Kong.

I mean, if its a documentary on the last black man on earth, it couldn’t actually be played by a black man.

Unless it was produced in space, or on another planet, I suppose.

Kevin Hart.

Never used plex. Finally got around to installing Jellyfin. Very happy with it.

The constitutional guarantee is to petition the government for redress of grievances. This bill purports to prohibit such petitions, by prohibiting any state court from hearing them.

Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action.

Not when Congress lacks the power to enact the purported “laws” in the first place. Which is what is alleged in every case of judicial review.

It’s not just Congress that can abuse their power.

Agreed. I’ve never claimed otherwise. In a previous comment, I specifically described an abusive court, as well as some of the constitutional provisions for reigning in such a court.

If everyone likes cola, why are the Pepsi fans trying to get rid of Coke?

Coke is, indeed, better than Pepsi, but we’re asking for Johnny Black.

The relationship of Hogg to the rest of the DNC is the relationship between Sprite and Starry, while the American public are asking for single malt scotch.

Can justices declare everything Congress passes to be unconstitutional?

Theoretically, yes. They don’t don’t this, but they could argue that Congress does not possess the power to enact the particular law relevant to the case before them. They are constitutionally empowered to answer each plaintiff’s petition; they could, theoretically, find in favor of every plaintiff.

The constitutional remedy for such an abuse is for Congress to pack the courts, impeach the justices, or amend their legislation into the constitution.

Legislative power should belong to representatives elected by the people.

Indeed. But we aren’t talking about a legislative power. If we are talking about judicial review, we are deciding whether or not the legislature is empowered to create a particular law.

In this case, they are claiming the power to prohibit the courts from answering my petition for redress of grievances. The constitution guarantees me that right; the legislature is not empowered to strip me of that right. They are not empowered to create such a law. The creation of such a law is not a legislative power; overturning that law is not an imposition on the powers of the legislature.

Lipstick on a pig is all you’re getting from David Hogg. He’s not fixing anything.

OK. Let’s assume that logic for a moment. What are its limitations? Does Congress have the authority to declare everything an “exception”, and completely subsume Article III?

Of course not. Section 1 says the judicial power is wielded by SCOTUS and the inferior courts. Congress could try to specify a particular inferior court for specific types of cases, (Such as the FISA court), but they can’t declare a type of case to fall completely outside of any court’s jurisdiction. That would violate Section 1, as well as most of the bill of rights.

All “cases” are under the purview of the judicial branch. So long as anyone can bring a “case” balancing legislative vs constitutional authority, judicial review arises as a constitutional power.

Judicial review is not in the US constitution at all.

You’re not the first person to say this to me. I don’t know where you’re getting that idea. Judicial review is a direct conclusion of Article III, Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,

When I take a case to the court, claiming the legislature is violating my constitutional rights, the court has to determine jurisdiction: Whether they are allowed to hear the case. Legislation purports to deny them jurisdiction over such a case; Article III specifically grants them jurisdiction over all cases.

When they conflict, Article III supersedes legislation. Here, that constitutes judicial review.

There’s a state/federal argument to be made, but not a separation of powers argument. The Texas constitution has similar language. For this provision of the bill to survive, SCOTUS (Or, more accurately, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) will have to refuse certain powers they are explicitly granted, in favor of limitations prescribed by another branch.

That provision just makes it easier to overturn the whole bill. It’s an unconstitutional legislative violation of the separation of powers. They don’t even have to argue the merits of the rest of the bill; they can overturn the whole thing on the basis of that single provision.

Take your upvote and choke on it.

He’s positioned as the oligarch’s choice for succession. He was groomed for politics by corporate centrists because he’s got a compelling backstory.

The party leadership opposes him because they see he is going to replace them rather than support them. He’s just another part of the problem.

Hogg is just another of the shitbags.

Yes, he wants to rid the party of useless incumbents, but he’s not trying to get rid of the architects of Democratic failure. He’s trying to replace a select few useless old incumbents with young corporate centrists. He wants us to conflate “young” with “progressive”, while he runs Baby Hillary and Nancy Junior.

The entire DNC - including Hogg - needs to be flushed

No, but it should be.

In Mario Kart, if a player gets too far ahead of the pack, the game starts giving blue shells to other players. Blue shells track down and knockout the leading player, giving the rest a chance to catch up.

He ordered them in his first term. They are currently slated to enter into service in 2029.

She uses windows.

#blueshell

Porn is part of my religion.