Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution
but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment,
2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of
the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you
think?
Someone, not just a caller, on the radio thought it would take a con. >amendment to limit the terms of USSC members. Others have said it only
take a statute, because one wouldn't be ending their careers as judges,
just transferring them to a lower court.
Did the first guy just not think of what the second choice relied on?
What do you think?
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a >constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution
but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment,
2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of
the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you
think?
I understand why Biden, who is probably disappointed that after 240
years any changes are needed at all, might want to start "small" with
the USSC topics he brought up today, term limits, binding ethics rules,
and no immunity, and maybe he would save increasing the size of the
court to 13 for later, after the court showed lack of cooperation and
did more harm, including striking down new statutes that denied
immunity, that restored to the agencies the power to make decisions,
etc. But it seems to me that, given that nothing will get done until
2025 at the earliest, early 2025 is the latest we should be undoing the >mistakes of this court, and that would require adding 4 new members
asap. What do you think?
If there were 4 more members, would it be hard to rehear the worst
decisions? For example, the immunity decision was about one case. The >respective judges could let the other cases go forward, be contradicted
by appeals courts that would enforce the USSC ruling, and then the >prosecutors could appeal to the USSC which coudl overrule a a decision
from only a year earlier. Right? What do you think?
If there is a no immunity constituational amendment, won't trump argue
that it's an ex post facto law and doesn't apply to his misdeeds? That's
why we need 4 new members for the court.
I always believe someone when they are talking, and often even longer,
and when Roberts said a few years ago that times had changed so the DOJ >didn't need to pre-approve changes to voting rules in states with a
history of denying the right to vote to Black people (and whomever
else), I believed it when he said it and nothing happeend to reverse
that, even though I knew then he'd have to be either awfullly naive or
very idealistic to think what he said the thought. Or both together.
But I no longer believe naivete or idealism was what motivated him, at
least not the ideal that racism had died away or racist people were now >unwilling to act in a racist manner. The "ideal" that motivated him
must have been, Let's keep the federal government out of state
elections, out of state affairs --- even if that means Blacks get
screwed out of exercising their rights.
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution
but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment,
2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of
the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you
think?
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:49:42 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a
constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the
consitution but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should
be limited to those that are specified, named, like those in the First
Amendment, 2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on
the basis of the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional
right, and there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase.
What do you think?
Read the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
When previous Courts found constitutional rights that are not explicit
in the Constitution, this was the foundation.
Have you ever read the Constitution and the amendments? From a lot of
the questions you ask, I'm guessing the answer is no. It's not hard to
read, and the original Constitution is a masterpiece of literary style.
Even with the amendments, it's shorter than most state constitutions.
An American who supposedly cares about the law but hasn't read the constitution is somewhat in the position of a Christian who hasn't read
the Bible.
On 7/29/2024 6:49 PM, micky wrote:
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a
constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution
but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment,
2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of
the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you
think?
You're forgetting the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be >construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:49:42 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a
constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution
but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment,
2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of
the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you
think?
Read the Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be >construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
When previous Courts found constitutional rights that are not
explicit in the Constitution, this was the foundation.
Have you ever read the Constitution and the amendments? From a lot of
the questions you ask, I'm guessing the answer is no.
It's not hard
to read, and the original Constitution is a masterpiece of literary
style. Even with the amendments, it's shorter than most state
constitutions.
An American who supposedly cares about the law but hasn't read the >constitution is somewhat in the position of a Christian who hasn't
read the Bible.
"micky" wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>
Someone, not just a caller, on the radio thought it would take a con. >>amendment to limit the terms of USSC members. Others have said it only >>take a statute, because one wouldn't be ending their careers as judges, >>just transferring them to a lower court.
Did the first guy just not think of what the second choice relied on?
What do you think?
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a >>constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution >>but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment,
2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of
the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you >>think?
I understand why Biden, who is probably disappointed that after 240
years any changes are needed at all, might want to start "small" with
the USSC topics he brought up today, term limits, binding ethics rules,
and no immunity, and maybe he would save increasing the size of the
court to 13 for later, after the court showed lack of cooperation and
did more harm, including striking down new statutes that denied
immunity, that restored to the agencies the power to make decisions,
etc. But it seems to me that, given that nothing will get done until
2025 at the earliest, early 2025 is the latest we should be undoing the >>mistakes of this court, and that would require adding 4 new members
asap. What do you think?
If there were 4 more members, would it be hard to rehear the worst >>decisions? For example, the immunity decision was about one case. The >>respective judges could let the other cases go forward, be contradicted
by appeals courts that would enforce the USSC ruling, and then the >>prosecutors could appeal to the USSC which coudl overrule a a decision
from only a year earlier. Right? What do you think?
If there is a no immunity constituational amendment, won't trump argue
that it's an ex post facto law and doesn't apply to his misdeeds? That's >>why we need 4 new members for the court.
I always believe someone when they are talking, and often even longer,
and when Roberts said a few years ago that times had changed so the DOJ >>didn't need to pre-approve changes to voting rules in states with a
history of denying the right to vote to Black people (and whomever
else), I believed it when he said it and nothing happeend to reverse
that, even though I knew then he'd have to be either awfullly naive or
very idealistic to think what he said the thought. Or both together.
But I no longer believe naivete or idealism was what motivated him, at >>least not the ideal that racism had died away or racist people were now >>unwilling to act in a racist manner. The "ideal" that motivated him
must have been, Let's keep the federal government out of state
elections, out of state affairs --- even if that means Blacks get
screwed out of exercising their rights.
Regarding your first point, I think the view that the judges wouldn't lose >their jobs per se but merely get transferred to a lower court doesn't make >much sense since it assumes there are lower court openings available for the >displaced judges.
More importantly, the Constitution states that judges
will hold their "Offices" during good behavior, which implies they hold the >job ("Office") they were appointed to, not just any available position in
the court system.
Regarding the second point, if you're saying the only rights we can take
from the Constitution are those that are spelled out explicitly, then I
agree with that. I don't think they have to be specifically labeled as >"rights" necessarily, but they should be spelled out fairly explicitly. For >example, the 14th Amendments spells out pretty clearly the right of anyone >born in the USA to be a citizen of both the nation and the state where they >are born, but the word "right" is not used.
I think that some justices have made the case more than once that some
rights are more implied by the Constitution than spelled out directly - such >as the presumed right to privacy. Others would say that unless a right is >spelled out explicitly, it shouldn't be inferred. This is sort of the >essence of the abortion controversy. Roe v Wade asserts that the right to
an abortion is implied by the Constitution. The decision last year says it >is not. It all depends on how you view the document. I personally think, >like any legal document, the document has to stand on the specific words >contained within.
Regarding the third point, packing the court with four additional members >would require passage by both houses of Congress, which includes needing 60 >votes in the Senate to override a veto. That will not happen before 2025,
if anytime soon after that, so I don't think you are correct that this might >be the easiest first step in Court reform.
--
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
"micky" wrote
Someone, not just a caller, on the radio thought it would take a con. >>>amendment to limit the terms of USSC members. Others have said it
only take a statute, because one wouldn't be ending their careers as >>>judges, just transferring them to a lower court.
Did the first guy just not think of what the second choice relied on?
What do you think?
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a >>>constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the
consitution but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right"
should be limited to those that are specified, named, like those in
the First Amendment, 2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case >>>decided on the basis of the Constitution would be establishilng a >>>constitutional right, and there are so many that that would
trivialize the phrase. What do you think?
I understand why Biden, who is probably disappointed that after 240
years any changes are needed at all, might want to start "small" with
the USSC topics he brought up today, term limits, binding ethics
rules, and no immunity, and maybe he would save increasing the size
of the court to 13 for later, after the court showed lack of
cooperation and did more harm, including striking down new statutes
that denied immunity, that restored to the agencies the power to make >>>decisions, etc. But it seems to me that, given that nothing will
get done until 2025 at the earliest, early 2025 is the latest we
should be undoing the mistakes of this court, and that would require >>>adding 4 new members asap. What do you think?
If there were 4 more members, would it be hard to rehear the worst >>>decisions? For example, the immunity decision was about one case.
The respective judges could let the other cases go forward, be >>>contradicted by appeals courts that would enforce the USSC ruling,
and then the prosecutors could appeal to the USSC which coudl
overrule a a decision from only a year earlier. Right? What do you >>>think?
If there is a no immunity constituational amendment, won't trump
argue that it's an ex post facto law and doesn't apply to his
misdeeds? That's why we need 4 new members for the court.
