Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 8286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18565
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2018, 12:19:46 PM »
Anthony Kennedy is retiring.  I guess Trump is going to get another nominee. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20176
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2018, 12:27:33 PM »
Unbelievable. It's like the universe has conspired to do anything in its power to shit on this country's future. Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, forget getting Citizens United turned around, say goodbye to fixing gerrymandering, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights, etc.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2018, 12:42:07 PM »
That's too bad. He was one of the few reasonably objective justices left, and he'll be replaced by a stalwart and unabashed republican, because that's what will make the boy king's base happy. Though honestly I doubt it'll make much of a difference anyway. As much as he might have tried to avoid it early on the Roberts' court is already a partisan cesspool.
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: 3056
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2018, 12:55:11 PM »
So what countries that are English speaking, have a decent climate and a decent government and/or quality of life? Canada - a bit cold... maybe New Zealand?

Offline Nekov

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9013
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2018, 01:02:20 PM »
Australia is also a good choice if you don't mind everything trying to kill you
When Ginobili gets hot, I get hot in my pants. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18565
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2018, 01:08:53 PM »
Unbelievable. It's like the universe has conspired to do anything in its power to shit on this country's future. Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, forget getting Citizens United turned around, say goodbye to fixing gerrymandering, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights, etc.

So what countries that are English speaking, have a decent climate and a decent government and/or quality of life? Canada - a bit cold... maybe New Zealand?

The doom and gloom crowd are out strong today  :lol

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6479
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2018, 01:22:16 PM »
The left doesn't like it when things don't go their way. :p They are always correct in all things, of course.

In fairness, substitute "right" for "left" and the statement holds true.

Religious-based judgments aside, I am content with the Roberts' court, for the most part. I am all over the spectrum on various political issues, so am never going to be fully happy with any one politician/entity.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2018, 01:35:11 PM »
So a state can force an abortion provider to read whatever script it deems fit, but having a "crisis pregnancy center" provide similarly scripted information is a first amendment violation? What the fuck? Moreover, since when did the content of the speech become an issue to consider? Or the speaker himself? It used to be about the manner of speech. Now it seems to be about whether or not it supports the agenda of Clarence Fucking Thomas and the republican party.

This court did two significant things today. It revised the standard of how speech can be restricted, and it made that standard subject to the religion of the speaker. It also really hammered home the fact that the court is no longer an impartial arbiter of the law but a gaggle of hacks.

I am actually quite shocked and befuddled that someone of your astuteness and insightfulness into the judiciary could come away with THAT as the takeaway from that decision.  But...whatever.  I just don't get it.  :dunno:
"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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2018, 01:53:01 PM »
The left doesn't like it when things don't go their way. :p They are always correct in all things, of course.

In fairness, substitute "right" for "left" and the statement holds true.

Religious-based judgments aside, I am content with the Roberts' court, for the most part. I am all over the spectrum on various political issues, so am never going to be fully happy with any one politician/entity.
For a lot of us it's not about right or left at all. In the judiciary those two ideologies have no place. The most conservative or liberal justice on the bench, probably Alito* and Kagen right now, should be willing to vote along side the other wing on every single case if that's what the law calls for. They won't, though. That's what made Kennedy unique (by modern standards). To a lesser extent Roberts and Bryer have both been willing to from time to time. Ideally the court should be made up of 9 swing votes. It's been drifting to the poles alongside the rest of the government and general population and that's a sad thing. A sad thing that will become much worse very soon. For the republicans that only want decisions they agree with there is cause to celebrate (and if the tables were turned I'd be saying the same thing). If you're one of the handful of people who actually care about how the system works it's a damn shame.

And for people interested in seeing this exemplified, consider that Kennedy was a conservative justice appointed by Reagan. He's fallen out of favor among the right because he's a jurist and not the steadfast rubberstamp that they want in that seat. Note the celebration that will happen when an objective conservative is replaced by a conservative whore.

*Thomas would be the obvious choice, but I don't even consider him an conservative justice. He's just well-spoken asshole.
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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #114 on: June 27, 2018, 02:55:35 PM »
So a state can force an abortion provider to read whatever script it deems fit, but having a "crisis pregnancy center" provide similarly scripted information is a first amendment violation? What the fuck? Moreover, since when did the content of the speech become an issue to consider? Or the speaker himself? It used to be about the manner of speech. Now it seems to be about whether or not it supports the agenda of Clarence Fucking Thomas and the republican party.

This court did two significant things today. It revised the standard of how speech can be restricted, and it made that standard subject to the religion of the speaker. It also really hammered home the fact that the court is no longer an impartial arbiter of the law but a gaggle of hacks.

I am actually quite shocked and befuddled that someone of your astuteness and insightfulness into the judiciary could come away with THAT as the takeaway from that decision.  But...whatever.  I just don't get it.  :dunno:
Yep, I was mistaken about an important detail. My big problem wasn't with yesterday's decision but rather how it relates to other challenges along the same lines. Many states have enacted laws that force doctors to try and talk you out of getting an abortion and these have been upheld by the SCOTUS. However, those challenges were based on unnecessary hardship, not first amendment grounds. In the next week you'll see Planned Parenthood filing new cases using this argument. In two, maybe three, terms it'll work it's way to the SCOTUS and they'll let those laws stand based on some convoluted bullshit and I'll renew my outrage at that time.

Having said that, there are still problems with the decision yesterday. The majority effectively calls into question any notification requirement a business is required to post. In trying to get around that problem they created a distinction that does nothing, except perhaps make the problem worse. Doctors are required to tell patients plenty of things, except that apparently now they're not, based on, who knows what. In this case one of the notifications was essentially "hey, I'm not a doctor," which seems pretty damned reasonable to me (and quite honestly, I suspect would to you as well were it under different circumstances).

So while my basis for calling them out yesterday was 3 terms premature, I still think it's pretty obvious that they made a purely content related judgement on speech here.

But I do appreciate your shock.  :)
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: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #115 on: June 27, 2018, 03:02:08 PM »
But I do appreciate your shock.  :)

:lol  I'm not entirely sure why, but I found this a lot funnier than I probably should have.

Doctors are required to tell patients plenty of things, except that apparently now they're not, based on, who knows what.

Well, yes.  Granted.  BUT they have never been held to have an affirmative duty to advise patients of ALL potential options, including potentially non-medical ones.  Notwithstanding that this result lines up with my own ideology, which could thus be my own bias clouding my thinking, I fail to see how the result is anything but common-sense and consistent with what society should and does actually expect from doctors and medical staff. 

Clarence Fucking Thomas and the republican party.

And for the record, entirely apart from this decision, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment behind this clause. 

"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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #116 on: June 27, 2018, 03:28:13 PM »
Well, yes.  Granted.  BUT they have never been held to have an affirmative duty to advise patients of ALL potential options, including potentially non-medical ones.  Notwithstanding that this result lines up with my own ideology, which could thus be my own bias clouding my thinking, I fail to see how the result is anything but common-sense and consistent with what society should and does actually expect from doctors and medical staff. 
In thirty-someodd states that's exactly what they're required to do. How is this any different than an abortion provider in Indiana (if such a person still exists) being required to inform a patient about other, non-medical options and financial assistance available to them? That's not a medical information. In 27 states a doctor is forced to read a script written by the legislature, aboslutely chock full of loaded language, and then send the patient home for 24 hours to allow it to sink in. I like to think that I'm a reasonable person, though others might not agree, and this is not what I expect from doctors and medical staff.

Like I said, I'm having a really, really tough time trying to see how we're not looking at content based restrictions on speech.
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: 3056
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #117 on: June 27, 2018, 04:52:03 PM »
Australia is also a good choice if you don't mind everything trying to kill you

Being from Arizona, I'm quite used to that... scorpions, snakes, black widows, brown recluse, etc. It's just TO THE EXTREME in Australia lol

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2018, 05:19:00 PM »
This is the exact reason I voted for Trump. It was widely believed he’d get to appoint two justices and the thought of Hilary following Obama’s two left leaning judges up with two of her own left leaners was enough for me to cast the vote for Trump.

Had she been elected the court would have been swayed for decades in favor of the dems and ‘left’ ideology. Trumps replacing a conservative with a (presumably) conservative. It’s not as drastic as it’d have been were Hillary able to appoint.

Although, getting his appointee sworn in is going to be a bitch for him given the current political environment.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 924
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2018, 07:23:30 PM »
That only works if you start time after 8 years of W (and vote D in 2020). Genuine question. Will you vote Democrat in 2020 just off this reason?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 10:19:50 PM by portnoy311 »

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2018, 10:37:58 PM »
That only works if you start time after 8 years of W (and vote D in 2020). Genuine question. Will you vote Democrat in 2020 just off this reason?

Maybe if Biden ran. Other than that I see no one they’ve got to offer at the moment that comes close to appealing to me.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2018, 11:10:02 PM »
This is the exact reason I voted for Trump. It was widely believed he’d get to appoint two justices and the thought of Hilary following Obama’s two left leaning judges up with two of her own left leaners was enough for me to cast the vote for Trump.

Had she been elected the court would have been swayed for decades in favor of the dems and ‘left’ ideology. Trumps replacing a conservative with a (presumably) conservative. It’s not as drastic as it’d have been were Hillary able to appoint.

Although, getting his appointee sworn in is going to be a bitch for him given the current political environment.
I don't think your math holds up there. Gorsuch had already made this a pretty conservative court. Like I said, people overlook the fact that aside from abortion and homos Kennedy was a pretty conservative justice. Trump's going to go deep into the far end of the Federalist wish-lish and we'll have a radical court far beyond what we've seen in ages, and beyond what Hillary could have pulled off in the other direction. With the republican senate she would have very likely gone with Garland who was widely expected to be akin to Kennedy as an objective jurist. Kennedy's replacement would probably make this a moderately liberal court, but nowhere near as extreme as what we'll see in a few months. I doubt that'll bother you much, but I generally want the most moderate court possible. If not in individual ideologies, then at least in the balance sheet.

And getting his appointee sworn in won't be a problem at all. McConnell would ram through a single Adidas hightop as a justice if asked to because he's a feckless cunt. 
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 portnoy311

  • Posts: 924
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #122 on: June 27, 2018, 11:57:36 PM »
That only works if you start time after 8 years of W (and vote D in 2020). Genuine question. Will you vote Democrat in 2020 just off this reason?

Maybe if Biden ran. Other than that I see no one they’ve got to offer at the moment that comes close to appealing to me.

So you're changing your metric. Honest question, did you vote for Obama in 2008 after 8 years of Bush?

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #123 on: June 28, 2018, 07:18:59 AM »
This is the exact reason I voted for Trump. It was widely believed he’d get to appoint two justices and the thought of Hilary following Obama’s two left leaning judges up with two of her own left leaners was enough for me to cast the vote for Trump.

Had she been elected the court would have been swayed for decades in favor of the dems and ‘left’ ideology. Trumps replacing a conservative with a (presumably) conservative. It’s not as drastic as it’d have been were Hillary able to appoint.

Although, getting his appointee sworn in is going to be a bitch for him given the current political environment.
I don't think your math holds up there. Gorsuch had already made this a pretty conservative court. Like I said, people overlook the fact that aside from abortion and homos Kennedy was a pretty conservative justice. Trump's going to go deep into the far end of the Federalist wish-lish and we'll have a radical court far beyond what we've seen in ages, and beyond what Hillary could have pulled off in the other direction. With the republican senate she would have very likely gone with Garland who was widely expected to be akin to Kennedy as an objective jurist. Kennedy's replacement would probably make this a moderately liberal court, but nowhere near as extreme as what we'll see in a few months. I doubt that'll bother you much, but I generally want the most moderate court possible. If not in individual ideologies, then at least in the balance sheet.

And getting his appointee sworn in won't be a problem at all. McConnell would ram through a single Adidas hightop as a justice if asked to because he's a feckless cunt.

I’d prefer a court that just interpreted the law without bias. But as you pointed out earlier....that ship has sailed.

I don’t think Hilary would have gone as moderate as you think but we’ll never know.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #124 on: June 28, 2018, 07:23:05 AM »
That only works if you start time after 8 years of W (and vote D in 2020). Genuine question. Will you vote Democrat in 2020 just off this reason?

Maybe if Biden ran. Other than that I see no one they’ve got to offer at the moment that comes close to appealing to me.

So you're changing your metric. Honest question, did you vote for Obama in 2008 after 8 years of Bush?

I did not vote for Obama either time. His vision and values and where he wanted to take America were/are drastically different than mine.

Hillary would have had (3) appointees because the only thing keeping Ginsburg from reitiring is the fact that Trump is President. Those three plus Karen and Soytomeyer would have tipped the scales 5-4 for the next 25 years.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #125 on: June 28, 2018, 08:13:59 AM »
A. There's no reason to think that RBG would be gone. If she were that concerned about it she would have resigned before either of the last two elections, as many have encouraged her to do.
B. Because of the current senate situation she would have had no choice to stick with Merick Garland with her first appointment.

I never said that she would be moderate. I said the the various factors in play would have forced a far more moderate court than what we're fixing to see. Hell, you yourself suggested a 5-4 court, which is necessarily moderate (there can be no 4.5-4.5), with the ostensibly reasonable Garland as the 5th. What we'll see here is a pretty radical court numbering 3-6 with Roberts the closest thing the right has to a rational actor.
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 Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13583
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #126 on: June 29, 2018, 08:41:56 AM »
For the record, thrilled beyond belief that Trump - read:  republican Congress - gets to confirm the next Supreme Court justice, and not the Democrats.  I didn't vote for Trump, but it was the one issue that could have gotten me to do so.   While I have no real beef with Garland, and was actually impressed that the lame duck President with an eye to his legacy went so moderate (though my skeptic side can and will argue that his "lame duck" and "legacy-minded" status is EXACTLY why he went so moderate) I have a real problem - for the same reasons el Barto has put forth in the last page or so - with activist judges.   I abhor activist judges.    So I can stomach an affront to the First Amendment that errs on the side of over-protection a lot easier than I can a court that makes everything a right, and then forces all of us to incorporate those "rights" into our day-to-day.   The thing about a right is that I can't give it up (that's what inalienable means) but I don't have to assert my right, and I can't force anyone else to affirmatively assert their rights, which is what activist judges do.   

For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #127 on: June 29, 2018, 09:10:05 AM »
For the record, thrilled beyond belief that Trump - read:  republican Congress - gets to confirm the next Supreme Court justice, and not the Democrats.  I didn't vote for Trump, but it was the one issue that could have gotten me to do so.   While I have no real beef with Garland, and was actually impressed that the lame duck President with an eye to his legacy went so moderate (though my skeptic side can and will argue that his "lame duck" and "legacy-minded" status is EXACTLY why he went so moderate) I have a real problem - for the same reasons el Barto has put forth in the last page or so - with activist judges.   I abhor activist judges.    So I can stomach an affront to the First Amendment that errs on the side of over-protection a lot easier than I can a court that makes everything a right, and then forces all of us to incorporate those "rights" into our day-to-day.   The thing about a right is that I can't give it up (that's what inalienable means) but I don't have to assert my right, and I can't force anyone else to affirmatively assert their rights, which is what activist judges do.   

For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.
I'm guessing you define judicial activism in a "liberal only" sort of way, and I don't really feel like going their right now. As for Roe, it's a question of whether or not they get the right case. If some loon in Kansas can create the perfect test case it's toast. Stare decisis is meaningless to the court, and they'll have no problem jenga-ing an argument to drop the axe on it. Personally, when it comes to setting fire to landmark cases I'm betting Mapp is the first to go. That'll bug me. Burning Row just makes us look like the sharians many on the right want us to become, but Mapp really matters.

You and I have discussed in the past whether or not something is legal if the only laws preventing it aren't enforceable. This is something that has come up a lot with the right bloc. They will essentially say "yeah, the law will very likely cause terrible things to happen, but that's not our problem." I think it is. Especially when they think that the check to those problems will come from the people who want the terrible things in the first place. This will be the decision on political gerrymandering, by the way. "The people who gerrymander their states have to answer to the voters." Insofar as Mapp goes, similar reasoning will do it in. "Mapp is unnecessary because the police are already prohibited from violating search and seizure rules, and the citizens already have a recourse should it occur." Irrelevant, and only true at the philosophical level. Besides which, pretty much the entire concept of procedural due process seems antithetical to many of those guys.
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 Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4586
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #128 on: June 29, 2018, 09:14:29 AM »
For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.

My fear is not because he is a republican president (pretty much in name only, isn't he?). It's because he's incompetent and I truly, honestly do not believe he has what it takes to pick someone who is going to be best serve the Court and the country for however long they stay on the bench. He is not smart or wise enough to pick someone truly gifted and worthy to sit on the bench, in my opinion. I believe he will pick someone based on maybe one or two issues that he thinks "will be great for America in the long run, believe me, trust me, I pick the best people" and that's it, he won't go any deeper because he just isn't interested in nuance and details on anything.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #129 on: June 29, 2018, 09:30:09 AM »
Maybe he'll nominate Matthew Peterson again.  :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

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13583
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #130 on: June 29, 2018, 02:01:44 PM »
For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.

My fear is not because he is a republican president (pretty much in name only, isn't he?). It's because he's incompetent and I truly, honestly do not believe he has what it takes to pick someone who is going to be best serve the Court and the country for however long they stay on the bench. He is not smart or wise enough to pick someone truly gifted and worthy to sit on the bench, in my opinion. I believe he will pick someone based on maybe one or two issues that he thinks "will be great for America in the long run, believe me, trust me, I pick the best people" and that's it, he won't go any deeper because he just isn't interested in nuance and details on anything.

But the pick is only one step in the equation.   He has to get them confirmed, and if he goes too rogue, he won't.  He gets that, or at least his ego does (subconsciously). 


Online Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4586
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #131 on: June 29, 2018, 02:04:08 PM »
For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.

My fear is not because he is a republican president (pretty much in name only, isn't he?). It's because he's incompetent and I truly, honestly do not believe he has what it takes to pick someone who is going to be best serve the Court and the country for however long they stay on the bench. He is not smart or wise enough to pick someone truly gifted and worthy to sit on the bench, in my opinion. I believe he will pick someone based on maybe one or two issues that he thinks "will be great for America in the long run, believe me, trust me, I pick the best people" and that's it, he won't go any deeper because he just isn't interested in nuance and details on anything.

But the pick is only one step in the equation.   He has to get them confirmed, and if he goes too rogue, he won't.  He gets that, or at least his ego does (subconsciously).

True, but (and I chalk this up to ignorance on my part) who will be confirming them? That's also key, I believe. Yeah, he can't go too rogue, but he can go juuuust far enough with the right people confirming them. Not like I expect him to pick some baby eating alien, contrary to what you might think ;)
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13583
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #132 on: June 29, 2018, 02:08:35 PM »
For the record, thrilled beyond belief that Trump - read:  republican Congress - gets to confirm the next Supreme Court justice, and not the Democrats.  I didn't vote for Trump, but it was the one issue that could have gotten me to do so.   While I have no real beef with Garland, and was actually impressed that the lame duck President with an eye to his legacy went so moderate (though my skeptic side can and will argue that his "lame duck" and "legacy-minded" status is EXACTLY why he went so moderate) I have a real problem - for the same reasons el Barto has put forth in the last page or so - with activist judges.   I abhor activist judges.    So I can stomach an affront to the First Amendment that errs on the side of over-protection a lot easier than I can a court that makes everything a right, and then forces all of us to incorporate those "rights" into our day-to-day.   The thing about a right is that I can't give it up (that's what inalienable means) but I don't have to assert my right, and I can't force anyone else to affirmatively assert their rights, which is what activist judges do.   

For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.
I'm guessing you define judicial activism in a "liberal only" sort of way, and I don't really feel like going their right now. As for Roe, it's a question of whether or not they get the right case. If some loon in Kansas can create the perfect test case it's toast. Stare decisis is meaningless to the court, and they'll have no problem jenga-ing an argument to drop the axe on it. Personally, when it comes to setting fire to landmark cases I'm betting Mapp is the first to go. That'll bug me. Burning Row just makes us look like the sharians many on the right want us to become, but Mapp really matters.

You and I have discussed in the past whether or not something is legal if the only laws preventing it aren't enforceable. This is something that has come up a lot with the right bloc. They will essentially say "yeah, the law will very likely cause terrible things to happen, but that's not our problem." I think it is. Especially when they think that the check to those problems will come from the people who want the terrible things in the first place. This will be the decision on political gerrymandering, by the way. "The people who gerrymander their states have to answer to the voters." Insofar as Mapp goes, similar reasoning will do it in. "Mapp is unnecessary because the police are already prohibited from violating search and seizure rules, and the citizens already have a recourse should it occur." Irrelevant, and only true at the philosophical level. Besides which, pretty much the entire concept of procedural due process seems antithetical to many of those guys.

I respect your comment, but I didn't intentionally mean it to be in a "liberal sort of way", though those are often the best examples.   I'm not thrilled with Rowe after the "abortion is a fundamental right".  The rest of that - the trimesters, and what not - should have been handled legislatively, which (rightfully, in my view) led to "Planned Parenthood v Casey".   

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13583
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #133 on: June 29, 2018, 02:09:19 PM »
For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.

My fear is not because he is a republican president (pretty much in name only, isn't he?). It's because he's incompetent and I truly, honestly do not believe he has what it takes to pick someone who is going to be best serve the Court and the country for however long they stay on the bench. He is not smart or wise enough to pick someone truly gifted and worthy to sit on the bench, in my opinion. I believe he will pick someone based on maybe one or two issues that he thinks "will be great for America in the long run, believe me, trust me, I pick the best people" and that's it, he won't go any deeper because he just isn't interested in nuance and details on anything.

But the pick is only one step in the equation.   He has to get them confirmed, and if he goes too rogue, he won't.  He gets that, or at least his ego does (subconsciously).

True, but (and I chalk this up to ignorance on my part) who will be confirming them? That's also key, I believe. Yeah, he can't go too rogue, but he can go juuuust far enough with the right people confirming them. Not like I expect him to pick some baby eating alien, contrary to what you might think ;)

The Senate. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #134 on: June 29, 2018, 02:11:57 PM »
For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.

My fear is not because he is a republican president (pretty much in name only, isn't he?). It's because he's incompetent and I truly, honestly do not believe he has what it takes to pick someone who is going to be best serve the Court and the country for however long they stay on the bench. He is not smart or wise enough to pick someone truly gifted and worthy to sit on the bench, in my opinion. I believe he will pick someone based on maybe one or two issues that he thinks "will be great for America in the long run, believe me, trust me, I pick the best people" and that's it, he won't go any deeper because he just isn't interested in nuance and details on anything.

But the pick is only one step in the equation.   He has to get them confirmed, and if he goes too rogue, he won't.  He gets that, or at least his ego does (subconsciously).

