the prerequisite to GrossFat answering this question would be reading the scotus decision and we know he won’t do that
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
***Official United States Supreme Court Thread***
- Thread starter maybe
- Start date
Fundamental rights should not be given to states to decide whther to take them away or not.
You want the states to decide whether you should have guns?
Maybe you're onto something.
Also, tell women who are affected by the abortion ban to get over it, you twàt.
.
And speaking of Marxist coup attempts:
House Democrats are Destroying the Judicial Branch, But No One Seems to Care
------------------------------------------------
In the most blatant move of hatred of the United States Constitution to date, U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), and Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT) have filed legislation which will create an Office of the Inspector General to ensure accountability of justices in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). This bold move by house Democrats basically erases the separation of powers in United States government.
Unsurprisingly, Conservatives have shown little resistance or push back to this measure as they are yet to realize that it is even going. Should they be successful, in 5 years’ time most Conservatives will likely believe that this has always existed.
The deep state excels at playing three card monte, and this appears to be the newest phase in their game. While Republicans are infatuated with Israel and Ukraine, Democrats are busy destroying an American institution.
The legislation titled the Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024 would specifically:
Create an Office of the Inspector General within the Judicial branch.
Authorize the Inspector General to conduct investigations of alleged violations of the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
* Authorize the powers and limitations of the Office of the Inspector General when investigating the Court.
* Structure the duties of the Inspector General which would include conducting and supervising audits and investigations, preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse; and recommending changes in laws or regulations relating to the code of conduct adopted by the Supreme Court.
* Require the Inspector General to make prompt reports to the Chief Justice and to Congress on matters that may require action by the Chief Justice or Congress.
* Require the Inspector General to report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law.
* Require the Inspector General to provide an annual report to both the House of Representatives and the Senate on the results of their investigations.
* Set appointments, term limits and removals of the inspector general.
Provide protection for whistleblowers.
* Curiously, this has never been mentioned as a problem before. Now with a 6-3 deficit that seems unlikely to be changed at any point in the future, Democrats have decided that they must steer the direction of the courts, since there is no apparent opportunities for turn over in the short term.
------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Constitution gives congress oversight review power against the administrative branch. However, the Constitution gives congress no such authority against the judicial branch.
On the contrary, the Constitution appoints Supreme Court justices for life.
.
And speaking of Marxist coup attempts:
House Democrats are Destroying the Judicial Branch, But No One Seems to Care
------------------------------------------------
In the most blatant move of hatred of the United States Constitution to date, U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), and Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT) have filed legislation which will create an Office of the Inspector General to ensure accountability of justices in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). This bold move by house Democrats basically erases the separation of powers in United States government.
Unsurprisingly, Conservatives have shown little resistance or push back to this measure as they are yet to realize that it is even going. Should they be successful, in 5 years’ time most Conservatives will likely believe that this has always existed.
The deep state excels at playing three card monte, and this appears to be the newest phase in their game. While Republicans are infatuated with Israel and Ukraine, Democrats are busy destroying an American institution.
The legislation titled the Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2024 would specifically:
Create an Office of the Inspector General within the Judicial branch.
Authorize the Inspector General to conduct investigations of alleged violations of the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
* Authorize the powers and limitations of the Office of the Inspector General when investigating the Court.
* Structure the duties of the Inspector General which would include conducting and supervising audits and investigations, preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse; and recommending changes in laws or regulations relating to the code of conduct adopted by the Supreme Court.
* Require the Inspector General to make prompt reports to the Chief Justice and to Congress on matters that may require action by the Chief Justice or Congress.
* Require the Inspector General to report expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law.
* Require the Inspector General to provide an annual report to both the House of Representatives and the Senate on the results of their investigations.
* Set appointments, term limits and removals of the inspector general.
Provide protection for whistleblowers.
* Curiously, this has never been mentioned as a problem before. Now with a 6-3 deficit that seems unlikely to be changed at any point in the future, Democrats have decided that they must steer the direction of the courts, since there is no apparent opportunities for turn over in the short term.
------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Constitution gives congress oversight review power against the administrative branch. However, the Constitution gives congress no such authority against the judicial branch.
On the contrary, the Constitution appoints Supreme Court justices for life.
.
There is no constitutional federal fundamental right to kill a baby or to perform a procedure or administer a medication to kill a baby. Why do you hate states making their own rules?
It’s awesome when dummies try to discuss the constitution.
Should the Hyde Amendment be killed?
yet there exist numerous federal laws regarding abortion today.
Please explain.
Last edited:
Killing a baby would make you a murderer. That's not what abortion is.
You can't kill a baby that doesn't exist, which is what abortion is.
Treating women like they're your jizz receptacles and letting the government have control of their bodies and their lives, is not something that should be left to the states to decide.
Being in co troll of your own body is a FUNDAMENTAL right. SCOTUS concluded that in 1973.
But thanks to Trump, were back in 1867.
Again, what would happen if the state of NJ decides to ban guns?
one of the female justices just made the exact point i’ve been making: if a president is immune from criminal prosecution, does that not preclude the possibility of impeachment, thus undermining that part of the US Constitution.
the constitution and gov. don't bestow rights my dog
Told you.
Oral arguments suggest that the Supreme Court may not totally resolve the Trump immunity case
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
The Supreme Court hearing so far is a mixed bag for both sides.
On the one hand, its seems clear that the court is unwilling to dismiss the case against Donald Trump outright, as he ostensibly is asking the justices to do, based on his sweeping theory of presidential immunity.
On the other hand, several justices appear skeptical of how the special counsel is framing the case.
It's possible they will render a ruling that could require several more months of lower court proceedings before the case against Trump can go to trial. That could put the possibility of a pre-election trial fully out of reach, raising the possibility that Trump will be reelected and make the case against him go away.
The Constitution provides separation of power for the presidency and gives a method for punishing him, that being impeachment.
.
That would point to the Supremes preferring to rely on the obstruction case they are currently deliberating in order to acquit Trump.
.
lol, wrong, but rather than have you tell me about the constitution why don’t we jus bet?
Could a president stage a coup? And 9 more key moments from Trump's Supreme Court immunity hearing
Here are 10 key moments and exchanges from Trump's immunity hearing before the Supreme Court
abcnews.go.com
What a joke of a supreme court justice - only fitting that Trump appointed him. This clown cements the case for term limits.
So hypothetically would a president or ex-president be immune from being charged if they were a participant in an 18th wk abortion?