#scotus Tumblr posts

  • queeermiku
    07.05.2021 - 1 day ago

    only sexy bitches watch american bar association scotus webinars and research court cases on cornelles legal information institute on your average friday night for fun

    #we started learning abt the scotus in my civics class today and i am obsessed i dont know why #it makes my brain think so hard and go brrrrrrrrrr #like i love it #why didnt anyone tell me abt how fun these bitches arguing over the constitution is
    View Full
  • seagull-astrology
    07.05.2021 - 2 days ago

    James F. Byrne, presidential king maker

    James F. Byrne, presidential king maker

      The many facets of Justice Byrnes James F. Byrnes was a lawyer without any formal education, something you would never see today,  as it ended when he was fourteen when he left to clerk for Judge Robert Aldrich of Aiken,  Nonetheless he had an influential role in the political careers of presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon and became a Supreme Court…

    View On WordPress

    #Bucket with a Moon Handle #James F. Byrne #John C. Calhoun #May birthdays #North Node in Scorpio #Preponderance in First House #Scotus #Stellium in Gemini #Taurus Rising#Unrectified
    View Full
  • philosophy-uml
    06.05.2021 - 3 days ago

    [4.15.6] John Duns Scotus on Universals, Indiciduation and Haecceity

    [4.15.6] John Duns Scotus on Universals, Indiciduation and Haecceity

    John Duns Scotus (the “Subtle Doctor,” 1265/66–1308 AD), in his works “Quaestiones in librum Porphyrii Isagoge,” “Quaestiones Quodlibetales,” “Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis” and “Ordinatio” discusses the problem of universals and individuation: Universals are in the mind, and they are real because their content – the common nature is real.Common nature is a subkind of…

    View On WordPress

    #John Duns Scotus (1265/66–1308 AD)
    View Full
  • View Full
  • andjusticeforall1979
    03.05.2021 - 5 days ago

    I’m sorry I CANNOT believe Thomas dissented by citing that he believed Feres was wrongly decided. Hello??? Is today opposite day?? Did the sun rise on the West?? What the fuck???

    #i swear he's just doing whatever the hell he wants at this point #those poor clerks #imagine going to yale and joining the federalists #getting a clerkship at SCOTUS with Thomas #and then he says oh right everything you thought you knew is not what I'm going to do I'm going to do whatever the fuck i want #anyways insanity
    View Full
  • somethingusefulfromflorida
    03.05.2021 - 6 days ago

    If the Democrats had one spine between them, this is what they should do

    Nuke the filibuster, then immediately propose an amendment to bring it back for legislation and judicial appointments

    For executive appointments, I don’t really care; the president can fire a secretary at any time for any reason, so it doesn’t matter how many senators voted to confirm them. We need a government, so it doesn’t make sense for congress to be able to block department heads when the president can just name acting secretaries until the actual secretaries get confirmed.

    Next, push through legislation to expand the Supreme Court, but do not immediately fill the seats; let the Republicans know that if they don’t agree to play fair, then all bets are off. They want to keep the filibuster just as much as we do because everybody likes to threaten to get rid of it; if we actually get rid of it, then nobody gets to use the threat anymore, and we have carte blanche until it is restored through bipartisan amendment.

    The SCOTUS seats become the next threat; either pass the amendment and send it to the states, or we start packing the court with all these wonderfully qualified, young, liberal PEOPLE OF COLOR. Republicans would never negotiate like this, they would just do it, just pull the trigger and get what they want. They’d get shit for it from the other side, but their constituents would love it and their approval ratings would skyrocket. Democrats need to be more diplomatic, and by showing restraint they can have plausible deniability (though the media would tear them a new asshole either way, so damned if you do, damned if you don’t). They’re not cheating, they actively want to limit their own power and restore bipartisan cooperation; that’s the biggest olive branch we could offer the Republicans, and if they don’t like it then they can go fuck themselves.

    If Democrats got rid of the filibuster, there’s nothing the Republicans could legally do to stop them. Their best bet would be litigation with the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS, but then the Dems could just pack the court to get favorable rulings; does this sound familiar?

    “I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU!”

    So, the Republicans can either pass the amendment and enshrine the filibuster into the constitution, OR they can let the Democrats run wild and hope for civil unrest and eventual war, because that’s the only thing that could conceivably stop a party with unlimited power.

    Now, of course, this could immediately backfire on the Democrats. They could do it, and the Republicans could just pretend they don’t care and bide their time until the next election. They take back power and they’ll have the Democrats to thank for handing them a post-filibuster senate; the point of changing the rules is to stop the other side from gaining power ever again (2020 - 2022, Republicans are passing anti-voting laws because they hope that will make them win in 2024; Democrats need to balance this by doing the same thing in their own favor). But this back-and-forth is why the Supreme Court is so important. Liberal justices could regulate conservative laws, but once the Democrats show their hand and signal that they’re willing to change the rules, Republicans will use that to their advantage; we expand the Supreme Court now, they’ll expand the Supreme Court twofold (or perhaps something worse) the next chance they get. The idea is not to give them that next chance. It’s what they do to us, but our party is just too stupid or too unwilling to do it back to them.

    Republicans change the rules to win, while Democrats never change the rules because they see the rules as sacred. Politics is a game; most people think it’s something intelligent like chess, when really it’s mindless like Mouse Trap. Sure, Mouse Trap has rules, you can sit down and play it as it was intended, but if the object of the game is to Trap a Mouse, then you’re more likely to do it by setting up the trap and playing with it by itself like a toy. Democrats play by the rules, rolling their dice and moving their mice, collecting cheese wedges, setting up the trap one piece at a time, whereas Republicans immediately set it up and let it go, winning on turn one. That’s against the rules, but there’s no higher authority holding them to the rules anyway! The Supreme Court used to be like parents, enforcing the rules and telling the siblings to play nice together, but now the parents have been replaced by the cheater’s best friends who let them get away with anything they want. It’s a total conflict of interest, but they don’t care because they get to win!

