|
Skar posted:Lmao. "to have a just court it must be compromised entirely of democrats!" Comprised. Unless this is a Freudian slip joke I'm missing.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Skar posted:Lmao. "to have a just court it must be compromised entirely of democrats!" yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Skar posted:Lmao. "to have a just court it must be compromised entirely of democrats!" Wrong. Socialists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
large oblate cat posted:Wrong. Socialists. This is the correct answer
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:watched "lake of fire" the other day and it's sad roe became an antiabortion zealot. Queen OG of "the only moral abortion is my abortion." Do they know what happened to her kid after it was adopted?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
should get an Anarcho Primitivist on the court just for laughs
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Queen OG of "the only moral abortion is my abortion." i believe she and her family have kept her identity a secret but mccorvey never reached out to her even after she became antichoice. mccorvey was prochoice for decades after roe and even worked at a clinic but i think she was a simple person and unfortunately a nearby evangelist "converted" her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:should get an Anarcho Primitivist on the court just for laughs One Thomas is enough, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
This would be an amusing poo poo show. https://twitter.com/randyebarnett/status/1012825402199478272?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:This would be an amusing poo poo show. But this would actually work in Democrats' favor, because it does nothing to change the Court's balance, and establishes a precedent allowing them to fix it in two years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
He's literally built his entire strategy around his opponents having more respect for the institution of the court than he does, so of course the moment people start indicating that they've lost that respect he'll try to one up them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:This would be an amusing poo poo show. The real question is, could you vote to reduce the size of the court to five, remove a justice, and then vote again to expand it and put whoever the gently caress you wanted there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:The real question is, could you vote to reduce the size of the court to five, remove a justice, and then vote again to expand it and put whoever the gently caress you wanted there? No - removal of current justices requires a shitload of senators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
So a shrink from 9 to 7 (as an example) would just mean the next two to die or retire wouldn't be replaced? E: I guess the bill that did it could just be "upon the next death or retirement, courtsize==(courtsize-1)" or something Javid fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jul 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Javid posted:So a shrink from 9 to 7 (as an example) would just mean the next two to die or retire wouldn't be replaced? Most likely Ginsberg & Breyer. Soooo..... not the best plan if you want a sane court. At least not unless you wait until after Ginsberg and Breyer are replaced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
I've got a quarter at 100:1 RBG goes before Kennedy does. Fools hope, but OMG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:The real question is, could you vote to reduce the size of the court to five, remove a justice, and then vote again to expand it and put whoever the gently caress you wanted there? 50 senators and the Presidency to to fill an open seat. 235 Representatives, 67 Senators, and impeachment proceedings to remove a Justice from the Supreme Court. (353 Representatives, 67 Senators, and the approval of 38 State Legislatures to amend the Constitution and add term limits or retirement ages to the Supreme Court)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I've got a quarter at 100:1 RBG goes before Kennedy does. Fools hope, but OMG. lol at least you get a handle of gilbeys out of it
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I've got a quarter at 100:1 RBG goes before Kennedy does. Fools hope, but OMG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Javid posted:So a shrink from 9 to 7 (as an example) would just mean the next two to die or retire wouldn't be replaced? Correct, that's what happened every time the court was shrunk in the past. It just meant the next vacancy(s) would not be filled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
So, ignoring the legal realist aspect for a moment, doesn't the Becerra decision vis-a-vis compelled speech suggest that the "fair representation" obligations of unions should be unconstitutional post-Janus?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/pattymo/status/1013820779715350529
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
“I would gladly pay more in taxes to fund better services.” - Psychos, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
you might wanna look up who janus is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:you might wanna look up who janus is. I know who he is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
then how did you read the quote so stupidly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:then how did you read the quote so stupidly? Why don’t you endorse a man choosing to sacrifice financially for causes and organizations he believes in?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Why don’t you endorse a man choosing to sacrifice financially for causes and organizations he believes in?  He's saying "I would gladly have everyone forgo their annual raise" (and pension). Some noble suicide-vest sacrifice there.
Stickman fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Stickman posted:
Which is analogous to voting to raise taxes on everyone to support programs you favor. Is that something people here object to, suddenly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Which is analogous to voting to raise taxes on everyone to support programs you favor. Is that something people here object to, suddenly? Voting to raise taxes requires convincing a majority of voters to agree with you. How are you this stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Voting to raise taxes requires convincing a majority of voters to agree with you. How are you this stupid? Being in favor of foregoing a raise is like being in favor of a rainy day on the weekend. Even if his neighbors would rather it be sunny, their individual wishes don’t matter to the outcome and there’s no moral content to the preference. Honestly not seeing what is “psycho” about this quote from Janus. Wxhode fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Which is analogous to voting to raise taxes on everyone to support programs you favor. Is that something people here object to, suddenly? here, I'll help on the off chance you're not a disingenuous troll: his comment is in the wider context of the destruction of unions, which has additional impacts beyond the annual raise further, the destruction of public sector unions weakens the position of unions as a whole on several levels this is morally bad, and Janus is framing this morally bad thing as "well I just want my employer to spend more responsibly  " also your weather comment is either very stupid or trolling
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Tbf once the Supreme Court started unilaterally imposing taxes on people to balance the budget, this was only a matter of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:“I would gladly pay more in taxes to fund better services.” - Psychos, apparently. Janus does not want to do that. He is one of those typical conservative economic shits who thinks the government should do as little as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Janus does not want to do that. He is one of those typical conservative economic shits who thinks the government should do as little as possible. For a government employee, a reduction in salary is equivalent is the same as a industry specific tax raise. And while he may prefer that the government use that saved money on reducing its deficit, money is fungible and he has no power on where it actually goes, so the two statements are functionally equivalent in outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:For a government employee, a reduction in salary is equivalent is the same as a industry specific tax raise. And while he may prefer that the government use that saved money on reducing its deficit, money is fungible and he has no power on where it actually goes, so the two statements are functionally equivalent in outcomes. He does not actually want to "fund better services". He would prefer that services be cut severely or eliminated altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:For a government employee, a reduction in salary is equivalent is the same as a industry specific tax raise. And while he may prefer that the government use that saved money on reducing its deficit, money is fungible and he has no power on where it actually goes, so the two statements are functionally equivalent in outcomes. Ah yes, cutting taxes & benefits is famously exactly the same as raising taxes and benefits. C+ low effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:He does not actually want to "fund better services". He would prefer that services be cut severely or eliminated altogether. He has the power to accept lower wages. He doesn’t have the power to determine how that implicit personal tax is spent. Therefore the actual impact of his actions is a positive for tax and spenders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:For a government employee, a reduction in salary is equivalent is the same as a industry specific tax raise. And while he may prefer that the government use that saved money on reducing its deficit, money is fungible and he has no power on where it actually goes, so the two statements are functionally equivalent in outcomes. Ah yes under the Supreme Court's Article III taxing power, weird that the constitution doesn't assign this responsibility to the democratically elected branch
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes under the Supreme Court's Article III taxing power, weird that the constitution doesn't assign this responsibility to the democratically elected branch I thought we were talking about whether Janus is a psycho for his preferences. Is there a constitutional provision that determines mental health diagnoses for US citizens? SCOTUS talk: Trump’s going to nominate Barrett just for her lib owning potential, isn’t he?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 20:07
|
|