Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 3733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25494
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #70 on: February 03, 2017, 10:26:03 AM »
So? Are you really trying to constructively debate with people on the extreme side of whatever?

I mean, I dunno, maybe you're a big fan of bashing your own head against a brick wall over and over, but it doesn't sound terribly fun to me.

I do, and here's why:  I don't at all expect anyone to change their views because of me (or anyone else).  I think that is futile, and even when effective, is a short term strategy (a bunch of people who all think the same thing don't bring any new ideas to the table, and are kind of like an example of "intellectual incest").    What I do strive for, though, is an accounting of all the facts on the table.   You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how radical or extreme, but you don't get to pick and choose your facts, or make your own.  So some of this is to get people to account for things they either didn't know about, didn't care about, or purposefully tried to ignore because it didn't fit their personal world view.

Oh I get that, which is why I'm talking to a guy like you the way I am. I think, however, that some people just aren't ever going to get there. I live in LA and most of my friends literally cried when Bernie dropped out. Do you really think I'd have a snowball's chance of convincing them to being open minded about what Trump is doing? It's a nice idealistic thought, but it's futile. It's just not worth it. What happens is, you lose that middle ground. I mean, you personally have lost a lot of middle ground on here because you are arguing so hard against "TRUMP IS A NAZI AND WILL END THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT" and you've become focused on pointing out why almost anything Trump does is okay. Is almost anything Trump has done been okay? Hell no, but I think you're so used to engaging the extreme mindset that you're unwittingly adopting the opposite, though I know you won't see it that way. There are people on this board (some still here, some no longer allowed to post here) who had such stiff views regarding Trump, or Bernie, or Hillary or Frederick Douglas, that any attempt to bring them to the middle was seen as a challenge and just pushed them further to their fringe.

Like I said, it's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen. And even though you really do (despite reminding us often that you're not) come off as a strong Trump supporter who will try to brush away any negativity associated with just about anything he does (not everything, but a ton of it). I know you don't actually feel that way, and that you likely have gotten to this point unknowingly out of frustration with "TRUMP IS A NAZI AND EVERY WORD HE SAYS IS PART OF A MEANS TO SUMMON CTHULU" that you've accidentally gone to the other side. I'm trying to pull you back to the middle.

Join me in the middle. We have really good lemonade.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #71 on: February 03, 2017, 10:30:34 AM »
Can I join you too?  I like really good lemonade.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2968
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #72 on: February 03, 2017, 11:58:50 AM »
Is that Ice-T?
... Lemonade, read the sign!

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #73 on: February 03, 2017, 12:08:09 PM »
:lol
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40285
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #74 on: February 03, 2017, 12:43:48 PM »
So? Are you really trying to constructively debate with people on the extreme side of whatever?

I mean, I dunno, maybe you're a big fan of bashing your own head against a brick wall over and over, but it doesn't sound terribly fun to me.

I do, and here's why:  I don't at all expect anyone to change their views because of me (or anyone else).  I think that is futile, and even when effective, is a short term strategy (a bunch of people who all think the same thing don't bring any new ideas to the table, and are kind of like an example of "intellectual incest").    What I do strive for, though, is an accounting of all the facts on the table.   You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how radical or extreme, but you don't get to pick and choose your facts, or make your own.  So some of this is to get people to account for things they either didn't know about, didn't care about, or purposefully tried to ignore because it didn't fit their personal world view.
Uh, yeah, but this one is most likely no big deal.  Hence my smiley, which I wouldn't use for anything serious.  Unless I wanted to.

My (joking) point was that the Fascist selected a Fascist as judge har-de-har. 
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #75 on: February 03, 2017, 01:02:13 PM »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40285
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #76 on: February 03, 2017, 01:44:48 PM »
Nanu nanu
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #77 on: February 03, 2017, 02:43:06 PM »
So? Are you really trying to constructively debate with people on the extreme side of whatever?

