Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Speaker to Animals » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:24 pm

I just think it is silly when people defend the moral reputation of an institution that once ruled black people are merely talking farm animals and therefore not really human beings, much less citizens who can petition for redress.

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Fife » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:26 pm

Speaker to Animals wrote:This guy makes a good case:


:clap:

That prof nails it.

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Fife » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:30 pm

Speaker to Animals wrote:The Supreme Court almost always gets the most important moral questions wrong as well, from the humanity of a black man to killing babies. It's pretty fucked when you step back and think about it.
Can you imagine the discussion there would have been in Philadelphia if there had been any idea at the time of the fuckery that John Marshall, Roger Taney, Harry Blackmun, et al, were about to unfold?

User avatar
Zero
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:48 am

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Zero » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:32 pm

Speaker to Animals wrote:This guy makes a good case:

Do the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause not factor into the discussion?
Hontar: We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus.

Altamirano: No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world... thus have I made it.

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15157
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Fife » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:42 pm

Right. Not.

Image

We were talking about Article III.

User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Speaker to Animals » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:46 pm

If you want to understand what fuckery is going down in the United States in a given generation, just figure out which group of human beings the Supreme Court hates most. Right now, that's babies, but I have a feeling it's going to shift towards white men in another generation.

User avatar
Zero
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:48 am

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Zero » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:50 pm

Fife wrote:Right. Not.

Image

We were talking about Article III.
No, I know. I mean in the video around the 1:25 mark, starts to discuss the Federalist view of limited government in general, but didn’t mention those two clauses which seem open the door for a looser interpretation of the Constitution with more flexibility beyond the enumerated powers.
Hontar: We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus.

Altamirano: No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world... thus have I made it.

Hwen Hoshino
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:52 am

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by Hwen Hoshino » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:27 am

GrumpyCatFace wrote:
The terms “Front-Row Kids” and “Back-Row Kids,” coined by the photographer Chris Arnade, describe the divide between the educated upper middle class, who are staying ahead in today’s economy, and the less educated working class, who are doing poorly. The differences in education—and the values associated with elite schooling—have produced a divide in America that is on a par with that of race
Yes... we need more less-educated people as judges and lawyers. They're certainly too qualified.
This will work out well.

While we're at it, we should continue to expect absolutely no knowledge from our legislators and executive branches. This is a strategy for success.

Image
We are gonna still pretend that school is the only source even now?

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 25284
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:48 am

Hwen Hoshino wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
The terms “Front-Row Kids” and “Back-Row Kids,” coined by the photographer Chris Arnade, describe the divide between the educated upper middle class, who are staying ahead in today’s economy, and the less educated working class, who are doing poorly. The differences in education—and the values associated with elite schooling—have produced a divide in America that is on a par with that of race
Yes... we need more less-educated people as judges and lawyers. They're certainly too qualified.
This will work out well.

While we're at it, we should continue to expect absolutely no knowledge from our legislators and executive branches. This is a strategy for success.

Image
We are gonna still pretend that school is the only source even now?
Of course not. But if you can’t even finish college, then you shouldn’t be a federal anything.

So far as actual knowledge, sure - it’s not necessary. But we need some kind of baseline here.
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

User avatar
clubgop
Posts: 7978
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Re: Should the Federal Judiciary Be a "Co-Equal" Branch?

Post by clubgop » Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:45 am

GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Hwen Hoshino wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Yes... we need more less-educated people as judges and lawyers. They're certainly too qualified.
This will work out well.

While we're at it, we should continue to expect absolutely no knowledge from our legislators and executive branches. This is a strategy for success.

Image
We are gonna still pretend that school is the only source even now?
Of course not. But if you can’t even finish college, then you shouldn’t be a federal anything.

So far as actual knowledge, sure - it’s not necessary. But we need some kind of baseline here.
Wow look at the goalpost moving here. At first we were defending the Ivy league elite but then 1 innocent question and now a janitor has to at least finish college.