quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Don’t blame me! The word was used in an article I posted written by someone else, to whom credit was given in my post.

The fact remains you have the intellectual horsepower to post similar words daily without breaking a sweat (and I hope you do!)

Look up unctuous.

Guys. Try to keep it in the ballpark of the subject, please.

When I sat Kava, you say naugh!

Kavanaugh is giving Trump a run for his money.

I'm not sure why Turley thinks having 19 Justices will solve the problem. The political impulse will always be to drive for a majority that reflects one party's point of view or another. Having 19 Justices instead of 9 will simply redefine the parameters of the field of competition without eliminating or even ameliorating the competition.

quote:

Originally posted by tanner:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Someone should contact the Trump-hating Stephen King and ask him to consider a reboot of his novel, changing the automobile from a Plymouth to a Ford.

FORD in auto repair circles also known as, ‘Fooked Over Rebuilt Dodge’

I always was told it meant "Found On Road Dead". BTW, I've never owned a 4-wheeled vehicle that was not made by Ford, and I've been very satisfied.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Interesting POV by Prof. Jonathan Turley on Fox this morning. He suggested there ought to be 19 SCOTUS justices to dilute the power of each one and take some of the craziness out of the confirmation battles. It would be a mess to implement, but it probably would make things run a lot more smoothly once up and running. The way it is now, it's getting near civil war with each nomination, and there could be two more in pretty short order.

Why stop at 19? Why not have one justice for every 100,000 citizens? Then we can say we've really diluted the power of an indivudial justice.



Yes...tongue firmly planted in cheek.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I'm not sure why Turley thinks having 19 Justices will solve the problem. The political impulse will always be to drive for a majority that reflects one party's point of view or another. Having 19 Justices instead of 9 will simply redefine the parameters of the field of competition without eliminating or even ameliorating the competition.

I think it's because it would be so much harder to assume there's an iron-clad balance between 19 individuals. With a 5-4 split, it's not too hard to predict some decisions, knowing there is usually only one swing vote. I'd find it hard to believe you could get 19 justices who are totally set on side or the other. I doubt we'd see too many 9-10 decisions in that case, perhaps giving a little more legitimacy to the decisions with bigger majority sides.

But I know this will never happen in my lifetime, so it's mental masturbation, at best. I'm not even sure it's a great idea, just kind of interesting. I really don't see the current situation getting better by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

as the junior Justice, Kavanaugh will have to get the coffee during the conferences of the Court.

I read that and had a mental picture of Kavanaugh walking back in w 2 six packs.

If he has any balls at all . . .

quote:

I really don't see the current situation getting better by itself

given 'the current situation' didn't get WORSE by itself either....there's likely a better solution than doubling the SCOTUS roster.

Swearing in with President Trump - is on live now

Old Ginny can’t even clap. Probably afraid she’ll turn into dust given her near skeleton status. Better get back to Bernie’s there RBG!
Congrats Justice Kavanaugh!!!

Watching the pride in his daughters eyes as he was sworn in, dang near brought a tear to my eye.

Awww...who am I kidding...no dang near about it.

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
Why stop at 19?

But, but, look how well Poland's done with a 143-judge supreme court!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I'd find it hard to believe you could get 19 justices who are totally set on side or the other. I doubt we'd see too many 9-10 decisions in that case, perhaps giving a little more legitimacy to the decisions with bigger majority sides.

I don't know that that's true. The close votes are already a minority of the decisions the court reaches, so it's hard to see how the number of close votes would be reduced further simply by adding more Justices. It also takes forever sometimes to get a majority of the justices behind one side or another. IMHO, this will just complicate and delay the formation of majorities because there will be more cats to herd. For the same reason, I think we'd see an explosion in the number of separate minority opinions written for each case.

At the same time, the fact that there is one majority decision written for the court (or there is no usable precedent from the case, really), means that there's going to be a strong impulse to join in one majority opinion and at most one minority opinion in order to state the law not only clearly but persuasively. No Justice is really in a hurry to write a minority opinion that everyone will ignore, and no Justice truly loves a lack of clarity.

19 justices? THat's insane. The Senate would have half it's calendar every year consumed by confirmations

I wonder where they got the idea that this was the first time a Justice was sworn in by the Justice for whom he had clerked. Neil Gorsuch clerked for Justice Kennedy and was sworn in by him in the Rose Garden last year.

The members of the American Press are some of the most confused and ill-informed people in this nation.

I thought he said clerked for the Justice he replaced.

I love how President Trump stuck it to the obstructionist, dishonest, insidious dems by officially apologizing to Justice Kavanaugh and his family during the swearing in ceremony. And then he turned to his daughters and told them directly that their father is a great man. Very well done.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN: meretricious

ARCHAIC
relating to or characteristic of a prostitute.