I mean, I dunno, maybe you're a big fan of bashing your own head against a brick wall over and over, but it doesn't sound terribly fun to me.

I do, and here's why:  I don't at all expect anyone to change their views because of me (or anyone else).  I think that is futile, and even when effective, is a short term strategy (a bunch of people who all think the same thing don't bring any new ideas to the table, and are kind of like an example of "intellectual incest").    What I do strive for, though, is an accounting of all the facts on the table.   You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how radical or extreme, but you don't get to pick and choose your facts, or make your own.  So some of this is to get people to account for things they either didn't know about, didn't care about, or purposefully tried to ignore because it didn't fit their personal world view.

Oh I get that, which is why I'm talking to a guy like you the way I am. I think, however, that some people just aren't ever going to get there. I live in LA and most of my friends literally cried when Bernie dropped out. Do you really think I'd have a snowball's chance of convincing them to being open minded about what Trump is doing? It's a nice idealistic thought, but it's futile. It's just not worth it. What happens is, you lose that middle ground. I mean, you personally have lost a lot of middle ground on here because you are arguing so hard against "TRUMP IS A NAZI AND WILL END THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT" and you've become focused on pointing out why almost anything Trump does is okay. Is almost anything Trump has done been okay? Hell no, but I think you're so used to engaging the extreme mindset that you're unwittingly adopting the opposite, though I know you won't see it that way. There are people on this board (some still here, some no longer allowed to post here) who had such stiff views regarding Trump, or Bernie, or Hillary or Frederick Douglas, that any attempt to bring them to the middle was seen as a challenge and just pushed them further to their fringe.

Like I said, it's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen. And even though you really do (despite reminding us often that you're not) come off as a strong Trump supporter who will try to brush away any negativity associated with just about anything he does (not everything, but a ton of it). I know you don't actually feel that way, and that you likely have gotten to this point unknowingly out of frustration with "TRUMP IS A NAZI AND EVERY WORD HE SAYS IS PART OF A MEANS TO SUMMON CTHULU" that you've accidentally gone to the other side. I'm trying to pull you back to the middle.

Join me in the middle. We have really good lemonade.

Then I've failed in my objective, because I'm not at all trying to say what he's doing is "okay".  I think I've been pretty clear in my dissent with Trump, without resorting to the sort of extreme that seems to be de rigueur today.   I think "not nearly as bad as Chicken Little says" doesn't equate with "ok".   Tariffs do not work.  I think Betty DeVos should be sent packing.  But I don't think it's a futile effort to demand that there be SOME logic and reason to the arguments. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #78 on: February 03, 2017, 02:43:27 PM »
Is that Ice-T?
... Lemonade, read the sign!

One of my favorite commercials ever.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #79 on: February 03, 2017, 03:34:07 PM »
So, apparently, when Gorsuch was in school, he was president of a club called Fascism Forever.

:justjen:
Saw that last night. You couldn't write this stuff. :lol

- He was 14.
- It was a sarcastic (note the maturity of your average 14 year old) response to several onerous policies of the school administration, and likely referred more to the SCHOOL as to his political beliefs.
- There have been no other reference to fascism, or fascist policies, in any of his writings.

I'm just throwing it out there, but if one has no problem with either Hillary or Bernie's dalliances in communism in college, if one thinks that Bill's "not inhaling" is past history, and if one has no problem with Barack's marijuana use, cocaine use, and politics when HE was in college, then there's nothing to see here. 
Yeah, I don't care about any of those things, including Gorsuch's fascism club. You just could not come up with something more fitting for this exact political climate than that. It's highly amusing.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #80 on: March 21, 2017, 12:22:43 PM »
At this point I honestly have no idea WTF these confirmation hearings are supposed to accomplish. He's not going to tell you anything useful. Quit jerking off already.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2968
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #81 on: March 21, 2017, 01:04:10 PM »
They need to at least pretend they are doing something, right?

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5219
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #82 on: March 21, 2017, 02:29:12 PM »
Thoughts on this ruling?

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/06/518877248/supreme-court-allows-prying-into-jury-deliberations-if-racism-is-perceived

Quote
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that when there is clear evidence of racial bias during jury deliberations, they can be unsealed by a court to investigate whether the defendant's rights were violated.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #83 on: March 21, 2017, 03:07:42 PM »
Quote
Writing for the three, Alito said that, despite the "admirable intention of the majority," its decision "is a startling development" that pries open the door of the jury room for the first time in centuries. The ruling, he predicted, will "prompt losing parties and their friends, supporters, and attorneys to contact and seek to question jurors, and this pestering may erode citizens' willingness to serve on juries."
I'm not sure I like (or agree) with the decision, but this is wrong. The nature of the polling and any remedy that's required to keep the jurors from being harassed is a legislative matter. It's not the court's place to protect jurors from what might happen.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #85 on: May 02, 2017, 12:58:32 PM »
I guess I don't see how this is really different. Instead of having a pool of [now] 28 clerks review them you have your own 4. You're still outsourcing the review. Moreover, instead of having them reviewed by clerks from all of the justices, each with their own ideologies, you're only getting them from the four that presumably share your own. Sounds a bit like an echo chamber.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #86 on: May 02, 2017, 01:02:23 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-labor-pool-clerks.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1

Cool.

I've read this twice now and I'm failing to understand the benefit of doing it this way, or whether it's good or bad. I was completely unaware these people even existed.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #87 on: May 03, 2017, 08:56:43 AM »
I guess I don't see how this is really different. Instead of having a pool of [now] 28 clerks review them you have your own 4. You're still outsourcing the review. Moreover, instead of having them reviewed by clerks from all of the justices, each with their own ideologies, you're only getting them from the four that presumably share your own. Sounds a bit like an echo chamber.

Respectfully, I don't think that is quite accurate.   It's not "instead".  IN ADDITION to the 28, you have one of your four (and since there is another Justice, Alito, that doesn't participate, you have THREE clerks reviewing what would be only one.   That's good.   Also, in my experience, "academic credentials" are more important than ideology in selecting clerks.   Most people believe that "grades in college" don't mean anything when you get in the real world, but I can tell you first hand, in law, GRADES MATTER (that and a hand-full of other things, like Law Review). 

Personally, I think this is a good thing, and should be explored by other Justices (even Ginsberg sort of walks back from the idea of the pool at it's logical conclusion). 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #88 on: May 03, 2017, 09:02:50 AM »
But do we know that only one member of the pool reviews every case? If it is in addition to that makes perfect sense, though.

And at this level the academic credentials are going to be impeccable. None of the justices are going to select Otter for a clerk. What they will do is pick somebody who shares their ideology from the short list of stellar candidates.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #89 on: May 03, 2017, 09:05:32 AM »
Yeah, it is definitely a case of "in addition to" rather than "instead of."  And I don't think the pool is a bad thing per se.  But it can potentially have the problems that story alluded to.  Other than the additional time it will take to review the cases, having another set of eyes on them at the intake stage cannot really be a bad thing.

And I don't agree with your statement about picking consistent with ideology.  It can happen, but generally doesn't.  Besides, in law school, pretty much everyone starts as a raving liberal.  It's just that some eventually grow out of it.   :)
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #90 on: May 03, 2017, 09:21:25 AM »
And I don't agree with your statement about picking consistent with ideology.  It can happen, but generally doesn't.  Besides, in law school, pretty much everyone starts as a raving liberal.  It's just that some eventually grow out of it.   :)
Yeah, my stepfather referred to it as going over to the dark side. He actually quit practicing when his options were to defend morons and assholes, fight the good fight and be poor, or join the empire.  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #91 on: May 03, 2017, 09:28:00 AM »
And I don't agree with your statement about picking consistent with ideology.  It can happen, but generally doesn't.  Besides, in law school, pretty much everyone starts as a raving liberal.  It's just that some eventually grow out of it.   :)
Yeah, my stepfather referred to it as going over to the dark side. He actually quit practicing when his options were to defend morons and assholes, fight the good fight and be poor, or join the empire.  :lol

