1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest!
The donation button is here.
https://goo.gl/aFggcs

SCOTUS - US Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    There's been and there's going to be more than enough with these "lifers" to justify a thread for them.

    And it doesn't seem to be following the predictive trends of voting as some may have thought.
    Thomas is actually speaking these days.
    Roberts is a centrist?
    The notorious RBG is always not worthy.
    And so on...

    Put your own 2 -cents in
    Because the "might" listen...better have your talking points down.
    They know their stuff, agree with them or not.
    And while you may not impact them...they can definitely impact you, for a LONG time.
     
  2. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    What the Supreme Court's Double Jeopardy Decision Means for Trump

    Mr T. is not going to like this...once he understands it. :rolleyes:
    States rights.

    And the gerrymandering ruling for Virginia
    The GOP isn't liking that.

    Leave it to SCOTUS to upset someone.

    I thought they were supposed to be conservative leaning now...
    Y'mean they can think for themselves???

    Lordy :confused::eek:;)
     
  3. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    I'm not a big fan of the whole civil vs criminal cases or State vs Federal ones. I'm not a legal novice, let alone an expert, but it doesn't make sense to me how someone like OJ can be proven innocent in a criminal case, but found guilty and have to paid a big fine in a civil case. Maybe state laws are different than federal laws in some cases, so those states would have the right to prosecute someone for breaking their laws that wouldn't be illegal in a different state or nationally, but I would have a hard time seeing how someone could be innocent of a crime at one level, but guilty of the same thing in the other court.

    Technically, I think it is a problem with how the judicial system is setup and way too busy. I would rather see them hold one trial and have both judges and juries rule together. And the laws need to be rewritten and unified more.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1