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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TexasDem69

(1,910 posts)

35. Close enough for government work

Reply to dpibel (Reply #31)

Wed May 1, 2024, 09:49 PM

May 1

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court is not interpreting existing law [View all] EndlessWire May 1 OP

The SC has installed itself as a white christian monarchy. Irish_Dem May 1 #1

I haven't seen a single serious politician advocate TexasDem69 May 1 #2

Sorry i really feel that you are definitely in the bluestarone May 1 #4

Unfortunately its not in his powers to do so. drray23 May 1 #5

We,ll I'm only saying if possible. bluestarone May 1 #6

Republicans already set a precedent though Diraven May 1 #16

which has nothing to do with expanding the court.nt. drray23 May 1 #22

You don't need to apologize for being wrong TexasDem69 May 1 #8

You're joking, right? dpibel May 1 #11

Of course Dobbs didn't "make law" TexasDem69 May 1 #12

You really don't understand common law? dpibel May 1 #13

What common law has the Supreme Court created? TexasDem69 May 1 #15

How to say, "I don't know what 'common law' means"... dpibel May 1 #20

The Supreme Court does not make law TexasDem69 May 1 #27

Wait, WHAT?? dpibel May 1 #44

About that Roe dpibel May 1 #21

No, what they said in Dobbs is that Roe was wrong TexasDem69 May 1 #23

You're just being silly dpibel May 1 #26

I haven't read Roe in 30 years TexasDem69 May 1 #28

Ah. So you agree Roe was wrongly decided! dpibel May 1 #29

I don't think I said anywhere that Roe was wrongly decided TexasDem69 May 1 #33

Nice try, but this one argues against women's rights AllyCat May 1 #18

Was someone arguing against women's rights somewhere? TexasDem69 May 1 #24

"But penumbras and emanations sound familiar." dpibel May 1 #30

You have an odd way of interpreting things TexasDem69 May 1 #34

Ad Hominem!! dpibel May 1 #37

Was it a terrible idea when the court changed over the years? AllyCat May 1 #14

The court has had nine members since 1869 TexasDem69 May 1 #17

Not quite historical, actually. dpibel May 1 #31

Close enough for government work TexasDem69 May 1 #35

LOL! dpibel May 1 #38

Maybe you should read history. former9thward May 1 #41

Fascinating dpibel May 1 #43

We should DEFINITELY stick to tradition then. AllyCat May 1 #32

We should NOT tamper with the makeup of the Supreme Court TexasDem69 May 1 #36

Objection. Nonresponsive. dpibel May 1 #39

Exactly why my rights as a human being will be taken away AllyCat May 1 #40

Existing law just doesn't have the same payoff BoRaGard May 1 #3

I agree. Especially on B.See May 1 #7

They have taken multiple sharpies to the Constitution. usonian May 1 #9

I like Elie Mystal's idea. erodriguez May 1 #10

This i like bluestarone May 1 #19

The SCOTUS ruling in the 14th Amendment disqualification issue was also largely dicta LetMyPeopleVote May 1 #25

Yup.. NowsTheTime May 1 #42

If TSF returns to the WH, expect to see "Brown v Board of Education" overturned. no_hypocrisy May 2 #45