Page 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 760 of 1001

Thread: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

  1. #741
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    74,589

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I tend to think that while he’ll retain conservative leanings, his position as chief and his desire to not preside over a kangaroo court will prevent him from moving too far left of Kennedy.
    Citizens United already destroyed the country. All this Court has to do is hold serve. And as long as it's stacked GOP it 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.

    Glass at 0%: No Heart

  2. #742
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    But it hasn't happened yet so you don't get to say it yet.

    We'll know before the week is out. I hope to hell you're right, but everything I've seen from Roberts is that he'll give on the stuff the Plutes don't care about. Will they care about gerrymandering and voter suppression? I would think so -- that's how they get their servants elected.
    If we have to wait until history is written, you guys will have to tell me the results on the other side. I agree that we really won't know whether I'm right for decades. I don't think any individual case(s) will be a true measure, although we can each claim it as such.

    But I feel comfortable making my victory claim just based upon history. First, too many people judge a court's direction by maybe one case a year, when a fair examination shows the various shifting alliances among the justices.

    Second, unlike some here, I don't view a case like the gerrymandering cases, to be a conservative vs. liberal outcome. Let's say the court refuses to set aside partisan gerrymandering. Is that a conservative victory as some here claim? In that individual case it may be because it may have been passed by a conservative state legislature to protect conservative seats. But is it really? Partisan gerrymandering isn't limited to conservatives. That's what has always frustrated me about politics. People are so short-sighted. They think they can gain an advantage by partisan gerrymandering, or by adding 4 Supreme Court seats, but who says your party will always be in power, even with gerrymandered districts?

    Partisan gerrymandering sucks, and it should definitely be outlawed, but if it isn't I certainly don't deem it any sort of victory for conservatives.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  3. #743

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    If we have to wait until history is written, you guys will have to tell me the results on the other side.
    How about we wait til Friday.
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

  4. #744
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    How about we wait til Friday.
    I'm certainly happy to discuss it more on Friday, but again, if the direction of this court, as currently made up, is going to be judged by the census case or gerrymandering cases, I personally think you'll be applying an unfairly narrow analysis. Just my opinion.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  5. #745

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I'm certainly happy to discuss it more on Friday, but again, if the direction of this court, as currently made up, is going to be judged by the census case or gerrymandering cases, I personally think you'll be applying an unfairly narrow analysis. Just my opinion.
    Landmark decisions define a Court. There aren't many -- 1 or 2 per term. A "Court" with continuity is about 10 years because of shifting membership. So about 15 decisions define a Court.

    This isn't like one plate appearance in a career of 10,000. It's like 2 seasons of a 20 year career. It's fair to make judgments based on that sample size.

    As for gerrymandering not disproportionately benefiting the GOP: when combined with the Census scam it's lethal. Not to mention the inherent "gerrymander" that is the Senate, which will benefit rural voters, and thus conservatives, for a century.

    As with rotten boroughs, the only people who don't see the unfairness are those who benefit. These are undemocratic practices and I hope we'll see a raft of constitutional amendments, similar to the Progressive Era, to remedy them.

    In the end we'll all benefit because more democracy is better. I say that even though I don't regard the majority of the people as capable of tying their shoes. But as long as minority rights are protected the day to day threats to people come typically from the rich few, not the poor many, if only because the rich few are well informed and well organized while the poor many can never get their sh-t together. Right now the GOP is the vanguard of the rich few. They are not your friend. I know you're an ally for whatever ideological reason but the stronger they get the more you suffer. If not now then tomorrow. Anywhere the rich grow too strong everyone else suffers.
    Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2019 at 09:41 AM.
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

  6. #746
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    Landmark decisions define a Court. There aren't many -- 1 or 2 per term. A "Court" with continuity is about 10 years because of shifting membership. So about 15 decisions define a Court.

    This isn't like one plate appearance in a career of 10,000. It's like 2 seasons of a 20 year career. It's fair to make judgments based on that sample size.

    As for gerrymandering not directly benefiting the GOP, when combined with the Census scam it's lethal. Not to mention the inherent "gerrymander" that is the Senate, which will benefit rural voters, and thus conservatives, for a century.

    Like rotten boroughs the only people who don't see the unfairness are those who benefit from it.
    Is the census problem permanent, even if the court allows the question during this census? Wasn't Clinton in office at this time before the last census? Isn't it entirely possible a D will be in office before the next census?

