quote:

ORIGINAL: HipPoindexter

Actually, this court issues unanimous rulings roughly half the time.

In fact, there have been stretches when unanimous rulings have been the rule rather than the exception--last spring it was up around 60%.

ETA I know this is kind of surprising. It seems more intuitive, given how partisan the selection and confirmation process is, that most rulings would be 5-4 or 6-3 with some bitter dissenting opinions thrown in. Most cases, though, are pretty non-controversial and in any given generation there is far less bitter divisiveness in how to read most of the Constitution (especially among legal scholars with lifetime appointments) than one might think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Perhaps.

But even Kagan and Soto were asking questions that were pretty antithetical to the position put forward by the President.
For the record, I made a donation to McConnel's tea party challenger today (which should make you dims happy). Since McConnell was in court supporting Obama's position.

And you thought BDSM made strange bedfellows...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The supreme court won't rule 9-0 against Obamas unconstitutional recess appointments?
Now the real question is what will they say (if anything) about the hundreds of NLRB decisions made illegally.
My bet: they will invalidate them all.
Here's hoping.

Oh....we`re losing soooo much sleep about......
Wait.....What`s the big deal here again?
Is this another code-word filled message only those with con-decoder ring can figure out?

B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave
True liberals do not care what the Supreme Court rules: the constitution is written clearly enough. The Supreme Court thinks Obamacare is legal and the corporations are persons! Obamanoids are not liberals. They think constitution is either "living document", or having constitutional rights do not really mean you should get it; it is up to the Obama regime to decide.

quote:

Then why is this Obama supporter/voter/contributor, always being called a liberal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: HipPoindexter
Loyal Democrats circa 2014 are, for the most part, really Eisenhower Republicans.

LOL!

They are whatever the fuck their talking points emails tell them to be. Their positions are whatever contortion is required to keep this President's balls in their mouths on any given day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Fundamentally, the president has the power to make appointments with the senate's consent.

Its up to the senate to decide when its in session - not the president.

So - frankly, I don't see anything controversial about deciding the appointments were illegal. We might lose some from a 9-0 decision. But we shall see.

I am surprised, with the newly minted majority that the NLRB hasn't just re-issued all the decisions in the name of the new majority - but I suppose that would mean new waiting periods for comments etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: HipPoindexter

Actually, this court issues unanimous rulings roughly half the time.

In fact, there have been stretches when unanimous rulings have been the rule rather than the exception--last spring it was up around 60%.

ETA I know this is kind of surprising. It seems more intuitive, given how partisan the selection and confirmation process is, that most rulings would be 5-4 or 6-3 with some bitter dissenting opinions thrown in. Most cases, though, are pretty non-controversial and in any given generation there is far less bitter divisiveness in how to read most of the Constitution (especially among legal scholars with lifetime appointments) than one might think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

FR

I don't see a 9-0 on anything with this bench.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But in truth, given checks and balances, it is not really up to the Senate to mince about whether they are in session or not, it is up to reasonable men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave
True liberals do not care what the Supreme Court rules: the constitution is written clearly enough. The Supreme Court thinks Obamacare is legal and the corporations are persons! Obamanoids are not liberals. They think constitution is either "living document", or having constitutional rights do not really mean you should get it; it is up to the Obama regime to decide.

Actually, true conservatives do not care what the Supreme Court rules: since America should be rules according to their views and not by all persons in America. Makes for a good discussion on whether they are really conservative or just closet tyrants, eh?

The US Supreme Court has not ruled on the whole of the Affordable Care Act, since no single case with even an ounce of legitimate arguments have come before them on a ruling. That branch of the US Government can not make rules on the 'spur of the moment', they must have a court case make its way to them. Even then the ruling is limited to the precise circumstances of the argument and not a globally head view on something. THOSE kind of actions are reserved for Amendments which take actions in ANOTHER branch of the US Government (i.e. Congress).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am aware of that. 

COMMENCEMENT OF DAILY SESSIONS

1. (a) The Presiding Officer having taken the chair, following the prayer by the Chaplain, and after the Presiding Officer, or a Senator designated by the Presiding Officer, leads the Senate from the dias in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States, and a quorum being present, the Journal of the preceding day shall be read unless by nondebatable motion the reading shall be waived, the question being, "Shall the Journal stand approved to date?", and any mistake made in the entries corrected. Except as provided in subparagraph (b) the reading of the Journal shall not be suspended unless by unanimous consent; and when any motion shall be made to amend or correct the same, it shall be deemed a privileged question, and proceeded with until disposed of.

2. During a session of the Senate when that body is in continuous session, the Presiding Officer shall temporarily suspend the business of the Senate at noon each day for the purpose of having the customary daily prayer by the Chaplain.

Oh, my goodness, were ALL the rules followed in paragraph one on the date and time of appointments, that which constitutes 'a session' by the senates own rules?

quote:





Similarly, if it is not in 'continuous session' during the noon hour, what state is it in?  Is it in recess?  and the constitution says it can determine the rules of its own proceedings and it is a valid question to determine what is a recess?
BUSINESS CONTINUED FROM SESSION TO SESSION

quote:


Recesses do not mean they are not in session.

quote:



So, if you could speak English, and in this case, punctilious English, what do recesses mean?

Ever been in a court room?   The court yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah is now in session.
The court will now take a short recess..........

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, DERP!!!!!! 

legal definition of session and recess:

Session
The sitting of a court, legislature, council, or commission for the transaction of its proper business.
A session can be the period of time within any one day during which the body is assembled and engaged in business. In a more extended sense, the session can be the whole space of time from the first assembling of the body to its adjournment.
A joint session is the convening of the two houses of a legislative body to sit and act together as one body, instead of separately in their respective houses.
As applied to a court, the word session is not strictly synonymous with the word term. The session of a court is the time during which it actually sits each day for the transaction of judicial business. A term of a court is the period fixed by law—usually amounting to many days or weeks—during which it is open for judicial business and during which it can hold sessions from day to day. The two words are, however, frequently used interchangeably.
recess n. a break in a trial or other court proceedings or a legislative session until a date and time certain. Recess is not to be confused with "adjournment" which winds up the proceedings.


both of them out of westlaw, which is the codex of legal.







_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to mnottertail)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Recesses do not mean they are not in session.

quote:



So, if you could speak English, and in this case, punctilious English, what do recesses mean?

Ever been in a court room?   The court yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah is now in session.
The court will now take a short recess..........

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, DERP!!!!!! 

legal definition of session and recess:

Session
The sitting of a court, legislature, council, or commission for the transaction of its proper business.
A session can be the period of time within any one day during which the body is assembled and engaged in business. In a more extended sense, the session can be the whole space of time from the first assembling of the body to its adjournment.
A joint session is the convening of the two houses of a legislative body to sit and act together as one body, instead of separately in their respective houses.
As applied to a court, the word session is not strictly synonymous with the word term. The session of a court is the time during which it actually sits each day for the transaction of judicial business. A term of a court is the period fixed by law—usually amounting to many days or weeks—during which it is open for judicial business and during which it can hold sessions from day to day. The two words are, however, frequently used interchangeably.
recess n. a break in a trial or other court proceedings or a legislative session until a date and time certain. Recess is not to be confused with "adjournment" which winds up the proceedings.


both of them out of westlaw, which is the codex of legal.

(in reply to mnottertail)