Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prepare for a 5-5 TIE opinion on the Dobbs case (yes, we now have 10 Justices on this Court) [Vanity]

Posted on 05/11/2022 7:30:53 PM PDT by fwdude

Don't think this wasn't planned from the beginning of last year. It is the perfect crime, almost.

Ever since rumors of Breyer's retirement announcement, leftists have been licking their chops to cheat on the highest court of the land. And Breyer is in on it.

Consider that the Dems began the confirmation process in haste while Breyer was still seated. Jackson was ultimately confirmed by the slimmest of margins, and Biden then SIGNED HER SUPREME COURT COMMISSION. It is not beyong possibility that she may be allowed to participate in voting in this case.

A 5-5 tie would result in the lower appellate court decision holding sway. At the very least, Roe would remain intact.

Prove me wrong - please!


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: 1FreeAmerican

You know - I kinda like that acronym -

BAFTB!


21 posted on 05/11/2022 7:56:03 PM PDT by 1FreeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, signed by 4 other Republican-appointed justices, and his language was scathing ... "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division."

Sounds to me like it was a 5-4 ruling, and it also seems to me that is what I remember the count to be, back when it was first leaked and reported on.

22 posted on 05/11/2022 7:58:11 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Not every random thought is worth posting.


23 posted on 05/11/2022 8:00:10 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The second way is to kill off a conservative and they have a pre approved justice ready.


24 posted on 05/11/2022 8:02:06 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Fraud vitiates everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I do not think it would be legal.
However, I see nothing stopping the Democrats from trying it on for size. Then if they think they get away with it.
Bingo 10 Supreme kangaroo Court justices


25 posted on 05/11/2022 8:04:43 PM PDT by Tupelo (Don't underestimate The Republican Party's ability to f*ck things up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

Do you get off talking absolute nonsense?


26 posted on 05/11/2022 8:10:02 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
The second way is to kill off a conservative and they have a pre approved justice ready.

You keep getting even more crazy by the minute.
How safe do you think the three liberal justices will be if you far left crazies “kill off” conservative Justices?

27 posted on 05/11/2022 8:15:13 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bwest

Right.


28 posted on 05/11/2022 8:17:01 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature (The kernel of our firm's job is to go with lots. - tnlibertarian job offer letter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Kamala will vote and break tie/sarc


29 posted on 05/11/2022 8:18:12 PM PDT by Don Corleone (leave the gun, take the canolis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

You talking’ to me?


30 posted on 05/11/2022 8:19:17 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Fraud vitiates everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Federal law limits the number of Supreme Court justices at 9. While Congress can change that via legislation, the President cannot change that merely by appointment additional justices.


31 posted on 05/11/2022 8:21:30 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

What do you think, troll?


32 posted on 05/11/2022 8:23:02 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

The final ruling will probably be 5-3-1. Roberts will not vote with the liberals, he will write his own opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.


33 posted on 05/11/2022 8:24:23 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Or us.

What a weird comment.


34 posted on 05/11/2022 8:36:22 PM PDT by Sarcazmo ("Sarcasm is the highest form of wit" ~ O. Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

This is nonsense — conspiracy theory at its finest. Congress would have needed to pass a law expanding the Supreme Court. The congress checks the judicial through the confirmation process and legislating the numbers of Supreme Court justices.

There is no way that there are 10 justices. The commission is signed, fine (probably because in his demented state they needed it signed as he would either forget or it telegraphs that there is plan for him not to be in office at the time of the seating), but please. There are not 10 justices. This makes us look like whack jobs.


35 posted on 05/11/2022 8:38:44 PM PDT by gas_dr (Conditions of Socratic debate: Intelligence, Candor, and Good Will. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Yes, they do.

The problem is... well, we know what the problem is:

1. Enemy wants it.
2. The enemy is prepared for it.
3. The enemy has countermeasures in place.

We’re behind the curve.


36 posted on 05/11/2022 8:43:14 PM PDT by Sarcazmo ("Sarcasm is the highest form of wit" ~ O. Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dave W

The writer is possibly crowing for a job in the media, where wild and crazy imaginings are a daily serving. I can see CNN and or MSNBC picking up this fairy tail and running it.


37 posted on 05/11/2022 8:49:48 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
Roberts will not vote with the liberals

Since when? He's voted with them on numerous occasions now.

38 posted on 05/11/2022 8:53:24 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The court has nine members by statute. Jackson is not one of them.


39 posted on 05/11/2022 8:55:48 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Prove me wrong - please!

Okay.

"The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum."

28 U.S.C. sec. 1

In other words, the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law. You don't get your imagined "10" unless Congress changes this provision of the U.S. Code.

That "wrong" enough for you?

To be fair, with your post, you've really upped the ante in terms of really, really silly contributions to Free Republic. And just when I thought this clown car couldn't get any worse. Congrats.

40 posted on 05/11/2022 9:00:31 PM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson