You're allowed one per day. That's #2.GannonFan wrote:heck
Although the other one was about how ancient the Cowboys' championships are.
Overturned on replay. Carry on.
You're allowed one per day. That's #2.GannonFan wrote:heck
Thanks, I didn't want to start having to use potty words. Although that would've come up in Andy's thread about that year when Towson didn't make the playoffs but Delaware did, so that would've been a fun time to use it!93henfan wrote:You're allowed one per day. That's #2.GannonFan wrote:heck
Although the other one was about how ancient the Cowboys' championships are.
Overturned on replay. Carry on.
Just adding on to this - exactly what ill are we trying to implement by putting either age limits or term limits on SCOTUS justices? Has there really been issues with the ages of the justices that have impeded their ability to properly decide cases? And if we're worried about politics playing too much a part in SCOTUS decisions why would we make the justices more responsive to political swings by imposing term limits?GannonFan wrote:I wouldn't like that. Way too much turnover, and then you start reaching deep into the judicial ranks for folks to fill the slots. In any 10 year period you would have 9 confirmations, so on average a little less than once every year. And you could have the Court lurch from one side of an issue to another within that 10 year period as you could and likely would have full turnover that would just mirror the political sways we normally see. And heck, what would happen when the Senate isn't in control of the same party as the Presidency? With 10 year terms the Senate would just wait it out - why would you ever confirm an appointee of the other political party in that kind of time frame?Pwns wrote:Limit justices to 10 year terms.
If the Cowboys' championships are ancient, what does that make you?93henfan wrote:You're allowed one per day. That's #2.GannonFan wrote:heck
Although the other one was about how ancient the Cowboys' championships are.
Overturned on replay. Carry on.
PIPE DOWNGrizalltheway wrote:If the Cowboys' championships are ancient, what does that make you?93henfan wrote:
You're allowed one per day. That's #2.
Although the other one was about how ancient the Cowboys' championships are.
Overturned on replay. Carry on.
I'm only going to do one of those things.CAA Flagship wrote:PIPE DOWNGrizalltheway wrote: If the Cowboys' championships are ancient, what does that make you?
PUT DOWN PIPE
Grizalltheway wrote:I'm only going to do one of those things.CAA Flagship wrote: PIPE DOWN
PUT DOWN PIPE
Shut up, Weetag™!Grizalltheway wrote:If the Cowboys' championships are ancient, what does that make you?93henfan wrote:
You're allowed one per day. That's #2.
Although the other one was about how ancient the Cowboys' championships are.
Overturned on replay. Carry on.
Agree. While I rarely agree with RBG's opinions, I am fine with her staying on the Court till she passes away.GannonFan wrote:Just adding on to this - exactly what ill are we trying to implement by putting either age limits or term limits on SCOTUS justices? Has there really been issues with the ages of the justices that have impeded their ability to properly decide cases? And if we're worried about politics playing too much a part in SCOTUS decisions why would we make the justices more responsive to political swings by imposing term limits?GannonFan wrote:
I wouldn't like that. Way too much turnover, and then you start reaching deep into the judicial ranks for folks to fill the slots. In any 10 year period you would have 9 confirmations, so on average a little less than once every year. And you could have the Court lurch from one side of an issue to another within that 10 year period as you could and likely would have full turnover that would just mirror the political sways we normally see. And heck, what would happen when the Senate isn't in control of the same party as the Presidency? With 10 year terms the Senate would just wait it out - why would you ever confirm an appointee of the other political party in that kind of time frame?
I won't disagree that it hurts us in other areas where older, minimally-functioning old people (i.e. Congress) are probably hurting us, but in this case with Ginsburg (and even with Rehnquist before her), I don't see the harm yet. Oral arguments are not even technically necessary, and often the justices have already decided on how they are going to rule before it even gets to oral arguments. I'm not going to sweep Ginsburg out with the old person brush until I see that she can't do her job. We're not there yet.HI54UNI wrote:She's in poor health and is now missing oral arguments due to her health. Rehnquist was in the same boat and died in office. Too many public figures have egos that keep them from retiring (look at Congress) and ultimately it hurts us IMO.
GannonFan wrote:I won't disagree that it hurts us in other areas where older, minimally-functioning old people (i.e. Congress) are probably hurting us, but in this case with Ginsburg (and even with Rehnquist before her), I don't see the harm yet. Oral arguments are not even technically necessary, and often the justices have already decided on how they are going to rule before it even gets to oral arguments. I'm not going to sweep Ginsburg out with the old person brush until I see that she can't do her job. We're not there yet.HI54UNI wrote:She's in poor health and is now missing oral arguments due to her health. Rehnquist was in the same boat and died in office. Too many public figures have egos that keep them from retiring (look at Congress) and ultimately it hurts us IMO.
Those old white dudes got it mostly right.CID1990 wrote:The high points to having SCOTUS justices serve for life far outweigh the low points
Like the Electoral College, I prefer to defer to the judgment of the founders, who increasingly appear to have been smarter than any living Americans today
He's already dead, well half dead zombie.93henfan wrote:Don't speak so cavalierly. Keith Richards might.Skjellyfetti wrote:
No.
I also don't think Ginsburg or Keith Richards will actually outlive us all.
Yet Trump wants to run roughshod over pretty much everything they created.Ivytalk wrote:Those old white dudes got it mostly right.CID1990 wrote:The high points to having SCOTUS justices serve for life far outweigh the low points
Like the Electoral College, I prefer to defer to the judgment of the founders, who increasingly appear to have been smarter than any living Americans today
How is Trump running roughshod?mainejeff wrote:Yet Trump wants to run roughshod over pretty much everything they created.Ivytalk wrote: Those old white dudes got it mostly right.
Can't have it both ways asshole.
In what way is Trump running roughshod over what they created?mainejeff wrote:Yet Trump wants to run roughshod over pretty much everything they created.Ivytalk wrote: Those old white dudes got it mostly right.
Can't have it both ways asshole.
Oh, go back to your Ricky Martin home movies and leave the serious political debate to the grownups.mainejeff wrote:Yet Trump wants to run roughshod over pretty much everything they created.Ivytalk wrote: Those old white dudes got it mostly right.
Can't have it both ways asshole.
Who's Ricky Martin?Ivytalk wrote:Oh, go back to your Ricky Martin home movies and leave the serious political debate to the grownups.mainejeff wrote:
Yet Trump wants to run roughshod over pretty much everything they created.
Can't have it both ways asshole.
We need to start thinking about what kind of world we're going to leave for himGil Dobie wrote:He's already dead, well half dead zombie.93henfan wrote:
Don't speak so cavalierly. Keith Richards might.
You’ll be waiting for a long time.CitadelGrad wrote:I'm anxiously awaiting Ivytalk's review of the new RBG-based movie, On the Basis of Sex.
Ivytalk wrote:You’ll be waiting for a long time.CitadelGrad wrote:I'm anxiously awaiting Ivytalk's review of the new RBG-based movie, On the Basis of Sex.
Chizzang wrote:Ivytalk wrote:
You’ll be waiting for a long time.