Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 67
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 67 template Next
  • #616
    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Interesting...
    Help me out in interpreting that:

    Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would've gone "full Trump*".
    So two (for majority) or six (full court) said partial Trump?


    *Never go "full Trump".
    The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

    North Dakota Hockey:

    Comment

    • #617
      Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

      It was per curium so all of them at least agreed in part.

      The other three went full trump.
      Code:
      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
College Hockey 6       College Football 0
BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
      Originally posted by SanTropez
      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
      Originally posted by Kepler
      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

      Comment

      • #618
        Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        What if Jared Kushner's sister sells them visas is that allowed?
        "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
        -aparch

        "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
        -INCH

        Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
        -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

        Comment

        • #619
          Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          Originally posted by unofan View Post
          Gorsuch writes/joins a number of opinions putting him right of Alito and on par with Thomas.
          I decided to take park of my lunch to read through a number of most recent decisions. It's going to get very annoying if Thomas and Gorsuch hold each other's hands and fear the boogeymen in the closet in every opinion.

          And his writing style is not fun to read. I don't think I've read an opinion of his yet where half the content is, "I'm just asking a question here..."
          Code:
          As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
College Hockey 6       College Football 0
BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
          Originally posted by SanTropez
          May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
          Originally posted by bigblue_dl
          I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
          Originally posted by Kepler
          When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
          He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

          Comment

          • #620
            Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
            It was per curium so all of them at least agreed in part.

            The other three went full trump.
            Ah. Thanks. My vocabulary word of the day.
            The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

            North Dakota Hockey:

            Comment

            • #621
              Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              This was kind of a big case denied cert.

              http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...626-story.html

              The Supreme Court has rejected a major 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s strict limits on carrying concealed guns in public.

              The justices turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who contended most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area are being wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

              The justices let stand a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the “2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

              In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court's action "reflects a distressing trend" in the treatment of the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored right. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined his dissent.
              Code:
              As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
College Hockey 6       College Football 0
BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
              Originally posted by SanTropez
              May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
              Originally posted by bigblue_dl
              I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
              Originally posted by Kepler
              When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
              He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

              Comment

              • #622
                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                All the righties said we were wrong when we said Gorsuch was another Thomas and not even a Scalia replacement. And we were right. The Courts balance has changed.
                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                Comment

                • #623
                  Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                  All the righties said we were wrong when we said Gorsuch was another Thomas and not even a Scalia replacement. And we were right. The Courts balance has changed.
                  No it hasn't. Kennedy was and remains the swing justice. The balance switches with whoever provides the 5th vote.

                  Comment

                  • #624
                    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by unofan View Post
                    No it hasn't. Kennedy was and remains the swing justice. The balance switches with whoever provides the 5th vote.
                    Uh, huh. You go ahead and believe that. My point is at least Scalia cared about the Constitution. Thomas never has and Gorsuch never will.
                    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                    Comment

                    • #625
                      Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                      And his writing style is not fun to read. I don't think I've read an opinion of his yet where half the content is, "I'm just asking a question here..."
                      Not finding a lot of "just asking questions" in this part from his writing on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act:

                      “While it is of course our job to apply faithfully the law Congress has written, it is never our job to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced the question that, on everyone’s account, it never faced,” he wrote.

                      “The proper role of the judiciary,” he concluded, is “to apply, not amend, the work of the People’s representatives.”
                      http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...612-story.html

                      That screams strict constructionist. Heavens. Did a President actually get one "as advertised". Wait. It's once. He'll come out with his "whathe" moment soon enough.
                      The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                      North Dakota Hockey:

                      Comment

                      • #626
                        Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                        Not finding a lot of "just asking questions" in this part from his writing on the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act:



                        http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...612-story.html

                        That screams strict constructionist. Heavens. Did a President actually get one "as advertised". Wait. It's once. He'll come out with his "whathe" moment soon enough.
                        We'll see how strict of a constructionist he is when the first 14th amendment case rolls around under his watch. Scalia had no problem ignoring that one.

                        Comment

                        • #627
                          Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by unofan View Post
                          We'll see how strict of a constructionist he is when the first 14th amendment case rolls around under his watch. Scalia had no problem ignoring that one.
                          ... "his "whathe" moment soon enough."
                          The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                          North Dakota Hockey:

                          Comment

                          • #628
                            Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            Uh, huh. You go ahead and believe that. My point is at least Scalia cared about the Constitution. Thomas never has and Gorsuch never will.
                            Scalia cared about being thought of as caring about the Constitution. When he wanted to he could pull a new right out of his as-s same as any liberal. "Originalism" has been malarkey from the days of that old political hack Bork. It means "no new rights unless I say so." And then it goes on to bestow every right possible to business and even money itself, while going back to a Lockner's view of the Poors.

                            No thanks to that old hypocritical rubbish.
                            Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2017, 01:32 PM.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment

                            • #629
                              Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              Scalia cared about being thought of as caring about the Constitution. When he wanted to he could pull a new right out of his as-s same as any liberal. "Originalism" has been malarkey from the days of that old political hack Bork. It means "no new rights unless I say so." And then it goes on to bestow every right possible to business and even money itself, while going back to a Lockner's view of the Poors.

                              No thanks to that old hypocritical rubbish.
                              I'd still rather have him then two Thomas's.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment

                              • #630
                                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                                I'd still rather have him then two Thomas's.
                                Well yes, I'd rather have 1 R vote than 2 Rs.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 67 template Next
                                Working...
                                X