|
|
The GOP got away with packing the court and the country will suffer under their yoke for decades to come.
The GOP didn't "pack the court". They filled openings that occurred during GOP administrations. Your logic regarding Garland is flawed because if you go back through 200 years of history, you will find that openings in the last year of a president's term have rarely been filled when the Senate is of the opposite party. They were following precedent that has occurred in the Senate for 200 years.
Here is food for thought: Instead of rewriting history, why not learn actual history?
Are you denying that throughout history in the last year of a president's term when the Senate is of a different party, that the vast majority of SC openings have not been filled?
|
|
|
The GOP got away with packing the court and the country will suffer under their yoke for decades to come.
The GOP didn't "pack the court". They filled openings that occurred during GOP administrations. Your logic regarding Garland is flawed because if you go back through 200 years of history, you will find that openings in the last year of a president's term have rarely been filled when the Senate is of the opposite party. They were following precedent that has occurred in the Senate for 200 years.
Here is food for thought: Instead of rewriting history, why not learn actual history?
Are you denying that throughout history in the last year of a president's term when the Senate is of a different party, that the vast majority of SC openings have not been filled?
Go ahead and start listing them, but that was not the pretext given by Sen. McConnell for denying Merrick Garland an up-and-down vote on his nomination to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Of course, the GOP packed the Court...by any means possible. It was a huge mistake to let them.
|
|
|
Of course, the GOP packed the Court...by any means possible. It was a huge mistake to let them.
Another example of the mistake of having 6 radical anti-worker SC justices: U.S. Supreme Court considers narrowing federal protections for unions
|
|
|
Of course, the GOP packed the Court...by any means possible. It was a huge mistake to let them.
Another example of the mistake of having 6 radical anti-worker SC justices:
U.S. Supreme Court considers narrowing federal protections for unions
And the flagrant cons on the Court are now openly encouraging lawyers for the gun industry to keep up the anti-gun control efforts in the lower courts. Could they be more activist?
|
|
|
Of course, the GOP packed the Court...by any means possible. It was a huge mistake to let them.
Another example of the mistake of having 6 radical anti-worker SC justices:
U.S. Supreme Court considers narrowing federal protections for unions
The law requires a 10 day notice to strike (at least here in NY, I'm not certain if it's federal law). I would think that if the union provided such notice, the onus would fall upon the employer to protect their assets. However, if they did not provide proper notice, I could certainly see the unions being liable for the damage.
|
|
|
Of course, the GOP packed the Court...by any means possible. It was a huge mistake to let them.
Another example of the mistake of having 6 radical anti-worker SC justices:
U.S. Supreme Court considers narrowing federal protections for unions
The law requires a 10 day notice to strike (at least here in NY, I'm not certain if it's federal law). I would think that if the union provided such notice, the onus would fall upon the employer to protect their assets. However, if they did not provide proper notice, I could certainly see the unions being liable for the damage.
Consistent with their agenda of MAKING THE CASTE SYSTEM GREAT AGAIN, the corrupt 6 activist right-wing judges of low moral character continue their anti-constitutional agenda of being anti-workers and anti-consumer.
|
|
|
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) is calling for the House to investigate the FBI’s refusal to investigate the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, as a new documentary reveals smoking gun evidence of Kavanaugh sexual assault.
|
|
|
White House Takes Executive Action To Help Protect Medication Abortion
On what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the White House is increasing protections in the face of growing abortion bans.
|
|
|
At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse's Business TiesAfter Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Supreme Court, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, gave up her career as a law firm partner to become a high-end legal recruiter in an effort to alleviate potential conflicts of interest. Mrs. Roberts later recalled in an interview that her husband’s job made it “awkward to be practicing law in the firm.”
Now, a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.
In his letter last month, Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses’ work. He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so.
“I do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges’ households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms,” Mr. Price wrote.
Read more: www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/john-rober...
|
