Re: tOfficial SCOTUS Ruling Thread..

[Bredo Morstoel]

Misnaming by Heritage as this covers indentured servants as well.

Seems to me that I remember "free states" fighting against the return of slaves and the Congress passing additional laws, which suggests, if true, that this clause is not as cut and dried as it might seem.

Whether it's misnamed or not is kind of inconsequential.  If it covers indentured servants as well, that doesn't mean it doesn't cover slaves (and the rights of slave owners).

Slavery is over. It's illegal. We solved that one. Let it go.

[sεяεηιτλ]

Some red states are about to go full Middle East on civil rights just to own the libs.

Going to be more than just red states.  If Republicans take the Michigan governorship, they will quickly follow suit because MI repubs hate personal rights, they hate America.

Our only hope is that if the distracting commission makes it possible for democrats to actually win the house or senate. Republican state representatives and senators in MI are basically deep red in nature

[Robert J Sakimano]

Some red states are about to go full Middle East on civil rights just to own the libs.

Going to be more than just red states. If Republicans take the Michigan governorship, they will quickly follow suit because MI repubs hate personal rights, they hate america.

thankfully, this isn't going to happen.

we'll hold onto Gretch, Benson and Nessel and I suspect decent folks will turn out and flip the newly redistricted MI House and Senate, as well. At least I think that's a good possibility.

[sεяεηιτλ]

Going to be more than just red states. If Republicans take the Michigan governorship, they will quickly follow suit because MI repubs hate personal rights, they hate america.

thankfully, this isn't going to happen.

we'll hold onto Gretch, Benson and Nessel and I suspect decent folks will turn out and flip the newly redistricted MI House and Senate, as well. At least I think that's a good possibility.

I hope you are right.

I was not a fan of packing the court but the stolen scotus pick is why we are here today. Now the religious extremists on the court are injecting their biases and personal opinion into the court. For America, we have to pack the court. If they did what they said they were going to do and rule fairly, we wouldn't be here. But that is obviously not happening. The court made some early efforts to appear fair but that was in anticipation of ruling against the majority will of the people in the future on this issue. Must figure out a way to pack the court or this won't be America anymore. Republican anti-american efforts have gone too far this time.

[Motown Spartan]

Use this as an opportunity to go full on Stacey Abrams during the midterms.

[Robert J Sakimano]

thankfully, this isn't going to happen.

we'll hold onto Gretch, Benson and Nessel and I suspect decent folks will turn out and flip the newly redistricted MI House and Senate, as well. At least I think that's a good possibility.

I hope you are right.  

I was not a fan of packing the court but the stolen scotus pick is why we are here today.  Now the religious extremists on the court are injecting their biases and personal opinion into the court.  For America, we have to pack the court.  If they did what they said they were going to do and rule fairly, we wouldn't be here.  But that is obviously not happening.  The court made some early efforts to appear fair but that was in anticipation of ruling against the majority will of the people in the future on this issue.  Must figure out a way to pack the court or this won't be America anymore.  Republican anti-american efforts have gone too far this time.

yep - the problem with Democrats is that they're too nice.

"When they go low, we go high" might be advice you give to your kid about the social hierarchy at the elementary school playground, but that doesn't work when you're dealing with a political party whose entire christian existence is wrapped up in misogyny, racism, bigotry and hate while simultaneously acknowledging that they will do anything to inflict as much pain as possible on a group of people that they blindingly despise.

[NigelUno]

Whether it's misnamed or not is kind of inconsequential.  If it covers indentured servants as well, that doesn't mean it doesn't cover slaves (and the rights of slave owners).

Slavery is over. It's illegal. We solved that one. Let it go.

So what you’re saying is…the will of the people eventually prevailed regardless of what some ancient and antiquated document said?

[Trapper Gus]

Misnaming by Heritage as this covers indentured servants as well.

Seems to me that I remember "free states" fighting against the return of slaves and the Congress passing additional laws, which suggests, if true, that this clause is not as cut and dried as it might seem.

Whether it's misnamed or not is kind of inconsequential.  If it covers indentured servants as well, that doesn't mean it doesn't cover slaves (and the rights of slave owners).

It doesn't cover the rights of the owners as much as define the actions of the States.  The "free states" cannot pass a law freeing from the obligation of labor any covered person who happens to be in the State.  Furthermore, the wording makes clear that the person is not property, just that their labor is owed to the "owner" if the owner "claims" it.  The States can and did pass laws which increased the task of claiming into court cases.  All that said, yes it did provide a certain "right" to the owners of the labor of others, regardless of the others legal status.  A far reaching reading might be that if someone signed a contract to work for someone else for some period of time they could be chased across the country if they left before that time was up.

[Trapper Gus]

Going to be more than just red states. If Republicans take the Michigan governorship, they will quickly follow suit because MI repubs hate personal rights, they hate america.

thankfully, this isn't going to happen.

we'll hold onto Gretch, Benson and Nessel and I suspect decent folks will turn out and flip the newly redistricted MI House and Senate, as well. At least I think that's a good possibility.

I am less hopeful, Bob.

The American people are very stupid.

Some are arguing that the new districts still favor the Republicians.

[Robert J Sakimano]

thankfully, this isn't going to happen.

we'll hold onto Gretch, Benson and Nessel and I suspect decent folks will turn out and flip the newly redistricted MI House and Senate, as well. At least I think that's a good possibility.

I am less hopeful, Bob.

The American people are very stupid.

Some are arguing that the new districts still favor the Republicians.

we're a very stupid collection of people, that's for sure.

I know it's naive, but I still think decency will win as long as we stay engaged and show up.

[Trapper Gus]

I am less hopeful, Bob.

The American people are very stupid.

Some are arguing that the new districts still favor the Republicians.

we're a very stupid collection of people, that's for sure.

I know it's naive, but I still think decency will win as long as we stay engaged and show up.

I can see some issues for the AG, what with some of her tweets & behavior at the MSU/UofM game.

The rest is all about GOTV. Will the Trumpsters turn out without Trump on the ballot verses will the 18 to 40 year age groups come out and vote in an off year election? Roe v Wade will not be on the ballot directly and people are really stupid about connecting which party they vote for with results later on.

[NigelUno]

Whether it's misnamed or not is kind of inconsequential.  If it covers indentured servants as well, that doesn't mean it doesn't cover slaves (and the rights of slave owners).

It doesn't cover the rights of the owners as much as define the actions of the States.  The "free states" cannot pass a law freeing from the obligation of labor any covered person who happens to be in the State.  Furthermore, the wording makes clear that the person is not property, just that their labor is owed to the "owner" if the owner "claims" it.  The States can and did pass laws which increased the task of claiming into court cases.  All that said, yes it did provide a certain "right" to the owners of the labor of others, regardless of the others legal status.  A far reaching reading might be that if someone signed a contract to work for someone else for some period of time they could be chased across the country if they left before that time was up.

That was my point.

[sεяεηιτλ]

Frankly, I'm surprised this isn't drawing more ire. This is absurdly outrageous. 2 justices while being probed before confirmation denied they would do anything about Roe. gorsuch apparently wrote a book on the importance of precedence and said he considers the matter settled/established precedent. Kavanaugh noted something similar. If they do this, the scotus will have lost all credibility.

[AvgMSUJoe]

Can they recall them? Murkowski and Collins apparently both voted yes based on this reassurance. Maybe they can help pack the court.

[sεяεηιτλ]

Regardless of how many skanks he’s paid off or abortions he’s paid for with campaign dollars it’s nice to know he can’t hide his finances from a legitimate investigation.

While I'm sure they would not be happy if the scotus picks went back on their "word" on the issue, counting on them to do anything of consequence other than flakily playing the middle ground in an effort to keep centrists happy is a fools errand. The only reason they would be unhappy is because it raises questions like this that they have to spend time explaining away, rationalizing. Both are basically all talk.  They always always talk like they are open minded centrists but when it comes down to it they side with hard right extremists that have taken so much of our government. They just don't actually care. They do as little as possible to hang on to as many votes in the middle as they can and the reality is that is shockingly little. All they really have to do is talk like they are centrists once in a while and those folks stay on board.

[Bredo Morstoel]

Slavery is over. It's illegal. We solved that one. Let it go.

So what you’re saying is…the will of the people eventually prevailed regardless of what some ancient and antiquated document said?

Yup. I don't know if you caught it, but we also made it legal for women to vote. Lots of crazy updates!

[Trapper Gus]

So having had a few hours to think, if this overturning of Roe v Wade stands it is very surprising & very damaging to the country.

tSCOTUS has very traditionally been behind the public opinion, often waiting until the public was far out in front of what the law says.

- About 85% to 90% of the public support some form of legal abortion, for the court to issue a ruling so far out of line with that is hugely out of character for how the court has always ruled.
- The removal of Freedom of Choice as a Right is unprecedented.
- The probity of all 5 justices is destroyed. Impeachment is Congresses only option for their lying to Congress.
- The legal principle of stare decisis is being thrown away like wastepaper in this decision.  Of everything this causes the most damage to the United States and to what it stands for and is based upon.  The Rule of Law, not the Rule of Men.  By causing the laws to be dependent not of legal reasoning but on the whims of the Justices the United States Supreme Court is declaring the country's highest value to be the Rule of Men, not the Rule of Law.

edit - the reasoning in the decision is a joke, it has to be satire.  Citing some 17th Century Religious leader who burned witches and said rape within marriage was good to justify that abortion has been illegal while ignoring that abortion was legal in the United States when founded?

[NigelUno]

So what you’re saying is…the will of the people eventually prevailed regardless of what some ancient and antiquated document said?

Yup. I don't know if you caught it, but we also made it legal for women to vote. Lots of crazy updates!

Glad you flipped your schtick take.

[Bredo Morstoel]

Yup. I don't know if you caught it, but we also made it legal for women to vote. Lots of crazy updates!

Glad you flipped your schtick take.

You’re an odd duck. I have no idea what you’re blathering on about. Nor, I guess, do I care.

[Motown Spartan]

Overturning RvW is not about abortion. It's about chaos. It's about scaring old white people by creating chaos because they have no principals or virtues to stand on. They claim to have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist so they create the problem. Instead of addressing climate change or modern economic problems they are tackling decades old settled debate.

[Robert J Sakimano]

Overturning RvW is not about abortion. It's about chaos. It's about scaring old white people by creating chaos because they have no principals or virtues to stand on. They claim to have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist so they create the problem. Instead of addressing climate change or modern economic problems they are tackling decades old settled debate.

it's about chaos and controlling women.

Republicans clearly don't care about life.. hell, I can't think of anyone that has more contempt for human life than republicans.

[Bredo Morstoel]

Yeah, it’s a tough call. I mean, killing babies seems like a good thing, but I don’t know about giving women the chance to make decisions.

[RQA]

they are tackling decades old settled debate.

No matter your view of abortion, to claim that it is "decades old settled debate" is lunacy.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

they are tackling decades old settled debate.

No matter your view of abortion, to claim that it is "decades old settled debate" is lunacy.

We don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents we follow

[Trapper Gus]

No matter your view of abortion, to claim that it is "decades old settled debate" is lunacy.

We don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents we follow

Now we do.  The court just threw out all the case law it has created since it started.

[Motown Spartan]

We don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents we follow

Now we do.  The court just threw out all the case law it has created since it started.

Everything is fair game now! Especially decades old settled debate.

[Bredo Morstoel]

Now we do.  The court just threw out all the case law it has created since it started.

Everything is fair game now! Especially decades old settled debate.

Does this mean they're finally coming for my guns?!?

[NigelUno]

Glad you flipped your schtick take.

You’re an odd duck. I have no idea what you’re blathering on about. Nor, I guess, do I care.

No biggie. You didn’t care about providing examples of law abiding citizens traveling from Michigan to Maine either.

[Bredo Morstoel]

You’re an odd duck. I have no idea what you’re blathering on about. Nor, I guess, do I care.

No biggie. You didn’t care about providing examples of law abiding citizens traveling from Michigan to Maine either.

I supplied the case name and number. Not sure what else you'd like???

[NigelUno]

No biggie. You didn’t care about providing examples of law abiding citizens traveling from Michigan to Maine either.

I supplied the case name and number. Not sure what else you'd like???

That was for an airport incident. Odd that your own posts confuse you. Or not.

[sεяεηιτλ]

they are tackling decades old settled debate.

No matter your view of abortion, to claim that it is "decades old settled debate" is lunacy.

Scotus precedence is lunacy? Gorsuch himself said he considers Roe settled precedent. Scotus agreement/ precedence is pretty much the definition of settled debate in this context (law).

Just because a bunch of religious extremists like yourself beg to differ doesn't mean it's not settled. Some folks also think the earth is flat, but that too is settled..

[Travis of the Cosmos]

We don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents we follow

Now we do.  The court just threw out all the case law it has created since it started.

I’m sorry I forgot to throw quotation marks on that post. It was Brett Kavanaugh that said that, not me. Silly me, sorry.

[Bredo Morstoel]

I supplied the case name and number.  Not sure what else you'd like???

That was for an airport incident.  Odd that your own posts confuse you.  Or not.  

It's the same law.  If you're stopped driving through the state the same thing will apply to you.  If you're too stupid to understand that, then I doubt I can be of any further assistance to you here.

[RQA]

No matter your view of abortion, to claim that it is "decades old settled debate" is lunacy.

We don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents we follow

Agreed.

But all of the are up for reversal.

[RQA]

No matter your view of abortion, to claim that it is "decades old settled debate" is lunacy.

Scotus precedence is lunacy? Gorsuch himself said he considers Roe settled precedent. Scotus agreement/ precedence is pretty much the definition of settled debate in this context (law).

Just because a bunch of religious extremists like yourself beg to differ doesn't mean it's not settled. Some folks also think the earth is flat, but that too is settled..

Your analogy is just the opposite. Long ago it was "settled" that the earth is flat. That "settlement" has been reversed.

[NigelUno]

That was for an airport incident.  Odd that your own posts confuse you.  Or not.  

It's the same law.  If you're stopped driving through the state the same thing will apply to you.  If you're too stupid to understand that, then I doubt I can be of any further assistance to you here.

So...this has happened ONE time?

And he was arrested at the airport. Not driving though multiple states in your made up example.

What is your point? That the federal government should control gun laws in every state, municipality, airport, etc.? Interesting.

How many guns do you own again?

[Trapper Gus]

Scotus precedence is lunacy? Gorsuch himself said he considers Roe settled precedent. Scotus agreement/ precedence is pretty much the definition of settled debate in this context (law).

Just because a bunch of religious extremists like yourself beg to differ doesn't mean it's not settled. Some folks also think the earth is flat, but that too is settled..

Your analogy is just the opposite. Long ago it was "settled" that the earth is flat. That "settlement" has been reversed.

Regardless of what we were taught it was known that the earth was round once people started travelling by ships on any lake that was farther than 15 miles across. The diameter of the earth was calculated within reasonable accuracy long before the beginning of the narratives in the bible.

Oh, and at the founding of the United States abortion was strictly legal.

[Bredo Morstoel]

It's the same law.  If you're stopped driving through the state the same thing will apply to you.  If you're too stupid to understand that, then I doubt I can be of any further assistance to you here.

So...this has happened ONE time?

And he was arrested at the airport. Not driving though multiple states in your made up example.

What is your point? That the federal government should control gun laws in every state, municipality, airport, etc.? Interesting.

How many guns do you own again?

Nigel, you brilliant SOB! Thank you for bringing us back around on topic. And here I thought you were just a big dumb gun hating trolling poo poo head. Nope, you saw all along were we needed to go with this discussion. Good on ya!

Should the federal government control laws in every state? Or should states be allowed to set their own laws?

Should states have the right to decide if abortions are legal or not?

Should the federal government be allowed to outlaw marijuana/drugs if states are willing to allow it?

Should states be allowed to set their own gun/knife/weapons laws over that of the federal government?

Should states be allowed to set their own election laws, or should the federal government step in to ensure fair and equal access for all?

These all boil down to the same question, they are just different examples in action.

[AvgMSUJoe]

Thing is, "state's rights"... only when convenient... makes the Rs hypocrites and not worthy of my vote.

[Bredo Morstoel]

Thing is, "state's rights"... only when convenient... makes the Rs hypocrites and not worthy of my vote.

I was literally responding to a liberal who is anti-gun rights.

So.... both sides play the game. Don't suggest otherwise. It makes you look like a partisan hack.

[Sponsored content]