papajim2jordan wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 11:40 am Back to original matter? Party pooper.

As to legitimacy of The Court, here's a somewhat wordy but fun as heck read from On High.

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol- ... y-dilemma/

To understand the tension between sociological and legal legitimacy, we need a better grasp of the former. Why does the Supreme Court’s external legitimacy even matter? Political scientists agree: The judiciary has no army; it must rely on others to obey its decrees. Government officials and the general public are more likely to comply if they view the Court as “legitimate” — that is, as an institution that does and should have the power to affect legal rights and obligations.35 It is particularly crucial that those who disagree with a given decision view the Court as legitimate; such disappointed individuals will respect the adverse ruling if they view the institution itself as authoritative. Thus, political scientists have a refrain: “Legitimacy is for losers.”36

But what happens when the same group turns out to be the “loser” in case after case? Both political science research and history suggest that such situations are likely to be risky for the Court. Moreover, this research also suggests that the Justices can best preserve the Court’s sociological legitimacy — and ward off any attacks — by moderating their jurisprudence, at least in some cases. But as I argue below, such changes may not be legally legitimate.

CDFingers wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 12:41 pm

papajim2jordan wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2024 11:40 am Back to original matter? Party pooper.

As to legitimacy of The Court, here's a somewhat wordy but fun as heck read from On High.

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol- ... y-dilemma/

From the article:

To understand the tension between sociological and legal legitimacy, we need a better grasp of the former. Why does the Supreme Court’s external legitimacy even matter? Political scientists agree: The judiciary has no army; it must rely on others to obey its decrees. Government officials and the general public are more likely to comply if they view the Court as “legitimate” — that is, as an institution that does and should have the power to affect legal rights and obligations.35 It is particularly crucial that those who disagree with a given decision view the Court as legitimate; such disappointed individuals will respect the adverse ruling if they view the institution itself as authoritative. Thus, political scientists have a refrain: “Legitimacy is for losers.”36

But what happens when the same group turns out to be the “loser” in case after case? Both political science research and history suggest that such situations are likely to be risky for the Court. Moreover, this research also suggests that the Justices can best preserve the Court’s sociological legitimacy — and ward off any attacks — by moderating their jurisprudence, at least in some cases. But as I argue below, such changes may not be legally legitimate.

I agree that the Court has no army and must rely on others "obeying" their dictates. Thus, "legitimacy is for losers." This is why we have guns, and why liberals must let conservatives know that two can play at that game.

The best bet is to increase the size of the SCOTUS to at least thirteen so one Justice can oversee one District. It won't happen for this election, but it's possible in a couple more election cycles as Repub after Repub is retired and put out to pasture. They have failed, and they must pay with their public jobs. They should each be forced to run a McDonald's.

CDF

TrueTexan wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:27 am The idea of needing to have a serial number on a gun is a joke. Think of this how many guns that have no S.N., because they were made before 1968, are in the hands of people or how many are guns that have been handed down in families that were originally brought back from various wars and were listed as lost in combat, or as souvenirs. I know of at least four that my high school buddies families owned. Also think of all the Form 4473 that are stored, as required, when a gun dealer goes out of business and trying to find the form for that gun before they used computers. How many of the records have been destroyed by fires, trashed or shredded. The government has no real idea how many guns are out there in the hands of the people.But having the forms to fill out and file along with the other bureaucratic nonsense keeps people employed.