Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 186

Thread: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

  1. #61
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    74,570

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    And you all tell me not to worry, that Roberts will help us with the deciding vote, blah, blah, blah.
    You'll never hear that from me.
    **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. #62
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,628
    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    And you all tell me not to worry, that Roberts will help us with the deciding vote, blah, blah, blah.
    No, I'm saying the first few cases will tell us whether his partisanship trumps his view towards his legacy on the court.

    It takes more balls to be the 5th vote to overrule precedent than it does to cast a 4th vote in dissent. We'll see which wins out.

  3. #63
    If Only You Knew MissThundercat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    At a Coffee Shop or out running
    Posts
    42,941

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    twitter: PipersHouse920, instagram: bobambermarie
    “Don't bend; don't water it down; don't try to make it logical; don't edit your own soul according to the fashion. Rather, follow your most intense obsessions mercilessly.”
    ― Franz Kafka
    Adventures With Amber Marie

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,529

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    No, I'm saying the first few cases will tell us whether his partisanship trumps his view towards his legacy on the court.

    It takes more balls to be the 5th vote to overrule precedent than it does to cast a 4th vote in dissent. We'll see which wins out.
    None of the current right wing justices is a profile in courage.
    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

  5. #65
    If Only You Knew MissThundercat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    At a Coffee Shop or out running
    Posts
    42,941

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    None of the current right wing justices is a profile in courage.
    Like I said, I don't feel positive, and I'm quite sure Pubbies and certain liberals are going to cis-splain this to me to make me feel worse.
    twitter: PipersHouse920, instagram: bobambermarie
    “Don't bend; don't water it down; don't try to make it logical; don't edit your own soul according to the fashion. Rather, follow your most intense obsessions mercilessly.”
    ― Franz Kafka
    Adventures With Amber Marie

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,529

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    The Onion has the GOP's number.
    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

  7. #67
    wubba lubba dub dub
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Haverbrook
    Posts
    32,195

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Oddly enough, I read something early today where Kavanaugh was leading the charge in questioning Louisiana for their non-unanimous jury conviction law. He seemed unimpressed, and made comments regarding racist outcomes for those convicted. It makes me wonder if there is some slight glimmer of humanity hiding in there somewhere.
    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

    "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

    "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

  8. #68
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    30,174

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Non-unanimous jury conviction? What in the actual ****?

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,091

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Non-unanimous jury conviction? What in the actual ****?
    Maybe it's a five-sixths verdict, like states have for civil.

  10. #70
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    oasis in the middle east
    Posts
    43,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    None of the current right wing justices is a profile in courage.
    winners write the history

  11. #71
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    74,570

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    Yeah, that is not going well. I see the bs arguments that I expected the right to make prominent in the discussions. And if Gorsuch is the swing as indicated in the article we know which way this is likely to go.
    **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

  12. #72

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,529

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    winners write the history
    Or, in this case, cheaters.
    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

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by MissThundercat View Post
    I haven't read too much on this case, but isn't it a case about whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is included in the broad "sex discrimination" statutes passed by Congress 50 years ago?

    Personally I think the law should ban such discrimination. Not only is it wrong to engage in such discrimination, it's stupid. Thus, it won't bother me if the Supreme Court says it's included.

    But that said, it also seems to me that in light of the fact that what, maybe half the states, and hundreds of cities nationwide have taken the step to specifically identify sexual orientation discrimination as prohibited conduct in addition to "sex discrimination" suggests that both judicially and legislatively in this country pretty much everyone concluded sexual orientation discrimination is not included in Title VII?

    I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think a decision by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or anyone else on that court concluding that sex orientation is not covered in the old definition is a sign of partisanship. People on this board, including you, have talked about how this state or that doesn't identify sex orientation as a protected category in the human rights statutes in the state where they reside. Yet I'm going to guess most of those states have a "sex discrimination" statute. It seems like it is a legislative solution. Just my two cents.
    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.

  14. #74
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    74,570

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I haven't read too much on this case, but isn't it a case about whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is included in the broad "sex discrimination" statutes passed by Congress 50 years ago?

    Personally I think the law should ban such discrimination. Not only is it wrong to engage in such discrimination, it's stupid. Thus, it won't bother me if the Supreme Court says it's included.

    But that said, it also seems to me that in light of the fact that what, maybe half the states, and hundreds of cities nationwide have taken the step to specifically identify sexual orientation discrimination as prohibited conduct in addition to "sex discrimination" suggests that both judicially and legislatively in this country pretty much everyone concluded sexual orientation discrimination is not included in Title VII?

    I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think a decision by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or anyone else on that court concluding that sex orientation is not covered in the old definition is a sign of partisanship. People on this board, including you, have talked about how this state or that doesn't identify sex orientation as a protected category in the human rights statutes in the state where they reside. Yet I'm going to guess most of those states have a "sex discrimination" statute. It seems like it is a legislative solution. Just my two cents.
    So, Majority Rules then? Cause that legislation will never pass Congress. Hell, Abortion was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973 and in many places in this country a woman still does not have the right to choose.

    Try again.
    **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

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,727

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    So, Majority Rules then?
    We can do it one of three ways. We can let our elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures pass the laws. Or we can let nine lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court tell us what the law should be. Or, we just let Trump do it, or whoever happens to hold the office of President. Your choice sunshine.
    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.

  16. #76
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    74,570

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    We can do it one of three ways. We can let our elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures pass the laws. Or we can let nine lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court tell us what the law should be. Or, we just let Trump do it, or whoever happens to hold the office of President. Your choice sunshine.
    As far as I know the Supreme Court has never passed any laws. Try again.
    **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

  17. #77

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,529

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think a decision by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or anyone else on that court concluding that sex orientation is not covered in the old definition is a sign of partisanship. People on this board, including you, have talked about how this state or that doesn't identify sex orientation as a protected category in the human rights statutes in the state where they reside. Yet I'm going to guess most of those states have a "sex discrimination" statute. It seems like it is a legislative solution. Just my two cents.
    It's true that when the statute was adopted 50 years ago people didn't think of sexual preference as part of the definition of sex.

    But we do now, so that ends it.

    You are saying something like this: "all the laws we passed about people prior to the 13th Amendment didn't assume blacks were included. So even though the 13th Amendment includes blacks as people all those old laws still only apply to whites."

    Nope. Laws* change their meaning retroactively all the time. This is reason #681 why "original intent" isn't a legal theory, it's a fig leaf for right wing social engineering. There is nothing neutral about tying the precise scope of a statute to its original meaning for the people of its time: it specifically arrests social growth at that time for the political benefit of people who want to see change frozen.

    The world changes. Often it improves. The people of today are not held as prisoners of the prejudices and stupidities of people of the past -- we've got our own new ones to enjoy!


    * Like scriptures
    Last edited by Kepler; 10-09-2019 at 09:58 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

  18. #78
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    oasis in the middle east
    Posts
    43,682

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    Or, in this case, cheaters.
    um....mookie thought you were a patsies fan now?
    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

  19. #79

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,529

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    um....mookie thought you were a patsies fan now?
    Don't you dare suggest there was anything improper in anything Belichick or the Pats have done. We are the most honest team ever.
    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

  20. #80
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    oasis in the middle east
    Posts
    43,682

    Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    It's true that when the statute was adopted 50 years ago people didn't think of sexual preference as part of the definition of sex.
    no, it IS different now. then it was 'sex' as in men and women. today that is 'gender'. 'sex' now is as in who one wishes to have sex with. so using 'sex discrimination' isn't what the laws were meant to defend. we now as a nation need new laws to protect 'sex choice' from being discriminated as a group. or just new 'anti discrimination' laws en masse
    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

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
  •