True, but (and I chalk this up to ignorance on my part) who will be confirming them? That's also key, I believe. Yeah, he can't go too rogue, but he can go juuuust far enough with the right people confirming them. Not like I expect him to pick some baby eating alien, contrary to what you might think ;)
LOL. In this term you can go as rogue as you want. "David Duke? not a problem." "Landscaper with a Nazi flag at his house and a pedobear tattoo on his forehead? Does he know where Washington DC is?
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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #135 on: June 29, 2018, 02:13:12 PM »
For the record, thrilled beyond belief that Trump - read:  republican Congress - gets to confirm the next Supreme Court justice, and not the Democrats.  I didn't vote for Trump, but it was the one issue that could have gotten me to do so.   While I have no real beef with Garland, and was actually impressed that the lame duck President with an eye to his legacy went so moderate (though my skeptic side can and will argue that his "lame duck" and "legacy-minded" status is EXACTLY why he went so moderate) I have a real problem - for the same reasons el Barto has put forth in the last page or so - with activist judges.   I abhor activist judges.    So I can stomach an affront to the First Amendment that errs on the side of over-protection a lot easier than I can a court that makes everything a right, and then forces all of us to incorporate those "rights" into our day-to-day.   The thing about a right is that I can't give it up (that's what inalienable means) but I don't have to assert my right, and I can't force anyone else to affirmatively assert their rights, which is what activist judges do.   

For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.
I'm guessing you define judicial activism in a "liberal only" sort of way, and I don't really feel like going their right now. As for Roe, it's a question of whether or not they get the right case. If some loon in Kansas can create the perfect test case it's toast. Stare decisis is meaningless to the court, and they'll have no problem jenga-ing an argument to drop the axe on it. Personally, when it comes to setting fire to landmark cases I'm betting Mapp is the first to go. That'll bug me. Burning Row just makes us look like the sharians many on the right want us to become, but Mapp really matters.

You and I have discussed in the past whether or not something is legal if the only laws preventing it aren't enforceable. This is something that has come up a lot with the right bloc. They will essentially say "yeah, the law will very likely cause terrible things to happen, but that's not our problem." I think it is. Especially when they think that the check to those problems will come from the people who want the terrible things in the first place. This will be the decision on political gerrymandering, by the way. "The people who gerrymander their states have to answer to the voters." Insofar as Mapp goes, similar reasoning will do it in. "Mapp is unnecessary because the police are already prohibited from violating search and seizure rules, and the citizens already have a recourse should it occur." Irrelevant, and only true at the philosophical level. Besides which, pretty much the entire concept of procedural due process seems antithetical to many of those guys.

I respect your comment, but I didn't intentionally mean it to be in a "liberal sort of way", though those are often the best examples.   I'm not thrilled with Rowe after the "abortion is a fundamental right".  The rest of that - the trimesters, and what not - should have been handled legislatively, which (rightfully, in my view) led to "Planned Parenthood v Casey".
And when Kansas enacts a law that says you can't have an abortion more than 3 days after conception, which justices do you think will actually care that it is a fundamental right?
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 Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4586
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #136 on: June 29, 2018, 02:14:13 PM »
The Senate.

Then this will be quite interesting given the barely-a-majority the republicans hold. Hm.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #137 on: June 29, 2018, 02:18:56 PM »
The Senate.

Then this will be quite interesting given the barely-a-majority the republicans hold. Hm.
Barely a majority is more than enough. There's nothing they democrats can do other than call McConnell a hypocritical sack of shit and use it as a motivational tool for the midterms.
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: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #138 on: June 29, 2018, 02:29:52 PM »
For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.

My fear is not because he is a republican president (pretty much in name only, isn't he?). It's because he's incompetent and I truly, honestly do not believe he has what it takes to pick someone who is going to be best serve the Court and the country for however long they stay on the bench. He is not smart or wise enough to pick someone truly gifted and worthy to sit on the bench, in my opinion. I believe he will pick someone based on maybe one or two issues that he thinks "will be great for America in the long run, believe me, trust me, I pick the best people" and that's it, he won't go any deeper because he just isn't interested in nuance and details on anything.

But the pick is only one step in the equation.   He has to get them confirmed, and if he goes too rogue, he won't.  He gets that, or at least his ego does (subconsciously).

True, but (and I chalk this up to ignorance on my part) who will be confirming them? That's also key, I believe. Yeah, he can't go too rogue, but he can go juuuust far enough with the right people confirming them. Not like I expect him to pick some baby eating alien, contrary to what you might think ;)

The Senate. 

"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 Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13583
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #139 on: June 29, 2018, 02:58:10 PM »
For the record, thrilled beyond belief that Trump - read:  republican Congress - gets to confirm the next Supreme Court justice, and not the Democrats.  I didn't vote for Trump, but it was the one issue that could have gotten me to do so.   While I have no real beef with Garland, and was actually impressed that the lame duck President with an eye to his legacy went so moderate (though my skeptic side can and will argue that his "lame duck" and "legacy-minded" status is EXACTLY why he went so moderate) I have a real problem - for the same reasons el Barto has put forth in the last page or so - with activist judges.   I abhor activist judges.    So I can stomach an affront to the First Amendment that errs on the side of over-protection a lot easier than I can a court that makes everything a right, and then forces all of us to incorporate those "rights" into our day-to-day.   The thing about a right is that I can't give it up (that's what inalienable means) but I don't have to assert my right, and I can't force anyone else to affirmatively assert their rights, which is what activist judges do.   

For the record, and I'm taking bets on this, I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade - insofar as it establishes abortion as a fundamental right - is safe.   I am amused, though, in the same way you laugh at horror movies, at the commentary that equates a Republican President nominating a Supreme Court justice with the End of Days.
I'm guessing you define judicial activism in a "liberal only" sort of way, and I don't really feel like going their right now. As for Roe, it's a question of whether or not they get the right case. If some loon in Kansas can create the perfect test case it's toast. Stare decisis is meaningless to the court, and they'll have no problem jenga-ing an argument to drop the axe on it. Personally, when it comes to setting fire to landmark cases I'm betting Mapp is the first to go. That'll bug me. Burning Row just makes us look like the sharians many on the right want us to become, but Mapp really matters.

You and I have discussed in the past whether or not something is legal if the only laws preventing it aren't enforceable. This is something that has come up a lot with the right bloc. They will essentially say "yeah, the law will very likely cause terrible things to happen, but that's not our problem." I think it is. Especially when they think that the check to those problems will come from the people who want the terrible things in the first place. This will be the decision on political gerrymandering, by the way. "The people who gerrymander their states have to answer to the voters." Insofar as Mapp goes, similar reasoning will do it in. "Mapp is unnecessary because the police are already prohibited from violating search and seizure rules, and the citizens already have a recourse should it occur." Irrelevant, and only true at the philosophical level. Besides which, pretty much the entire concept of procedural due process seems antithetical to many of those guys.

I respect your comment, but I didn't intentionally mean it to be in a "liberal sort of way", though those are often the best examples.   I'm not thrilled with Rowe after the "abortion is a fundamental right".  The rest of that - the trimesters, and what not - should have been handled legislatively, which (rightfully, in my view) led to "Planned Parenthood v Casey".
And when Kansas enacts a law that says you can't have an abortion more than 3 days after conception, which justices do you think will actually care that it is a fundamental right?

Well, maybe for different reasons, but I'd have a problem with that.   I know this is what you mean when you ask "is it illegal..." but ultimately it will flush itself out.   We've had shills before as justices, we've had ideological saints before...  I'm not saying your analysis is wrong (it's not, for the most part, especially Thomas) or that your fears are unfounded.    A 6-3 court that is nothing but ideologues would be potentially problematic, but I don't see radical overhaul by the Courts.  Roberts bent over backward to make sure that the Court didn't become the ump that threw the game when it came to the ACA, and I think that trend with largely continue.  You might see some trends, like the reliance on free speech as a weapon to make statements, but I don't think it will echo, and I don't think it will be lasting.