Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wnylib

(21,146 posts)
47. Agree completely. We have to fight hard. not
Fri Dec 13, 2019, 07:54 PM
Dec 2019

necessarily fight dirty, but we must recognize what we are up against and cannot afford to pretend that it is.business
as usual any more. It is not and the sooner we recognize that and act accordingly, the better.

I lost faith in the Supremes in 2000 and they have done little to restore it since.

Recommended. H2O Man Dec 2019 #1
Thank you StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #5
More than glad to. H2O Man Dec 2019 #10
True, but times were different then. Today wnylib Dec 2019 #42
Oh, yes, definitely. H2O Man Dec 2019 #50
You have more faith in them and more optimism wnylib Dec 2019 #51
Agree 100% BigDemVoter Dec 2019 #54
Interesting. H2O Man Dec 2019 #56
Well, I do not trust everyone and I do not distrust wnylib Dec 2019 #59
It only takes 4 votes to approve cert, not a majority, VMA131Marine Dec 2019 #2
What disturbs me is the delay. They really should expedite it still_one Dec 2019 #3
Has either party yet moved to do that? jberryhill Dec 2019 #15
Didn't they already do that when they agreed to ask the Court to rule this term? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #18
I guess jberryhill Dec 2019 #23
??? still_one Dec 2019 #41
Ah... jberryhill Dec 2019 #44
and i dont know.the answer to your inqiry. Thanks still_one Dec 2019 #45
Neither do I jberryhill Dec 2019 #46
My question is why are they waiting until March to hear case and then June underthematrix Dec 2019 #4
These requests aren't part of the impeachment inquiry. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #6
Because that is the ordinary schedule jberryhill Dec 2019 #16
Because that's the way the Supreme Court calendar works. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #17
The law is already settled and all the lower courts sided against Trump. OliverQ Dec 2019 #7
Not true StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #9
The majority of Trump's losses were in front of Obama, Clinton, or Bush OliverQ Dec 2019 #74
7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Bushes, Obama or Clinton StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #79
Am I correct they combined all the cases? SayItLoud Dec 2019 #33
Yes, they did StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #39
Because there are three cases addressing basically the same issues - The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #8
it feels predictable. barbtries Dec 2019 #11
Yes, here's the graveyard... FiveGoodMen Dec 2019 #12
Not at all StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #14
I agree with you. There are three cases that raised important issues The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #20
Meh jberryhill Dec 2019 #24
But the issue is whether a president can assert absolute immunity from investigation StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #25
That issue is not necessary to resolution of the case jberryhill Dec 2019 #26
That issue is essential to resolve one of the cases. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #37
True, but as I understand it that's not the only case. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #27
Agreed and lawyer talk doesn't change reality. n/t MarcA Dec 2019 #35
"Lawyer talk"? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #36
it's The Sanity Clause ... Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #69
All yer high-falutin' big words and stuff Codeine Dec 2019 #73
KnR Hekate Dec 2019 #13
What it could mean is that a decision will be delayed until after the election. Sneederbunk Dec 2019 #19
No, they are saying it will be released this term, in June. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author True Blue American Dec 2019 #88
NOTHING tells us we should hope for the best here and expect it to be. Grasswire2 Dec 2019 #22
Separation of Powers Question to be decided by the Branch MarcA Dec 2019 #38
If Dems sweep in 2020, it's time to take up some matters. Grasswire2 Dec 2019 #58
Those things would require constitutional amendments The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #76
It couldn't be accomplished by Congress even if Democrats did have the numbers StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #80
Exactly. Constitutional amendments aren't quite impossible, but almost; The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #83
You're right, as usual. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #84
Agreed. The amendments process is not a promising choice. MarcA Dec 2019 #92
Not at all FBaggins Dec 2019 #86
Agree completely. We have to fight hard. not wnylib Dec 2019 #47
Thanks for your postings Baked Potato Dec 2019 #28
This case scares the hell out of me. CanonRay Dec 2019 #29
Would it be a bad idea or good idea for bluestarone Dec 2019 #30
Or that, they reply in April or March; SayItLoud Dec 2019 #31
Courts can't function if information is secret bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #32
There's every reason to be concerned. Imperialism Inc. Dec 2019 #34
The reason they would do it is the same reason the republicans have been doing everything jcgoldie Dec 2019 #52
They should have never taken the case ... aggiesal Dec 2019 #40
Sure the intent is to be positive angrychair Dec 2019 #43
This isn't about trying to be positive. I'm trying to help people understand what this means and doe StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #48
"Take a breath, everyone." Is that safe now? Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #49
que sera, sera... stillcool Dec 2019 #60
"Here be dragons" Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #67
But it's yet another stonewall delay for trum. Court hears case in March 2020. Ruling in June. iluvtennis Dec 2019 #53
This still leaves plenty of time StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #55
To let the lower court rulings stand. Did the SC have to take this appeal. iluvtennis Dec 2019 #57
If they had let the lower court ruling stand, he'd just come up with another excuse StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #61
Thank you again StarfishSaver dware Dec 2019 #66
Thanks... appreciate your thoughts. nt iluvtennis Dec 2019 #68
But they won't decide until June so Trump is fully protected until then. Kablooie Dec 2019 #62
Protected from what? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #63
Protected from having his taxes scrutinized. Kablooie Dec 2019 #64
I'm willing to wait StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #65
is he? Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #70
In sane times, the court wouldn't hear the case. But the US is just a giant asylum at this point. Garrett78 Dec 2019 #71
In sane times, such a case would never have come before the Court StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #72
We've been told over and over that it will all be OK Bettie Dec 2019 #75
How has it gotten worse? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #81
Barbara McQuaid made some interesting remarks about this case: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #77
I hate to say that we need to consider RBG's health mucifer Dec 2019 #78
I don't think that's a factor in this instance StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #82
Just for the record here bluestarone Dec 2019 #85
Great question! StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #89
TY for your response! bluestarone Dec 2019 #91
I have individual rights concerns. Doormouse Dec 2019 #87
Seriously? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #90
Take it easy on that straw man there ... "unrestrained?" ehrnst Dec 2019 #94
Good advice. It's hard sometimes, though. Politicub Dec 2019 #93
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Please don't get upset or...»Reply #47