It's funny; I had been working for about five years before I went to law school.  About half my class was comprised of kids - yes - that were fresh out of college.   I never wanted to smack so many people on the daily as I did in that first year.   Really, seriously.  They were intensely smart - almost too smart, in the sense that they often saw possible answers well before their brain was able to calculate the consequences (which is why you get cases like the McDonald's hot coffee case, but also why you get cases like the Big Tobacco cases).  But I think my record was nine straight classes where I raised my hand at some poit to say "Have you ever worked a day in your life??  Do you know what that would mean to your business?"

I think that works well in the environment of "is that free speech or not?".   I don't believe the courts should be activist courts, and while they should understand the consequences of their rulings, they shouldn't be ruling - again, at that level - based on trying to get to a specific answer.  The law is what the law is.  They are deciding rules of LAW, not cases of fact (which is the purview of the lower courts). 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2017, 10:33:05 AM »
The Trinity Lutheran case really pisses me off. It's no surprise, and honestly it was the only judgement they could find, but the consequence is just more bullshit. In a nutshell, Missouri offered a grant to reimburse the costs to schools for resurfacing their playgrounds with a safer material. Missouri's constitution specifically forbade tax money from going to religious institutions. Trinity Lutheran didn't really care much, but it was the perfect case to take up challenging the constitution, so onward they went, marching as to war. The court decided 7-2 that Missouri's ban was unconstitutional. Again, I can't really argue with the SCOTUS, but the upshot is that I have to pay taxes which go to fund church programs, and the churches remain tax exempt. What kind of bullshit is this? The answer seems plainly simple to me. Pay taxes and reap the benefits, or don't pay taxes and don't ask for handouts. Unfortunately, churches are the one group in this country that get to play by whatever rules benefit them at the time, and we're gradually codifying their rights to pick and choose which laws they should abide by.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5219
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2017, 08:53:48 PM »
I was casually following this case, as my wife is a teacher and I follow issues involving the education system, but am not as well-versed in the decisions as you usually are.

I think there are two issues here. The major one you brought up about tax exempt status is one I am afraid no one wants to touch.

The other issue about public funds going to religious institutions is bothersome, but does not concern me, outside of issue one. There are plenty of places my tax dollars go to that I think are garbage, but that's just how it works.

In other news, I am curious about the wedding cake issue - though I feel a little bad a f(#*ing wedding cake has ot go to the highest court in the country.

And good to hear the judges affirmed the P's right to determine who gets to enter the country. Hopefully WA state's AG (among others) can stay in his lane and work on things in our state, as he was elected to.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2017, 09:03:20 PM »
And good to hear the judges affirmed the P's right to determine who gets to enter the country. Hopefully WA state's AG (among others) can stay in his lane and work on things in our state, as he was elected to.
Another way of looking at the decision is the court reminding the P that he can't arbitrarily decide who gets to enter the country. It was actually a pretty smooth compromise opinion that denies either side the right to claim victory, though both will obviously do so anyway. Personally, I disapprove with the SCOTUS crafting a compromise at all, as per their own rationale (and Thomas's concurrence), but if they're going to meddle I suppose it's good that they do so craftily.

And the AG of your state was doing what he was elected to do. You just disagree with his methods.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5219
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2017, 09:21:16 PM »
I say this sincerely... I wish I had your interest and understanding of SCOTUS, its people, its decisions, and its writings. I cannot commit the time and energy to reading all their decisions that interest me, to say nothing of understanding them.

On to Sideshow Bob (as he is affectionally known here), from the wiki: The state attorney general in each of the 50 U.S. states and territories is the chief legal advisor to the state government and the state's chief law enforcement officer. In some states, the attorney general serves as the head of a state department of justice.

There is a lot of "state" in that definition, and not a lot of "federal" as in the branch that handles immigration. I am sure you will argue with me, and win, on some legal grounds. But yes, I hate Sideshow Bob for what he has done since being elected AG.  Yes, the P can't be arbitrary, and no it shouldn't, and this ban isn't going to do anything for American security. I am against an open-door, send all your riff-raff and cheap labor here immigration policy. But am sincerely trying to see it as more complex than that.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2017, 10:17:09 PM »
Well, I'm right there with you on the riffraff part, though I'm pretty keen on cheap migrant labor.  :lol

State and federal governments will always conflict. The complexity of US federalism is based largely on that fact. When you have overlapping governments you'll run into trouble, and this goes all the way down to the community level. We can probably all agree that governance should begin at the lowest level, with oversight increasing to higher levels only as necessary. The white, God-fearing townsfolk of Rock Ridge should be making their own laws since they're the ones most involved and understanding. However, as much as we'd all like it to work that way, we really only want it when we agree with the outcome. The truth is we just want everybody to behave the way we want them to. Your state wants the federal government to reflect its values. Donald Trump's administration wants your state to reflect his. Heads butt.

Best example of this is down here in Texas. When that degenerate Obama tied school funding to bathroom equality our AG lost his mind. He immediately filed a lawsuit on the basis that Washington DC has no business telling us how to run our schools. At the same time the Ft Worth Independent School District wrote into its bylaws that kids could use the can of their gender identity and he lost his shit again. He filed a lawsuit on the basis that the FWISD should comply with state values. The argument that Austin has no business telling us how to run our schools doesn't work in this case. Heads butt.

More recently we have our own immigration battle happening down here. The so-called sanctuary cities bill essentially makes all city, county, and state peace officers adjuncts of ICE. Our state government is forcing our local governments to do the work of the federal government. Heads butt.

All of our politicians play this game constantly. Sideshow Bob is no different than any of the rest. He's just not your kind of guy. Ken Paxton is certainly not mine. Personally, I'd love to trade attorney's general with you. I think we'd both be happier. In reality, though, they're both just buttheads butting heads.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2017, 11:54:27 AM »
I'm really intrigued by what happens if the SCOTUS determines that religion provides a basis to disregard the law. In this case, if the court sides with the baker, does the entire anti-discrimination law become null and void? Does it stay on the books and now juries have to determine the religious nature of each defendant? Do pot laws go out the window if the defendant is a Rastafarian? Who gets to determine if a religion is valid? How many people would I have to recruit into Bartoism to have my beliefs respected over the law of the land?

This is really a strange one for me because in a vacuum I'm really on the baker's side. Yet I'm a believer that the law must apply to everybody and some mythical creator has no say in matters of state. I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around how this could possibly play out that isn't a shitstorm, short of siding against the baker.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #98 on: December 05, 2017, 12:25:28 PM »
I am ADAMENTLY in favor of the baker philosophically, but I agree; there's no real practical application of that determination that doesn't undermine the very process itself.   

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #99 on: December 05, 2017, 12:29:11 PM »
I am ADAMENTLY in favor of the baker philosophically, but I agree; there's no real practical application of that determination that doesn't undermine the very process itself.   
You have any faith that Thomas/Alito won't do it anyway?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5219
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #100 on: December 07, 2017, 02:42:48 PM »
Now we are arguing if various services are "speech" ie baking, cooking, hairstyling...

"Yet I'm a believer that the law must apply to everybody" seems so simple, but of course it can't be now can it? 

Barto, thoughts on Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19266
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #101 on: December 07, 2017, 03:11:51 PM »
My thought is that this current court would deem constitutional a law that said all union members will be summarily shot next Tuesday. I don't have much faith in the merits mattering much here.

Insofar as the merits actually do go, I'm not versed at all in this case. My recollection is that it's a conservative lobbying group seeking to force all states to become right to work states. Like I said yesterday, state's rights only matter if you like the rights.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson