation after tests showed she fractured three ribs.
 
Ginsburg broke two ribs in a fall in 2012. She has had two prior bouts with cancer and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014.
Source: Bloomberg

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#128
tomasth

tomasth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Its a life long appointment , right ? So if any extensive life extension apear in the next 35 years , it the appointment legnth will have to be revised (or the courts is never going to be left again).



#129
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

Its a life long appointment , right ? So if any extensive life extension apear in the next 35 years , it the appointment legnth will have to be revised (or the courts is never going to be left again).

Interesting point.  The judges can and do retire, as in the case of Sarrah Day O'Connor, my current profile picture (for those of you in the future: photo-4717.jpg?_r=1524900378)

I imagine that eventually judges will either retire as a matter of principal or the senate will amend the constitution and impose term limits on the justices.


John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#130
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,762 posts

Maybe with anti-aging we can set the term limit at 50 years for the Supreme court.



#131
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Its a life long appointment , right ? So if any extensive life extension apear in the next 35 years , it the appointment legnth will have to be revised (or the courts is never going to be left again).

Interesting point.  The judges can and do retire, as in the case of Sarrah Day O'Connor, my current profile picture (for those of you in the future: photo-4717.jpg?_r=1524900378)
I imagine that eventually judges will either retire as a matter of principal or the senate will amend the constitution and impose term limits on the justices.

I don't know if it's just me, but Sarrah Day O'Conner looks suspiciously like Paul McCartney.
  • Yuli Ban and rennerpetey like this

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.

 

Song to cure depression: https://youtu.be/9eCOLWnD5VM


#132
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,698 posts
  • LocationUK

I don't know if it's just me, but Sarrah Day O'Conner looks suspiciously like Paul McCartney.

Not seeing it to be honest lol



#133
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,762 posts

 

 

Its a life long appointment , right ? So if any extensive life extension apear in the next 35 years , it the appointment legnth will have to be revised (or the courts is never going to be left again).

Interesting point.  The judges can and do retire, as in the case of Sarrah Day O'Connor, my current profile picture (for those of you in the future: photo-4717.jpg?_r=1524900378)
I imagine that eventually judges will either retire as a matter of principal or the senate will amend the constitution and impose term limits on the justices.

I don't know if it's just me, but Sarrah Day O'Conner looks suspiciously like Paul McCartney.

 

 

 

I can certainly see it.

 

Old Paul must have been wearing drag!


  • Jessica likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users