The Supreme Court

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution.

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution.

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

RQA, you wouldn’t be confusing disagreeing with a court decision based on ethics or morals vs a court decision that was voted on by our peers according to our laws and accepted?

In the one case you sight that was voted on by our peers, you make the strongest case possible for eliminating the death penalty. I for one, think you’re kind of being a snake by trying to hide behind “Zurn “ but I admire your stance on the death penalty.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution.

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

congrats on paying attention in middle school civics and for making my point.

now let's hear more about your christian hero and his rape conviction and how you plan to overturn it.  

DWags wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

RQA, you wouldn’t be confusing disagreeing with a court decision based on ethics or morals vs a court decision that was voted on by our peers according to our laws and accepted?

In the one case you sight that was voted on by our peers, you make the strongest case possible for eliminating the death penalty. I for one, think you’re kind of being a snake by trying to hide behind “Zurn “ but I admire your stance on the death penalty.

yeah, I'm not sure he meant for his blinding support of the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist to make him seem anti-death penalty.. - but here we are.

however, I, too, congratulated him on his anti-death penalty stance and have encouraged him to speak to his fellow church goers on the evils of 'murder'.

He will be extending that anti-death penalty thing to fertilized eggs and zigots in 5...4...3...2...

Not sure of any logic to that of course because more of those die before much development by that blood thirsty monster sky fairy in the sky than by any human agency...

DWags wrote:

RQA, you wouldn’t be confusing disagreeing with a court decision based on ethics or morals vs a court decision that was  voted on by our peers according to our laws and accepted?  

In the one case you sight that was voted on by our peers, you make the strongest case possible for eliminating the death penalty.   I for one, think you’re kind of being a snake by trying to hide behind “Zurn “ but I admire your stance on the death penalty.

Bob has repeatedly said that criticizing court decisions is an affront to the Constitution and  democracy itself.  He didn't differentiate them on how they were decided.  I am sure that he appreciates your help however.  

I am very open to eliminating the death penalty.

Confused about this "hiding" behind Zurn thing.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
congrats on paying attention in middle school civics and for making my point.

now let's hear more about your christian hero and his rape conviction and how you plan to overturn it.  

I took civics in high school but paid enough attention to understand that Trump has not been convicted for rape.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yeah, I'm not sure he meant for his blinding support of the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist to make him seem anti-death penalty.. - but here we are.

however, I, too, congratulated him on his anti-death penalty stance and have encouraged him to speak to his fellow church goers on the evils of 'murder'.

By "blinding support" of Trump you mean not voting for him in the MI primary and not voting for him in November?

BTW, many if not most of the church members that I know are against the death penalty but again for a leftist, narrative > truth

Trapper Gus wrote:He will be extending that anti-death penalty thing to fertilized eggs and zigots in 5...4...3...2...

Not sure of any logic to that of course because more of those die before much development by that blood thirsty monster sky fairy in the sky than by any human agency...

If your referring to me, then nope. I take the rare moderate position on abortion as I do on many issues.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
congrats on paying attention in middle school civics and for making my point.

now let's hear more about your christian hero and his rape conviction and how you plan to overturn it.  

I took civics in high school but paid enough attention to understand that Trump has not been convicted for rape.  

Hiding behind the semantics of NY State law is really a very weak defense...

When E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump went to trial last spring over her sexual assault allegations, a nine-person civil jury found that Trump sexually abused her but that she failed to prove he raped her.

The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was raped in a media interview after the verdict.

The counterattack was quickly shot down.

Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll's rape allegation was "substantially true" and dismissed the counterclaim.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

You do know that he inserted his fingers into her vagina without her consent, not sure why you think that isn't rape.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yeah, I'm not sure he meant for his blinding support of the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist to make him seem anti-death penalty..  - but here we are.

however, I, too, congratulated him on his anti-death penalty stance and have encouraged him to speak to his fellow church goers on the evils of 'murder'.

By "blinding support" of Trump you mean not voting for him in the MI primary and not voting for him in November?

BTW, many if not most of the  church members that I know are against the death penalty but again for a leftist, narrative > truth

Actions speak louder than words. They can say they are against the death penalty but the value of a human life is not great enough for them to vote against people and policies that support the death penalty. At the end of the day, as long as they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they KNOW FOR A FACT WITHOUT A DOUBT that they are going to Heaven.

Jesus love me, this I know.

For some book that was written and edited by humans and based on oral retellings of mythical stories tells me so.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
congrats on paying attention in middle school civics and for making my point.

now let's hear more about your christian hero and his rape conviction and how you plan to overturn it.  

I took civics in high school but paid enough attention to understand that Trump has not been convicted for rape.

well y'all might want to stop sending him money, 'cause he's using it to pay his court-ordered rape victim.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yeah, I'm not sure he meant for his blinding support of the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist to make him seem anti-death penalty.. - but here we are.

however, I, too, congratulated him on his anti-death penalty stance and have encouraged him to speak to his fellow church goers on the evils of 'murder'.

By "blinding support" of Trump you mean not voting for him in the MI primary and not voting for him in November?

BTW, many if not most of the church members that I know are against the death penalty but again for a leftist, narrative > truth

cool - I look forward to seeing you and your christian "pro-life" MAGA friends at the next rally to end the death penalty.

A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Zurn wrote:A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Seriously Dude?

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

Protecting the people from what?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

imagine thinking that 'free speech' had absolutely no limits at all.

my god, America is a stupid country and we get exactly what we deserve.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

imagine thinking that 'free speech' had absolutely no limits at all.

my god, America is a stupid country and we get exactly what we deserve.

Well, I've been told that Court decisions are always correct and any questioning of them is literally an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.

Will bump when this one plays out.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
imagine thinking that 'free speech' had absolutely no limits at all.

my god, America is a stupid country and we get exactly what we deserve.

Well, I've been told that Court decisions are always correct and any questioning of them is literally an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.  

Will bump when this one plays out.  

free speech allows you to attack the courts and democracy all you want (to an extent, you'll be surprised to find out).

and it also allows me to continue pointing it out, depending on how it impacts your political/religious ideology, no matter how much it bothers you.  

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:



Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

Protecting the people from what?

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
imagine thinking that 'free speech' had absolutely no limits at all.

my god, America is a stupid country and we get exactly what we deserve.

Well, I've been told that Court decisions are always correct and any questioning of them is literally an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.

Will bump when this one plays out.

I suggest in your ignorant way you should start disobeying all the court's rulings since you seem so skeptical of their legality.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Protecting the people from what?

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

wait'll he hears about all of the January 6th patriots currently in prison for simply voicing their First Amendment rights.

Trapper Gus wrote:

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

Is that what this case is about?

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

.

Is that what this case is about?  

It is one of the many examples of when you don't have a right to free speech

Did you post a link to some court case that you are talking about?

I thought you were talking about a Justice noting, correctly, that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

Trapper Gus wrote:

I thought you were talking about a Justice noting, correctly, that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

Everyone accepts that free speech isn't absolute. but that wasn't what her comment was referring to.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I thought you were talking about a Justice noting, correctly, that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

Everyone accepts that free speech isn't absolute. but that wasn't what her comment was referring to.

The government has a responsibility, so as to protect us from foreign propaganda attacks, to inform social media when they know that the positing is from foreign government actors using social media clandestinely to effect voting. What the private social media companies do with that is their business.

Is that the case you have your Depends in a knot about?

Keep in mind that the lower courts have already ruled against the federal government in this case and there is every expectation that the SCOTUS will too.

Not surprised that Trapper Gus and his pals stand against free speech.

Zurn wrote:Keep in mind that the lower courts have already ruled against the federal government in this case and there is every expectation that the SCOTUS will too.

Not surprised that Trapper Gus and his pals stand against free speech.

Keep in mind that it is the 5th circuit court, the one that has said the US government isn't sovereign, something the Constitution directly states the opposite of, that you are talking about.

https://amp.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/23/south-carolina-redistricting-case-supreme-court

After the representative Nancy Mace narrowly was elected in 2020, they shifted the district’s boundaries to make it much friendlier to Republicans. As part of that effort, they moved 30,000 Black voters from Mace’s first district to the sixth, currently represented by Jim Clyburn, a Black Democrat.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:Keep in mind that the lower courts have already ruled against the federal government in this case and there is every expectation that the SCOTUS will too.

Not surprised that Trapper Gus and his pals stand against free speech.

Keep in mind that it is the 5th circuit court, the one that has said the US government isn't sovereign, something the Constitution directly states the opposite of, that you are talking about.

It’s Zurn, one of the Doppelgänger gang doing his job

kingstonlake wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/23/south-carolina-redistricting-case-supreme-court

After the representative Nancy Mace narrowly was elected in 2020, they shifted the district’s boundaries to make it much friendlier to Republicans. As part of that effort, they moved 30,000 Black voters from Mace’s first district to the sixth, currently represented by Jim Clyburn, a Black Democrat.

This shit is wild. We didn’t change the maps to exclude black people, we changed the maps to exclude probable democratic votes! Well, how did you know they were probable democratic votes? Well… uh… they were black?

SCOTUS: oh well that’s fine then. As long as you didn’t do it based on race.

This comment from Daily Kos poster has some merit to it, which is why it will never happen:

To me, the best way to get rid of gerrymandering (if maintaining districts is still important) is to reverse the 1964 law allowing for multi-representational districts.

If states were divided in large, ‘natural’ districts, that had to be about equal in population, and you allowed the first two, three, or four top candidates to gain seats, instead of winner-take-all, then it would be almost impossible to gerrymander such a map and shut another party out.

For an example, Tennessee has 9 house seats. Divide the state up between West, Middle, and East districts, each with 3 seats (top three get seated). Or seat top two from each district and have a a state-wide race for the last three seats. Such a system would be very hard to ‘game’ or manipulate. I would also argue it would be easier for minority voters to get representation under such a system. Yes, at times the map would have to be altered, but as the districts are so large and diverse (both rural and urban and suburban areas would be included in all), it would be hard to meaningfully change the outcomes.

e up between West, Middle, and East districts, each with 3 seats (top three get seated). Or seat top two from each district and have a a state-wide race for the last three seats. Such a system would be very hard to ‘game’ or manipulate. I would also argue it would be easier for minority voters to get representation under such a system. Yes, at times the map would have to be altered, but as the districts are so large and diverse (both rural and urban and suburban areas would be included in all), it would be hard to meaningfully change the outcomes.

there are a great many different systems that people always talk about as being the solution to such and such voting problems. the problem is, it's utterly useless to even discuss because we have different systems that will almost never change to the extent that is needed to move to a style like this. namely because of the entrenched establishment would never ever go for it... on either side. a state like Tennessee especially, where's the incentive? and there's just not enough of one side to vote the obstructive side out in this case and likely never will be

The US Congress was two votes short, in the 117th Congress, of requiring all the states to use the system we now have in Michigan for setting US House districts.

Trapper Gus wrote:The US Congress was two votes short, in the 117th Congress, of requiring all the states to use the system we now have in Michigan for setting US House districts.

Can they do that? I thought it was the states responsibility to determine how it runs elections, however under a small federal framework with some basic requirements. Give me a civics lesson, o wise one

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The US Congress was two votes short, in the 117th Congress, of requiring all the states to use the system we now have in Michigan for setting US House districts.

Can they do that? I thought it was the states responsibility to determine how it runs elections, however under a small federal framework with some basic requirements. Give me a civics lesson, o wise one

Not going to quote chapter & verse.of the Constitutiin, however the US Congress has the authority via the words in said document to establish how Congressional Districts are established & what the voting qualifications are for federal elections.

The Voting Rights Act which tSCOTUS incorrectly nullified did both for a set of states up until sometime during the Obama administration. It still does in terms of establishing minorities must have a reasonable opportunity to elect minority US Representatives, however, our current court is poking holes in that law.

Holy shit! The just ruled against the anti-abortion doctors.

But the ruling has left the door slightly open.

Motown Spartan wrote:Holy shit! The just ruled against the anti-abortion doctors.

But the ruling has left the door slightly open.

I suspect it's a political move in an election year.

Here’s a little something before the truly awful rulings we’ll have next week