Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[nikcers]

SCOTUS doesn't rule on cases in secret. It may not always give reasons for rulings (neither the majority opinion or the dissent), but it doesn't ever have secret rulings. Now, there is something called the orders docket that it doesn't always disclose, which is how it decided which cases to hear and procedural things like injunctions. But those aren't rulings.

Source?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Source?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf

 

[nikcers]

SCOTUS doesn't rule on cases in secret. It may not always give reasons for rulings (neither the majority opinion or the dissent), but it doesn't ever have secret rulings. Now, there is something called the orders docket that it doesn't always disclose, which is how it decided which cases to hear and procedural things like injunctions. But those aren't rulings.

Typically, all nine of the justices hear each case. Sometimes less than the full nine justices may hear a case due to illness, a vacant position, or if one justice recuses him/herself (chooses not to participate in a case) due to conflict of interest. A minimum of six judges must be present to make a decision on a case.

Each case is decided by majority vote. In case of a tie, the decision of the lower court is upheld.

Since the court only reviews cases which are appealed from a lower court, there is no evidence presented, and no witnesses are heard. There are simply briefs

(written arguments) and oral argument by the parties. Each side has 30 minutes to present oral arguments, and the justices interrupt with questions while they are speaking.


After the attorneys are finished speaking, the justices meet in secret to discuss the case and come to a decision. No official record is kept of this discussion.

\\

 

[ShaneEnochs]

What's your point? I didn't say that the discussions weren't secret. I said that the rulings weren't. Once the ruling is made, it's handed to the Clerk and the Clerk makes it public.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

That would be preferable to the court ruling badly.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

lol

...important cases, like, those which would permit the expansion of the federal government?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

lol

...important cases, like, those which would permit the expansion of the federal government?

Believe it or not, over half the country holds an entirely different opinion than you do on this topic.

 

[nikcers]

What's your point? I didn't say that the discussions weren't secret. I said that the rulings weren't. Once the ruling is made, it's handed to the Clerk and the Clerk makes it public.

After the attorneys are finished speaking, the justices meet in secret to discuss the case and come to a decision.

I get that you are splitting hairs on decision/ruling but for the sake of argument just because they have discussed and came to a decision, doesn't mean they have ruled on a case. In fact for big enough rulings, it can take years for all of the paperwork and gremlins to come out of the woodwork.

 

[nikcers]

Believe it or not, over half the country holds an entirely different opinion than you do on this topic.

So what over half the country thinks Obama is a Muslim, that doesn't mean they should make any important decisions.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I get that you are splitting hairs on decision/ruling but for the sake of argument just because they have discussed and came to a decision, doesn't mean they have ruled on a case. In fact for big enough rulings, it can take years for all of the paperwork and gremlins to come out of the woodwork.

A decision is a ruling. That's literally what a ruling means. A ruling is "an authoritative decision or pronouncement, especially one made by a judge." I'm not splitting hairs. I don't know where you're getting that rulings are secret, because there is absolutely no evidence of that. You keep posting that quote, but all it means is that the discussions are made in secret. When they've made a decision/ruling, that's made public. There are no secret rulings. There are no secret decisions. I don't know any other ways to say it.

 

[nikcers]

A decision is a ruling. That's literally what a ruling means. A ruling is "an authoritative decision or pronouncement, especially one made by a judge." I'm not splitting hairs. I don't know where you're getting that rulings are secret, because there is absolutely no evidence of that. You keep posting that quote, but all it means is that the discussions are made in secret. When they've made a decision/ruling, that's made public. There are no secret rulings. There are no secret decisions. I don't know any other ways to say it.

Then they literally "make decisions in secret" then.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Believe it or not, over half the country holds an entirely different opinion than you do on this topic.

O, much more than half, more like 95%.

What was your point?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

So what over half the country thinks Obama is a Muslim, that doesn't mean they should make any important decisions.

Please source your claim. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation did a poll on Sept. 4-8, 2015, and 29% said that they believed he was a Muslim. Source. Now, on Aug. 28-30, 2015, PPP did a polling of just Republicans, and 54% of Republicans said that they believed he was a Muslim. Source. But let's not pretend that over half the country is actually stupid enough to think that.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

O, much more than half, more like 95%.

What was your point?

So you're fine with holding up what 95% of the country wants just because you want something else?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Then they literally "make decisions in secret" then.

I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. If you're saying that the discussions are secret and the decisions are public, yes, that is correct.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So you're fine with holding up what 95% of the country wants just because you want something else?

I don't understand the question...

Are you under the impression that reality is determined by majority vote?

...if we all vote that victory gin output is up this year, it is?

 

[nikcers]

Please source your claim. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation did a poll on Sept. 4-8, 2015, and 29% said that they believed he was a Muslim. Source. Now, on Aug. 28-30, 2015, PPP did a polling of just Republicans, and 54% of Republicans said that they believed he was a Muslim. Source. But let's not pretend that over half the country is actually stupid enough to think that.

Just because a majority of people think something doesn't mean they are right. A majority of people used to think the world was flat. I actually don't think that over half the country wants to grow the government either honestly. You want to cite polls with no polling science? You might as well make up the polls off the top of your head. You're not having an honest conversation with me though here are ya?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

You want to cite polls with no polling science? You might as well make up the polls off the top of your head. You're not having an honest conversation with me though here are ya?

What are you even talking about? The methodology is on right there on page 16 of the CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll, which out of the two, is really more important in disproving your point.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Allow me to clarify for Mr. Enoch,

Why should anyone care in the slightest about the political opinions of the masses?

They obviously know nothing.

Shall physics proceed on the basis of majority vote?

...No?

Then certainly politics shouldn't.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Allow me to clarify for Mr. Enoch,

Why should anyone care in the slightest about the political opinions of the masses?

They obviously know nothing.

Shall physics proceed on the basis of majority vote?

...No?

Then certainly politics shouldn't.

Our physics does proceed on majority vote. We decide science by consensus.

Equating politics, which is subjective by it's very nature, to science is pretty silly. I think you know that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Our physics does proceed on majority vote. We decide science by consensus.

Equating politics, which is subjective by it's very nature, to science is pretty silly. I think you know that.

Is economics subjective?

For instance, is it a matter of mere opinion that maximum price controls will cause shortages?