    Nuke the filibuster, amend the constitution to bring it back, threaten to go full liberal if they don’t, then actually follow through on their threats when they don’t. That’s the only language they know, these are the only compromises they’ll listen to; force their hand, or they’ll shit all over you. They’re willing to change laws and steal elections to stay in power, then turn around and project their own crimes onto the other side, “we’re not cheating, YOU’RE cheating!” And this is all done while the filibuster is still in place; Democrats need to acknowledge that they can’t win by following the rules if the other party is cheating. The other party has said the rules don’t matter anymore, so it’s not cheating for the Democrats to stoop to their level, fair’s fair, it’s just business.

    View Full
  • somethingusefulfromflorida
    01.05.2021 - 1 week ago

    Supreme Court since 1953

    Things look bad now, because they are, but they could always be worse. There's a 6-3 majority because Republicans stole one seat from Obama, bribed/blackmailed their way to a second, and ignored their own rule about appointments in election years to fill a third against the dying wishes of its occupant. The only ray of hope I see is that when Clarence "Race Traitor" Thomas was put on the court in 1991, conservatives had 7-2, and we survived that. It wasn't easy, and was eased by the appointment of two super liberal justices just a few years later (Ginsburg and Breyer), as well as the unexpected switch of David Souter from conservative to liberal.

    I don't expect Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett to be a secret liberal, so our only hope is that Clarence Thomas dies or resigns, though this is unlikely because he is the most conservative justice to ever serve on the court (not hyperbole; Rehnquist was more conservative at the start of his tenure, but became more neutral as time went on, while Thomas has if anything gotten MORE conservative), so he wouldn't just let his seat be filled by Joe Biden. He still has a good decade, decade and a half left in him before he'll die, so finger's crossed Biden can "persuade" him to step aside the way Trump persuaded Kennedy. Roberts is here for the long haul, as are Alito, Kagan, and Sotomayor, leaving just Breyer as a potential resignee for Biden to replace. It's quite possible he'll retire this year, at the end of the court session in June, or maybe next year ahead of the election. After what happened to Ginsburg, he's not gonna leave it to chance and hope he makes it to the next Democratic administration. Biden needs to fill his seat, or else Republicans will, shifting the court from 6-3 to 7-2 with no reprieve in sight.

    The Warren Court was the most liberal in our nation's history, William O. Douglas (the anti-Thomas, the most liberal justice in history), Hugo Black (though he became more neutral later on), and Thurgood Marshall near the end (the first black justice, civil rights activist; he was replaced by Thomas as a sick joke by George Bush Sr., trading a liberal black man for a super conservative black man).

    If Biden is fortunate enough to get multiple appointments, he needs to look for young justices with morals akin to Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens. Of course, I expect Joe Manchin to be a bastard about it and threaten to block any super liberal appointments; he doesn't want to balance the court, he thinks all justices are equally impartial, that swearing an oath magically makes them nonpartisan, so he'll probably say that he'll only support neutral justices who have support from both parties. He voted for Gorsuch, he was the only Democrat to vote for Kavanaugh, and he only voted against Barrett because he didn't want to be seen as a hypocrite like the Republicans for filling a seat so close to the election; he doesn't disagree ideologically with Barrett, it was just the principle of the thing. He will be our ruination if Breyer retires.

    #scotus#supreme court#fuck republicans#fuck conservatives #fuck mitch mcconnell #fuck donald trump #fuck brett kavanaugh #fuck amy coney barrett #associate justice#chief justice #supreme court of the united states #the supreme court #1950s#1960s#1970s#1980s#1990s#2000s#2010s#2020s#earl warren#warren burger#william rehnquist#john roberts #fuck joe manchin
    View Full
  • View Full
  • tearsofrefugees
    30.04.2021 - 1 week ago

    U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to immigrants facing deportation

    View Full
  • politishaun
    29.04.2021 - 1 week ago
    View Full
  • intelligentchristianlady
    29.04.2021 - 1 week ago

    This is an old article (2018) that I've posted before, but now that more and more states are passing sweeping abortion restrictions, it seems appropriate to post it again.

    #abortion#SCOTUS #Roe v. Wade #reproductive rights#anti-choice#abortion restrictions #Republicans back up in your lady bits #misogyny
    View Full
  • philosophy-uml
    29.04.2021 - 1 week ago

    [4.15.5] John Duns Scotus on the Human Structure

    [4.15.5] John Duns Scotus on the Human Structure

    John Duns Scotus (the “Subtle Doctor,” 1265/66–1308 AD), in his works “Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis,” “Quaestiones Quodlibetales,” and “Ordinatio” discusses writes about the structure of being, categories, substance, essence, form, and matter: Substance and essence are really identical but formally distinct (see [4.15.2]).Essence is a combination of prime matter and…

    View On WordPress

    #John Duns Scotus (1265/66–1308 AD)
    View Full
  • azspot
    29.04.2021 - 1 week ago
    View Full
  • grayvier
    28.04.2021 - 1 week ago

    Hmmm I don't think I need to go to this one

    #SCOTUS case review I can do that on my own I think #or maybe I'll leave early?
    View Full
  • azspot
    28.04.2021 - 1 week ago
    View Full
  • cleanfish
    27.04.2021 - 1 week ago
    #conflict of interest #scotus
    View Full
  • wutbju
    27.04.2021 - 1 week ago
    #Bob Jones University #SCOTUS #BJU v. Simon #1974
    View Full