    Yeah, I know the whole Senate/rural issue is a hot button item for you, but even with that in place, haven't we had D President's and both houses of Congress controlled by the D's, in the very recent past?
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  7. #747
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Ok, so they declined to take the final step and kill agency deference.

    I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road Gorsuch is the justice, perhaps with Roberts, that conservatives will biatch about the most. I don't picture him going full Souter, but I don't think he'll necessarily be the dependable Alito type vote the diehards were hoping for.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  8. #748

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Ok, so they declined to take the final step and kill agency deference.

    I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road Gorsuch is the justice, perhaps with Roberts, that conservatives will biatch about the most. I don't picture him going full Souter, but I don't think he'll necessarily be the dependable Alito type vote the diehards were hoping for.
    That's the hope. Gorsuch is the closest in the Furious Five to an actual justice. Roberts, while not entirely toxic, was hired to do a job for the GOP, not be a justice.

    However, with Scalia we saw just how far even an intelligent and principled justice can embarrass himself with partisan casuistry. Torquemada was an educated man.
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

  9. #749
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    That's the hope. Gorsuch is the closest in the Furious Five to an actual justice. Roberts, while not entirely toxic, was hired to do a job for the GOP, not be a justice.

    However, with Scalia we saw just how far even an intelligent and principled justice can embarrass himself with partisan casuistry. Torquemada was an educated man.
    Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  10. #750

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
    CO is weird. It's also one of the few remaining states where if you touch the 2A third rail you die.

    But I don't think states matter. There are non-geographical conveyor belts that produce units with identical mindsets. Look at Kavanaugh -- he would have been at home with Billo at Chaminade in Mineola or any other Pseudo-Jesuit righty Catholic apologetics camp. Heck, he could be joecct!

    Geography doesn't mean squat anymore. There are a handful of people Makes, each cranking out a handful of Models. Within the Makes, Models fight for resources. Between the Makes the fight is for market share. Maybe it's always been like that but the Makes used to align with geography but now they align with cultural tribe. Maybe that's the inevitable tendency of communications and globalism. Once everybody from the same town had more in common with each other than with the town over the hill. Then it was states. Then it was countries. And soon knucks in Mississippi will have more in common with NeoNazis in Norway than their next door liberal neighbor.
    Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2019 at 11:13 AM.
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

  11. #751
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,630
    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
    Gorsuch was a Scalia disciple. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy.

  12. #752
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    Gorsuch was a Scalia disciple. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy.
    Oh, ok. I knew one of them was.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  13. #753
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,630

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    1st of the day, Alito with the drunk driving blood test case. Cops can almost always do it without a warrant. 5-4. As with most criminal procedural cases these days, Breyer sides with the conservatives and Gorsuch with the remaining liberals.

  14. #754

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    As with most criminal procedural cases these days, Breyer sides with the conservatives and Gorsuch with the remaining liberals.
    What's up with that? Are they arguing about police powers, privacy, public interest, what?
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

  15. #755
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,630

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Next up, from Roberts, are the gerrymandering cases. Such claims are political questions beyond the courts.

    AKA, gerrymandering is constitutional and it's up to voters to stop it.

  16. #756

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    Next up, from Roberts, are the gerrymandering cases. Such claims are political questions beyond the courts.

    AKA, gerrymandering is constitutional and it's up to voters to stop it.
    Shock. 5-4?

    Does this mean all those court cases that nullified the gerrymandered maps get sh-tcanned?
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

  17. #757
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    What's up with that? Are they arguing about police powers, privacy, public interest, what?
    Breyer has always been cop friendly. Scalia and now Gorsuch have been more skeptical.

  18. #758
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    74,589

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    Next up, from Roberts, are the gerrymandering cases. Such claims are political questions beyond the courts.

    AKA, gerrymandering is constitutional and it's up to voters to stop it.
    He was on the Court when they decided Corporations were people, right?

    This is bad.
    **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.

    Glass at 0%: No Heart

  19. #759
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,630

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Gerrymandering was 5-4 along ideological lines. Kagan wrote the dissent.

  20. #760

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,531

    Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    Scalia and now Gorsuch have been more skeptical.
    Gubmint overreach?

    Was Scalia the one who wrote the blistering opinion on cops using infrared to look inside homes for pot growing?
    Cornell University
    NCAA 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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •