Message from @Pyro

Discord ID: 514309176709873664


2018-11-20 05:19:31 UTC  

I read your example in full, and gave a detailed explanation of the court's position on it, the constitution's position on it, and the possible ways to make the argument which the supreme court would be able to defend.

2018-11-20 05:19:32 UTC  

Whether it is unconstitutional or not is irrelevant, the scotus decided that it was

2018-11-20 05:19:41 UTC  

9 people who are unelected

2018-11-20 05:19:43 UTC  

These fucking fascists wanna chop off my johnson

2018-11-20 05:19:51 UTC  

nine people appointed periodically by elected officials

2018-11-20 05:19:59 UTC  

unelected is better...

2018-11-20 05:20:08 UTC  

yeah, elections for supreme court judges would be...

2018-11-20 05:20:10 UTC  

gruesome

2018-11-20 05:20:19 UTC  

the law would not survive even one fucking election cycle

2018-11-20 05:20:20 UTC  

it would be a clusterfuck of lobbyists

2018-11-20 05:20:24 UTC  

oh that would be a nightmare

2018-11-20 05:20:27 UTC  

literally the worst idea ever

2018-11-20 05:20:31 UTC  

yup

2018-11-20 05:20:33 UTC  

And I agree

2018-11-20 05:20:37 UTC  

Elections for SCOTUS should only be held in my house.

2018-11-20 05:20:43 UTC  

then why are you complaining that they are unelected?

2018-11-20 05:20:45 UTC  

Let me decide who gets to be a judge

2018-11-20 05:20:45 UTC  

So what do we do to resolve the issue?

2018-11-20 05:20:53 UTC  

absolutely nothing

2018-11-20 05:20:55 UTC  

they are appointed, it is a good middle ground

2018-11-20 05:21:03 UTC  

this is basically the best we got at the moment

2018-11-20 05:21:07 UTC  

this is literally the best there can be

2018-11-20 05:21:09 UTC  

Oh idk make is so that they cant just decided on a case and make it unconstitutional

2018-11-20 05:21:21 UTC  

Can we debate on what November should really be? No Nut November, No Shave November, or what

2018-11-20 05:21:24 UTC  

@Cody find a way to structure your law which is not unconstitutional

2018-11-20 05:21:35 UTC  

if they cannot do that, they cannot rule on anything

2018-11-20 05:21:37 UTC  

Both are gay

2018-11-20 05:21:37 UTC  

@Gilgamesh no nut, no shave, no nothing

2018-11-20 05:21:41 UTC  

It needs to be decided on a case by case basis, and not extend beyond the scope of the original case

2018-11-20 05:21:42 UTC  

The idea that a position that's elected is better over an appointed position is an ideological one.

2018-11-20 05:21:44 UTC  

or just wait a couple years for it to be overturned

2018-11-20 05:21:50 UTC  

No nothing November

2018-11-20 05:21:58 UTC  

if judges cannot say one thing is unconstitutional then they cannot say ANYTHING is

2018-11-20 05:22:01 UTC  

How about No Vember

2018-11-20 05:22:11 UTC  

@Cody they agree, but the law needs to be drafted in a way which gives them that opportunity

2018-11-20 05:22:12 UTC  

@DrWittMDPhD the fuck is a Vember

2018-11-20 05:22:17 UTC  

But with judicial review, they can make anything illegal by saying its unconstitutional

2018-11-20 05:22:19 UTC  

It's short for November

2018-11-20 05:22:29 UTC  

the law must not prohibit the expression, nor respect a specific establishment

2018-11-20 05:22:33 UTC  

Which is not apart of the constitution

2018-11-20 05:22:37 UTC  

Loook