I always believe someone when they are talking, and often even
longer, and when Roberts said a few years ago that times had changed
so the DOJ didn't need to pre-approve changes to voting rules in
states with a history of denying the right to vote to Black people
(and whomever else), I believed it when he said it and nothing
happeend to reverse that, even though I knew then he'd have to be
either awfullly naive or very idealistic to think what he said the >>>thought. Or both together. But I no longer believe naivete or
idealism was what motivated him, at least not the ideal that racism
had died away or racist people were now unwilling to act in a racist >>>manner. The "ideal" that motivated him must have been, Let's keep
the federal government out of state elections, out of state affairs
--- even if that means Blacks get screwed out of exercising their
rights.
Regarding your first point, I think the view that the judges wouldn't
lose their jobs per se but merely get transferred to a lower court
doesn't make much sense since it assumes there are lower court
openings available for the displaced judges.
The same law that takes them off the SC bench could create slots for
them at the appellate level. I'm sure the current appellate judges
wouldn't mind if they had less work to do.
But you do remind me that all 9 live in the DC area and would likely
not want to move. This seemed serious when I was't at the computer,
but now (FWIW and not yet considering what you write next) it occurs
to me that except when first implemented, there would only be one
judge in this position at any one time. In fact, modifying my
immediately precedign paragraph, other appointments to the appelate
court could be lessened by one when they knew a USSC judge was soon
going to be transferred.
More importantly, the Constitution states that judges
will hold their "Offices" during good behavior, which implies they
hold the job ("Office") they were appointed to, not just any available >>position in the court system.
That sounds, like you say, more important, so I'll switch to John
Levine's idea in the next thread, Supreme Court Term Limits. '-)
Regarding the second point, if you're saying the only rights we can
take from the Constitution are those that are spelled out explicitly,
then I agree with that. I don't think they have to be specifically
labeled as "rights" necessarily, but they should be spelled out fairly >>explicitly. For example, the 14th Amendments spells out pretty
clearly the right of anyone born in the USA to be a citizen of both
the nation and the state where they are born, but the word "right" is
not used.
I think that some justices have made the case more than once that some >>rights are more implied by the Constitution than spelled out directly
- such as the presumed right to privacy. Others would say that
unless a right is spelled out explicitly, it shouldn't be inferred.
This is sort of the essence of the abortion controversy. Roe v Wade >>asserts that the right to an abortion is implied by the Constitution.
The decision last year says it is not. It all depends on how you view
the document. I personally think, like any legal document, the
document has to stand on the specific words contained within.
In my answer to Barry, I didn't go that far. I'd prefer that the
default position was that anyone had the right to do anything, and the
state had to show some good reason why people shouldn't. But failing
that, I don't see any good alternative to recognizing implied rights.
My complaint is about terminology, Constitution Right versus Based on
the Constitution. But I also think mixing the two together has led to muddled thinking on the part of people I disagree with. (Maybe the
people I agree with too, but I don't want to give them a hard time.)
In cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, in another post in this thread
(in reply to Barry?) I asked why the burden is not on the government
and I see now in print what maybe I knew and forgot, that there is a
doctrine soemthign like what I want, Rational Basis Review, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review which does require
a legitimate state interest for a law to be iiuc consitutional.
However, "Rational basis review tests whether the government's actions
are "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[6][7]
The Supreme Court has never set forth standards for determining what constitutes a legitimate government interest.[8] Under rational basis
review, it is "entirely irrelevant" what end the government is
actually seeking and statutes can be based on "rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data".[9] Rather, if the court
can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the
challenged action, it will withstand rational basis review.[10] Judges following the Supreme Court's instructions understand themselves to be "obligated to seek out other conceivable reasons for validating"
challenged laws if the government is unable to justify its own
policies.[11]"
If legitimate state interest were given the importance I think it
deserves, we would not have needed a "right of privacy" which iiuc
only applies to (married?) couple's bedroom, and not the rest of their
home.
Regarding the third point, packing the court with four additional
members would require passage by both houses of Congress, which
includes needing 60 votes in the Senate to override a veto. That will
not happen before 2025, if anytime soon after that, so I don't think
you are correct that this might be the easiest first step in Court
reform.
I know it's unlikely, but the alternative regarding immmunity** seems
to be a Constitutional amendment and that is even more unlikely.
**The Senate voted to end the filibuster for iirc judicial
appointments. I'll bet they could end the filibuster for more specific
things too, like 4 new SC members, like restoring the power of
agencies (I can never remember the name of that), enforceable ethics
code, and probably others. There have been so many bad decisions
lately I can't remember them all.
It's quite interesting that the only USSC justices with good judgment
seem now to be a Puerto Rican woman, a Jewish woman, and a Black
woman. All women, all "minority members".
--
Barry Gold <[email protected]> wrote:
micky wrote:
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a
constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the
consitution but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right"
should be limited to those that are specified, named, like those in
the First Amendment, 2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case
decided on the basis of the Constitution would be establishilng a
constitutional right, and there are so many that that would
trivialize the phrase. What do you think?
You're forgetting the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be >>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Actually for me that wording makes my case. The enumerated rights
seem to me to be the Constituational rights, and the others retained
by the people are inherent rights or basic rights or natural rights or state-guaranteed rights, but not Constitutional rights.
Rights based on the US Constitution but not enumerated in it, like
abortion, birth control, privacy but also including some right
inherent in every decision they make based on the US Constituion would
not be Constitutional Rights, because it's better to be clear. I think
it makes future discussions more likely to be productive. "Based on
the Constitution" versus "enumerated in the Constitution. Repeating
myself, I would save Constitutional Right for those enumerated.
At the same time I think I asked here years ago, in different words,
why the court had to find or create a right of privacy to find in
Griswold. Why isn't it the case that in a free country -- and just
about everyone likes to say we are or shoudl be a free country --
everyone has the right to do anything unless the government can come
up with a good reason why that something hurts someone else. Why is
the burden not on the government to show that some act is harmful to
others** and not on individuals to find something somewhere in the Constitution, which is not very long and not meant to include every
specific thing, to hang on. **Not sure what they would do about
suicide, which doesn't directly harm others, except in some cases
maybe dependant children. When I was young, I thought laws against
suicide were enacted to make it easier for police to investigate
possible murders and attempted murder disguised as suicide. But
eventually I realized that people really want to use the force of the
state to stop suicide. Christianity (all branches I'm assuming)
prohibits suicide and that might be the underlying basis in the minds
of those who voted for the states to do so, but that's not a violation
of the First Amendment. Christianity prohibits stealing and murder
too, and I don't think those laws violate the First Amendment. And
Judaism prohibits suicide and I'm a Jew and I take that seriously .
But what Amnerican laws against suicide violate is the ideal that
we're a free country with an inalienable right to liberty.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
"micky" wrote in message >>news:[email protected]...
Someone, not just a caller, on the radio thought it would take a con. >>>amendment to limit the terms of USSC members. Others have said it only >>>take a statute, because one wouldn't be ending their careers as judges, >>>just transferring them to a lower court.
Did the first guy just not think of what the second choice relied on?
What do you think?
Many people on the radio have called the right to an abortion a >>>constitutional right. Yes, they deduced it from reading the consitution >>>but it seems to me the phrase "Constitutional Right" should be limited
to those that are specified, named, like those in the First Amendment, >>>2nd Amenmdnet, 5th,, 13th. If not, every case decided on the basis of >>>the Constitution would be establishilng a constitutional right, and
there are so many that that would trivialize the phrase. What do you >>>think?
I understand why Biden, who is probably disappointed that after 240
years any changes are needed at all, might want to start "small" with
the USSC topics he brought up today, term limits, binding ethics rules, >>>and no immunity, and maybe he would save increasing the size of the
court to 13 for later, after the court showed lack of cooperation and
did more harm, including striking down new statutes that denied
immunity, that restored to the agencies the power to make decisions,
etc. But it seems to me that, given that nothing will get done until >>>2025 at the earliest, early 2025 is the latest we should be undoing the >>>mistakes of this court, and that would require adding 4 new members
asap. What do you think?
If there were 4 more members, would it be hard to rehear the worst >>>decisions? For example, the immunity decision was about one case. The >>>respective judges could let the other cases go forward, be contradicted >>>by appeals courts that would enforce the USSC ruling, and then the >>>prosecutors could appeal to the USSC which coudl overrule a a decision >>>from only a year earlier. Right? What do you think?
If there is a no immunity constituational amendment, won't trump argue >>>that it's an ex post facto law and doesn't apply to his misdeeds? That's >>>why we need 4 new members for the court.
I always believe someone when they are talking, and often even longer, >>>and when Roberts said a few years ago that times had changed so the DOJ >>>didn't need to pre-approve changes to voting rules in states with a >>>history of denying the right to vote to Black people (and whomever
else), I believed it when he said it and nothing happeend to reverse >>>that, even though I knew then he'd have to be either awfullly naive or >>>very idealistic to think what he said the thought. Or both together.
But I no longer believe naivete or idealism was what motivated him, at >>>least not the ideal that racism had died away or racist people were now >>>unwilling to act in a racist manner. The "ideal" that motivated him
must have been, Let's keep the federal government out of state
elections, out of state affairs --- even if that means Blacks get
screwed out of exercising their rights.
Regarding your first point, I think the view that the judges wouldn't lose >>their jobs per se but merely get transferred to a lower court doesn't make >>much sense since it assumes there are lower court openings available for >>the
displaced judges.
The same law that takes them off the SC bench could create slots for
them at the appellate level. I'm sure the current appellate judges
wouldn't mind if they had less work to do.
But you do remind me that all 9 live in the DC area and would likely not
want to move. This seemed serious when I was't at the computer, but now
(FWIW and not yet considering what you write next) it occurs to me that >except when first implemented, there would only be one judge in this
position at any one time. In fact, modifying my immediately precedign >paragraph, other appointments to the appelate court could be lessened
by one when they knew a USSC judge was soon going to be transferred.
More importantly, the Constitution states that judges
will hold their "Offices" during good behavior, which implies they hold
the
job ("Office") they were appointed to, not just any available position in >>the court system.
That sounds, like you say, more important, so I'll switch to John
Levine's idea in the next thread, Supreme Court Term Limits. '-)
Regarding the second point, if you're saying the only rights we can take >>from the Constitution are those that are spelled out explicitly, then I >>agree with that. I don't think they have to be specifically labeled as >>"rights" necessarily, but they should be spelled out fairly explicitly.
For
example, the 14th Amendments spells out pretty clearly the right of anyone >>born in the USA to be a citizen of both the nation and the state where
they
are born, but the word "right" is not used.
I think that some justices have made the case more than once that some >>rights are more implied by the Constitution than spelled out directly - >>such
as the presumed right to privacy. Others would say that unless a right
is
spelled out explicitly, it shouldn't be inferred. This is sort of the >>essence of the abortion controversy. Roe v Wade asserts that the right to >>an abortion is implied by the Constitution. The decision last year says
it
is not. It all depends on how you view the document. I personally think, >>like any legal document, the document has to stand on the specific words >>contained within.
In my answer to Barry, I didn't go that far. I'd prefer that the default >position was that anyone had the right to do anything, and the state had
to show some good reason why people shouldn't. But failing that, I
don't see any good alternative to recognizing implied rights. My
complaint is about terminology, Constitution Right versus Based on the >Constitution. But I also think mixing the two together has led to
muddled thinking on the part of people I disagree with. (Maybe the
people I agree with too, but I don't want to give them a hard time.)
In cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, in another post in this thread
(in reply to Barry?) I asked why the burden is not on the government and
I see now in print what maybe I knew and forgot, that there is a
doctrine soemthign like what I want, Rational Basis Review, >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review which does require a >legitimate state interest for a law to be iiuc consitutional. However, >"Rational basis review tests whether the government's actions are
"rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[6][7] The
Supreme Court has never set forth standards for determining what
constitutes a legitimate government interest.[8] Under rational basis
review, it is "entirely irrelevant" what end the government is actually >seeking and statutes can be based on "rational speculation unsupported
by evidence or empirical data".[9] Rather, if the court can merely >hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it
will withstand rational basis review.[10] Judges following the Supreme >Court's instructions understand themselves to be "obligated to seek out
other conceivable reasons for validating" challenged laws if the
government is unable to justify its own policies.[11]"
If legitimate state interest were given the importance I think it
deserves, we would not have needed a "right of privacy" which iiuc only >applies to (married?) couple's bedroom, and not the rest of their home.
Regarding the third point, packing the court with four additional members >>would require passage by both houses of Congress, which includes needing
60
votes in the Senate to override a veto. That will not happen before 2025, >>if anytime soon after that, so I don't think you are correct that this >>might
be the easiest first step in Court reform.
I know it's unlikely, but the alternative regarding immmunity** seems to
be a Constitutional amendment and that is even more unlikely.
**The Senate voted to end the filibuster for iirc judicial appointments.
I'll bet they could end the filibuster for more specific things too,
like 4 new SC members, like restoring the power of agencies (I can never >remember the name of that), enforceable ethics code, and probably
others. There have been so many bad decisions lately I can't remember
them all.
It's quite interesting that the only USSC justices with good judgment
seem now to be a Puerto Rican woman, a Jewish woman, and a Black woman.
All women, all "minority members".
--
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:58:50 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,604 |