|
Is Gorsuch an actual strict constructionist, or is he being one in this instant?
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
People are very upset at Hillary and RBG for things that Mitch McConnell has done.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
whos that broooown posted:This is pretty sexist tbh. D&D comment indistinguishable from FB posts from boomers. "You pointing out sexism is the real sexism here"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Beggars can't be choosers but I would love an updated OP with regards to the court at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Geez, that is one hell of a time window Well, you need enough time to figure out a legal way to say the thing you already were going to do regardless of the law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I hate how I'm seeing lots of articles and posts now about how women are on the verge of losing abortion rights. There were many many people who were like "I loving hate Hillary but the SCOTUS seats/Roe mean I'm voting for her" It was an incredibly common thing and it's frustrating that you've seem to have memory-holed that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Please tell me that they were allowed to ask him to clarify what he means by Critical Race Theory. I have no doubt he knows exactly what real CRT is, and also hates that. But also "teaching accurate history in schools" is also probably bad in his eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
I'm going to take the bold stance of not wanting more people to suffer so that I can gamble on a better outcome maybe taking place.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Is there a writeup anywhere of the likely choices? I know somebody has done one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:Thomas is 73 and Alito is 71; Scalia died in his late 70s so 30+ years might be a bit overstating it. The court was always politicized. The saving grace here might be that the judges are so egotistical and insulated that they don't care even if people are putting pressure on them, like RBG
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Bill Kristol made a tweet saying that Harris would be SC nominee so that Biden can appoint Romney and they would be a unity ticket. I was worried for that 5 minutes when he was saying accurate stuff about Trump that somehow he wasn't one of the Wrongest Dudes Ever but he's back in fine form
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
What you're seeing now is the culmination of a several decades project to radicalize the court in a conservative manner. The dems didn't have a parallel movement because for all of that time they were pretty conservative and "keep the status quo" doesn't fire up zealots. So if your general point is "Dems are bad" I don't know that many folks are going to disagree with you here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's the same thing with Obama and the 4 Democrats on the court refusing to use their power to put another liberal on the court. Pretty sure the Dems do understand that it's a political office and always been. It's more like "Bad People doing Really Bad Things" and "Bad People not quite willing to be As Bad While Still Being Bad"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Democrats need a Trump to be able to rally voters to vote against. It's how they got their most conservative and pro-neoliberal canidate ever of Biden elected. I don't know if Biden is meaningfully more neoliberal or conservative than Obama or Hillary. They've been running lovely conservatives for a while without Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Manchin already clarified that he meant right before a presidential election, not some indeterminate time before the midterms, but okay. You say that as if directly lying about what you would do in hypothetical SCOTUS nominations is a thing that senators don't do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And why, exactly, do you think Manchin - who has voted for every single judicial nominee Biden has put forward - wouldn’t vote for a SCOTUS nominee before the midterm when he’s said he would do so? Because SCOTUS is different and Manchin has spent the last year destroying any trust in his word that anyone has ever had, if they had any. He might be lying, he might not, but trusting Manchin? Only to gently caress things up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
Gee I dunno if Manchin will make himself a notable part of this very media heavy and important SCOTUS nomination.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Finally an advocate on the court for unrepresented communities like Lockheed Martin and other racist employers Yeah there's definitely better nominees in the court's history, who had a public defender background like her. Such as and
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Gorsuch is interesting because he's absolutely an ideologue but I think the Republicans mistook what sort of ideologue he is. I feel like they keep finding people who they imagine are empty suit ghouls who believe in nothing like themselves and then are shocked when they find someone who actually believes the BS they've spent decades promoting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I disagree, but it's an opinion worth debating. Please feel free to disagree more substantially then, because basically everybody with any level of knowledge on this disagrees with you. Also based purely on this response I figured I'd find "racism" in your rap sheet and was not disappointed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Are there any threads about the current hearing? Because the racism is wild. I know she’s not left enough, but she seems legit cool and like a solid pick for a moderate. She is a good pick. Pretty disappointing that a black woman merits almost zero discussion on this board despite being literally the only public defender ever nominated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A good pick is a good pick, not much to discuss azflyboy posted:I'd assume at least part of it is because she's clearly qualified, obviously competent, and with a 6-3 court, it's not gonna matter at all for another 30 years, so there's not a lot to discuss. She's basically walking into a situation that would turn Judge Beer into a puddle of tears and dealing with the racism foghorn day in and day out, I think we should at least spend some time on it, but I can't make people do so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Leon's post is pretty good start:quote:Blackburn: How can you make rulings on the rights of women and deciding who is or is not a woman when you are not a biologist and therefor could not define a woman?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
I mean to be clear theres a lot more in that post I just didn't have the time to sit down and redo all of Leon's formatting
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1507352490722967558?s=20&t=wc-Awgu3Dy4g8oywQJepeA I'm happy you're correct, but "Joe Manchin is fundamentally untrustworthy" isn't exactly a bad position for me to hold.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
It would be hilarious if after loving the entire nation in order to remain electable in WV, he's not remotely electable in WV. Well, not exactly hilarious....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
uPen posted:If the Democrats can't get reproductive health through congress after this I'm just done with them. Kick Manchin out of the party and let McConnell run the Senate again. If things get bad enough quickly enough perhaps by the time my kids have kids things will have started improving. Or, and let me put this out there, things won't start improving even then.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
Nobody outside of SCOTUS nerds gives the slightest gently caress about the leak. Most people are talking about this as if the final decision was already handed down. It's an issue of discussion for this thread, not much outside of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring. Be the legal analysis you want to see in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I mean, if you're talking about Christianity, the Didache, which is probably late first century or early second century, contains the following list of sins: Or it says something vaguely like that because it certainly wasnt written in english
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That's why Alito cites Sir Matthew Hale to make the point that there was no right abortion before Roe v. Wade. Roe was a privacy ruling, not an abortion ruling. quote:His legal theory is in itself sound It is not. It's based in nothing and nonsense. quote:The fact that a constitution is difficult to change is a feature, not a bug. That's why constitutional rights are better protect than regular law, because it takes more than a majority to create/remove them. Using the SCOTUS as this one weird trick to get around that cuts both ways. Not really. It's functionally impossible to change and with a nakedly partisan court, it's pretending that that there exists a recourse when there is not actually one there. You're not engaging with reality you're simply repeating talking pionts here. If you want to argue that the legal theory in Alito's position is sound, then do that. Don't just restate your premise. Explain, legally, why it is sound instead of appealing to authority, which is what this is: GaussianCopula posted:whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't really matter because the American people, through their president and Senate, have decided that Alito is one of the brightest legal minds and get's to make those calls. I don't care if the Living Tribunal descended from the cosmos and anointed him a mutant with the superpower to judge things correct. You swinging from his judicial nuts isn't logic, it's actually a fallacy.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
LOL I expected that to be somewhat legalese with the "SEC can't do it's job" buried somewhere out of the way but there it is in plain English for not-a-lawyer me to see.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
The supreme court justices want to kill women. Seems fair.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:And going from "she put her name on a form to send pre-written emails to representatives" to "she actively was part of a shadow cabal trying to coup the US government" is quite a leap. I'm sorry you must be unfamiliar with who Ginni Thomas is, because otherwise this line is either incredibly ignorant or absolutely bizarre. Look her up, you might be surprised!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm going to go with the guy who has an extensive rap sheet for right wing and racist stuff doesn't care about people like Ginni and Clarence Thomas being openly corrupt when it comes to pushing their party's goals because they agree with it. This is the type of honest and credulous engagement moderation wants. How am I supposed to know what this person who frequently makes up poo poo to push right wing narratives wants in their heart of hearts?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Right, on legal grounds this is decided correctly. The dissenting liberal judges probably even know it too, hence talking about gun death stats on suicide, mass shootings etc, when this case was about CCW, not gun ownership. Alito actually rightfully calls it out. "Alito is right" is probably the point when you should consider you have an incorrect view on how a law was decided.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Yeah it may suck but that's how the country works. Guns are part of the constitution, and the constitution cant be changed easily, for good reasons. Guns are in the constitution? Oh word? Where are they mentioned?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Amendment II Can you quote the part that mentions them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. A complicated sentence that doesn't mention guns. Could you find me the section that mentions "guns". Also, that only applies to militias, as the sentence itself says.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:Arms = guns. Specifically "small arms". We could embrace it as including "large arms" if you want to throw in canons and artillery and the like. No, it doesn't say guns. It doesn't say "small arms", it doesn't say "large arms". It says "arms". Where does it say guns? And don't ignore the militia part.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 21:17
|
|