Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

  1. #21
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:50 AM

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I've explained this twice, but you still don't seem to understand.
    What you fail to understand is that your explaintions are merely your opinions that I happen to disagree with. Is that a problem for you?

    The fact that the CoC won most of the cases it chose to file amicus briefs for 1) does not prove that the court is "pro-business," and 2) especially doesn't prove that the court is more "pro-business" than in the past. This is straightforward logical reasoning.
    All cases that are represented by third parties, IE: special interest groups such as the ACLU, CoC, etc., or parties that have an interest in the outcome of a case can file an amicus brief. But to say that the judgement of the court is already predetermined by the mere filing of an amicus brief is pure nonsense. And no, your straightforward logical reasoning is not logical or straightforward at all. In fact, it rather looks like lazy subjective thinking aka word salad to make yourself appear more knowledgable than you really are. But in reality, you are no more an expert on these matters than I am. So lets stop the pretense shall we?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 02:17 AM

    Re: Kagan's recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court's cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    Let me explain something when I said this could be dangerous I was talking about being put on the Court when someone had so many cases that are up for review,and depending on what those cases are about.

    It is not inconceivable that someone who is "Machiavellian" in nature would appoint a specific person Judge who has a large number big cases being looked at for possible review by the Court to insure the right final ruling.

    She may not be there for anything close to something like that but the whole thing is ripe for what came to mind.

    After all politicians see things in systems that can be manipulated to advantage others may overlook because their minds are not in tune to do so.

    I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm only making an observation and speculating something that happen not something that did.

    Sorry for any confusion, I created.
    I'm afraid I'm not able to figure out how someone who nominates a person for the SCOTUS would somehow gain an advantage by nominating someone who would recuse themselves. Wouldn't it just be easier to nominate someone who is likely to vote the way you want? I mean, a little paranoia is a healthy thing, but damn.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts