Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
dictatordave (dictatordave@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:01 JST dictatordave
@WilhelmIII @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @UnCL3 @graf god speed and in the event of a crash, hopefully high speed

In conversation about 7 months ago from poa.st permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:50 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  There is no judicial review in the US Constitution.
  
  That power was assumed in MvM.
  
  That's not what I way, that's what is taught in every law school.
  
  https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation13.html
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: constitution.findlaw.com
    
    What Is the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine?
    
    The constitutional avoidance doctrine requires federal courts to resolve cases on statutory or other grounds before they consider constitutional issues.
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:51 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  > Article 3 section 1 gives the SCOTUS the judicial authority to be the final say in all matters of legal interpretation and constitutional compliance challenges.
  
  No it doesn't.
  
  You're quoting from Marbury v. Madison, where the Supremes just gave themselves that power.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:51 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf No, I'm quoting Article 3 Section 1 and Section 2 where it says,
  
  >The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
  
  And
  
  >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
  
  And, while lawyers like to reinterpret Marbury v. Madison to suggest that the courts have the "final say", what MvM says is that the People have the final say in that they can challenge any law as being null and void and bring that challenge before the court to argue their case. Once determined by the courts to be unconstitutional, then that law (or at least that section of law) becomes null and void under MvM.
  
  The challenge must be brought by the people, but once that challenge is brought, the court makes the decisions regarding legal interpretation and constitutional compliance.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:52 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  There is nothing in Article III that has anything about having the power to decide how the court is composed.
  
  All of the power to create courts and put members on them is in Article I and II.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:52 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf Article 3 section 1 gives the SCOTUS the judicial authority to be the final say in all matters of legal interpretation and constitutional compliance challenges.
  
  Which is to say that if a challenge to a court packing was brought before them, they could intervene using Stari Decisis.
  
  When you look, up until the Civil War, the number was simply based on the number of circuit courts there were in the US. It seems to get more political as time went on after that, but "court packing" was seen as a bad thing and a power grab, and the label was used to defeat Presidential efforts to change the balance of power in the courts.
  
  But yes, it looks like if a President wants additional judges and Congress can bring a vote, bypass filibuster in the Senate, and pass legislation to do so, then it could be done. And, once done, the court could intervene if a challenge was brought against the law. I don't see the number of judges changing any time in our lives.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:53 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  Article. III.
  Section. 1.
  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
  
  Article. II.
  Section 2.
  He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:53 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf Section 1 gives congress the authority to create inferior courts
  
  Section 2 gives the Senate the authority to advise and consent for appointees to the Supreme Court.
  
  If you'd suggest that an interpretation of Section 2 by having the authority to advise and consent to appoint judges to the Supreme Court as the method to create new vacancies, I'd suggest that this is where the Supreme Court could disagree, and it is the Supreme Court under Article 3 Section 1 that has "The judicial Power of the United States, ..."
  
  It doesn't say that Senate has the power to authorize new appointments, only to advise and consent to appoint those appointees to the SCOTUS. Ultimately, SCOTUS would have the final say, as they always do in matters of law and constitutional interpretation.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:54 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  Congress decides how many Supreme Court justices there are. SCOTUS has no say in it.
  
  If the Senate decides to add four more women of color and they have the votes then it's done.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:54 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf Can you show me where that is written in the Constitution? I don't recall that being a thing.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:55 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  Team A doesn't care.
  
  They will pack the Supreme court and ban all guns.
  
  They WANT the societal breakdown that will follow.
  
  They see that as inevitable and afterward they can build their perfect communist paradise.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:55 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @WilhelmIII @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf They can't pack the court. That was fearmingering at best. The SCOTUS itself will not allow the 6-3 majority to be removed by faggots in Congress or at the Executive level.
  
  And, if revolt is what they want, the courts could have stood by OSHA and set the jab mandate. It would have kicked off a revolution that day.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  dictatordave (dictatordave@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:56 JST dictatordave
  in reply to
  @FreeinTX @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @graf while its comforting that some lawyers and judges side with 'us'
  
  either way its the duty of the citizenry to remain armed and ready for the defense of the nation no matter who the enemy is
  
  just because a bunch of shit fuck lawyers have borked the system for half a century doesn't mean they're going to legislate themselves into safety from consequences
  
  and that's what its really about, dickheads like joe biden for example have been nothing but parasites for half a century and they're worried that the public is going to fucking hang them for what they've done now that the public can find out what they've done very easily
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:56 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @dictatordave @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @graf I think the SCOTUS is beginning to recognize that their role is to prevent the masses from revolt.
  
  Had they so chose, they could have backed the jab mandate, for example, but 20% of this country would have gone straight into a resistance role. If 10% of that 20% had become violent, that would have been 6 million violent people.
  
  It's the same with our guns. SCOTUS might allow some regulations, but they are well aware that the people have had it with faggots like Joe Biden. Notice that he got exactly nowhere with his promise to ban assault rifles and has lost several ATF lawsuits.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Bob (bobbala@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:57 JST Bob
  in reply to
  We lost this battle at "... shall not be infringed."
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:57 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf For now, I do not feel the battle has been lost. 26 states are now constitutional carry and the last 3 SCOTUS decisions were to reverse gun laws that were prohibitive, and using good language in the precedent. The Heller decision had some troubling statements (The right to own a gun is a privilege.) but it looks like things are tending towards more secure gun rights.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  FreeinTX (freeintx@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:58 JST FreeinTX
  in reply to
  @Spingebill @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf How did they define it?
  
  When the assault weapons ban was passed in the US, the definition used was about attachments and barrel length. CA's definition just made the AR look retarded.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Bob (bobbala@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:59 JST Bob
  in reply to
  The 1st ammendment protects antisemitism. Approved words don't need protection. Truth does.
  The 2nd ammendment wasn't a restriction on the arms you keep & bear.
  
  See how this works.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Spingebill (spingebill@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:07:59 JST Spingebill
  in reply to
  @bobbala @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Rose @WilhelmIII @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @Liquid_Boss @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf People thought the Canadian government wouldn't be able to define Assault Rifle, until they did
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Bob (bobbala@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:00 JST Bob
  in reply to
  We have perfectly good laws & government. The problem, as always, is we have an alien population.
  
  Liberia has arrived. They still have no use for our ways.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  BattleDwarfGimli (battledwarfgimli@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:00 JST BattleDwarfGimli
  in reply to
  "We have perfectly good laws & government."
  
  Bob. I've talked to you about smoking meth in the bathroom at work. We need you to stop doing that.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:01 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  It used to be that cops would tell you that they had never cut a corpse out of a seatbelt.
  
  Now I see reports regularly of very modern cars with all kinds of fancy safety equipment where people die in them.
  
  I think that the government safety standards aren't all that safe.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  BattleDwarfGimli (battledwarfgimli@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:01 JST BattleDwarfGimli
  in reply to
  government anything is suspect by its very nature.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds