Re: The Supreme Court

by sεяεηιτλ Thu Jun 13, 2024 12:05 pm

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

But the ruling has left the door slightly open.

They always fricken do that. They come out hard on certain things that align with their vision of this country as a Christian nation. But then something like this where there is literally no grounds they puntit on a technicality because they have no justification for it. Then, that leaves the door open for others to come to them with a smarter argument that maybe they can find a way to agree with.

Surely some horrific rulings are coming soon but it's all ok cause this court is totally legit, see they weren't completely and utterly partisan with this dumb pill fiasco so everything's totally cool

by Zurn Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:47 pm

The only unpredictable votes from the SCOTUS come from the conservative judges. The liberal judges virtually always vote as a bloc and in the politically predictable fashion. This indicates that it is the conservative judges that pass judgement based on the law and constitution and the liberal judges pass judgement based on politics.

by **Trapper Gus** Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:52 pm

Zurn wrote:The only unpredictable votes from the SCOTUS come from the conservative judges. The liberal judges virtually always vote as a bloc and in the politically predictable fashion. This indicates that it is the conservative judges that pass judgement based on the law and constitution and the liberal judges pass judgement based on politics.

That argument hold either way.

Since it has been clear that the Conservatives on the court are ripping up laws that have been on the books for years & years I think you are being blinded by the light here.

by sεяεηιτλ Fri Jun 14, 2024 10:51 am

Zurn wrote:The only unpredictable votes from the SCOTUS come from the conservative judges. The liberal judges virtually always vote as a bloc and in the politically predictable fashion. This indicates that it is the conservative judges that pass judgement based on the law and constitution and the liberal judges pass judgement based on politics.

How dumb. Or maybe the liberals are just naturally more inclined to judge based on facts, history, and the law itself rather than politics or feelings or religion? Doing that would tend to lead to converging view points as they use a common set of facts to make their opinions. That would produce the exact same effect. If one is basing their judgment on shaky grounds, the mixture of views would be a natural side effect as shaky means it could go either way.

I will say Thomas and Alito have been pretty consistent, consistently voting in a rather illogical and extremist fashion that incorporates a corrupt/religious extremist world view

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 11:02 am

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Zurn wrote:The only unpredictable votes from the SCOTUS come from the conservative judges. The liberal judges virtually always vote as a bloc and in the politically predictable fashion. This indicates that it is the conservative judges that pass judgement based on the law and constitution and the liberal judges pass judgement based on politics.

How dumb. Or maybe the liberals are just naturally more inclined to judge based on facts, history, and the law itself rather than politics or feelings or religion? Doing that would tend to lead to converging view points as they use a common set of facts to make their opinions. That would produce the exact same effect. If one is basing their judgment on shaky grounds, the mixture of views would be a natural side effect as shaky means it could go either way.

I will say Thomas and Alito have been pretty consistent, consistently voting in a rather illogical and extremist fashion that incorporates a corrupt/religious extremist world view

you're not trying to have a logical, rational conversation with a MAGA supporter, are you?

(do your thing, man, but I find it's best just to toy with them.. The Supreme Court - Page 3 969504605

)

by Zurn Fri Jun 14, 2024 11:17 am

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

How dumb. Or maybe the liberals are just naturally more inclined to judge based on facts, history, and the law itself rather than politics or feelings or religion?

Ruling today is a perfect example.

SCOTUS voted 6-3 to overturn a Trump era ban on bump stocks. The ban was based on the idea that bump stocks turned guns into machine guns which are illegal. Machine guns being defined by law as continuous fire when the trigger is held. Bump stocks do not do this.

The conservative justices correctly pointed out that the ban was a misapplication of the law and if so desired Congress could rewrite the definition of a machine gun to allow for a ban on bump stocks.

The liberal justices voted based on their emotion and politics rather than correctly following the law.

And for the record, I am a strong proponent of gun control and would Congress would do so.

by **Trapper Gus** Fri Jun 14, 2024 11:23 am

Only new machine guns are illegal. If the gun was manufactured before 1986 it is legal.

by **kingstonlake** Fri Jun 14, 2024 11:25 am

Zurn wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

How dumb. Or maybe the liberals are just naturally more inclined to judge based on facts, history, and the law itself rather than politics or feelings or religion?

Ruling today is a perfect example.

SCOTUS voted 6-3 to overturn a Trump era ban on bump stocks. The ban was based on the idea that bump stocks turned guns into machine guns which are illegal. Machine guns being defined by law as continuous fire when the trigger is held. Bump stocks do not do this.

The conservative justices correctly pointed out that the ban was a misapplication of the law and if so desired Congress could rewrite the definition of a machine gun to allow for a ban on bump stocks.

The liberal justices voted based on their emotion and politics rather than correctly following the law.

And for the record, I am a strong proponent of gun control and would Congress would do so.

11:21:00

Of course it’s not a machine gun. And putting a trailer hitch on a small SUV doesn’t make it a pick up truck.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 11:38 am

the "pro-life" justices decided that weapons of war and mass murder are perfectly cool.

(unfortunately, they make it too easy for people like me to mock them.. if they were morally consistent, we would all be much safer and I would have to find other ways to entertain myself)

by Zurn Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:58 pm

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the "pro-life" justices decided that weapons of war and mass murder are perfectly cool.

(unfortunately, they make it too easy for people like me to mock them.. if they were morally consistent, we would all be much safer and I would have to find other ways to entertain myself)

Ah ... no.

Machine guns are illegal and are defined as a gun that fires continuously when the trigger is pressed. They said that Trump, when president, was wrong to ban bump stocks by saying they turned guns into machine guns when they did not do that.

The SCOTUS pointed out that Congress could redefine the legal definition of a machine gun to allow for such an executive order.

Sounds like your problem is with Congress not tSCOTUS.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:00 pm

Zurn wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:the "pro-life" justices decided that weapons of war and mass murder are perfectly cool.

(unfortunately, they make it too easy for people like me to mock them.. if they were morally consistent, we would all be much safer and I would have to find other ways to entertain myself)

Ah ... no.

Machine guns are illegal and are defined as a gun that fires continuously when the trigger is pressed. They said that Trump, when president, was wrong to ban bump stocks by saying they turned guns into machine guns when they did not do that.

The SCOTUS pointed out that Congress could redefine the legal definition of a machine gun to allow for such an executive order.

Sounds like your problem is with Congress not tSCOTUS.

my problem is with 'pro-life' republican/libertarian christians who celebrate children getting murdered at school.

by Zurn Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:03 pm

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Zurn wrote:

Ah ... no.

Machine guns are illegal and are defined as a gun that fires continuously when the trigger is pressed. They said that Trump, when president, was wrong to ban bump stocks by saying they turned guns into machine guns when they did not do that.

The SCOTUS pointed out that Congress could redefine the legal definition of a machine gun to allow for such an executive order.

Sounds like your problem is with Congress not tSCOTUS.
my problem is with 'pro-life' republican/libertarian christians who celebrate children getting murdered at school.

When you find someone like that, let us know.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:07 pm

Zurn wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:my problem is with 'pro-life' republican/libertarian christians who celebrate children getting murdered at school.

When you find someone like that, let us know.

found 'em!

(you can also see them at your local church).

by Zurn Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:09 pm

I don't recall the guys I play basketball with at the local church celebrating the murder of children. Nor the Republican party for that matter.

But as the saying goes: you do you.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:19 pm

Zurn wrote:I don't recall the guys I play basketball with at the local church celebrating the murder of children. Nor the Republican party for that matter.

But as the saying goes: you do you.

you can always count on that.. The Supreme Court - Page 3 969504605

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:23 pm

Bob you’re not trying to have a reasonable conversation with a Republican/libertarian are you

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:25 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Bob you’re not trying to have a reasonable conversation with a Republican/libertarian are you

openly mocking a MAGA person's religion and politics isn't having a reasonable conversation. Wink

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:56 pm

a cruel irony (or, more likely, with gleeful intent and purpose), that the 'pro-life' SCOTUS majority releases this decision on the day that Parkland High School is set to be demolished.

Parkland school building where mass shooting unfolded begins to come down, 6 years later

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

by **Trapper Gus** Fri Jun 14, 2024 2:57 pm

Someone's in trouble over flag etticute

by **Jake from State Farm** Fri Jun 14, 2024 4:52 pm

Zurn wrote:I don't recall the guys I play basketball with at the local church celebrating the murder of children. Nor the Republican party for that matter.

But as the saying goes: you do you.

The republican party always falls back to the standard thoughts and prayers and then goes on their merry way with any guilt they may have felt now absolved.

by **GRR Spartan** Fri Jun 14, 2024 6:16 pm

Sad thing about The SCOTUS isn’t finding out how many significant favors and gifts some of the members have accepted but how long they’ve been open for business. Even sadder is how they ignored reporting for decades in some cases.

by **Trapper Gus** Fri Jun 14, 2024 8:03 pm

Number of years that Mark Martin, who was under the legal guardianship of Clarence and Ginni Thomas from age 6-19, could face on gun and drug charges: 25 years

by **InTenSity** Sat Jun 15, 2024 11:19 am

Saw a meme today.
Alito has more control over your wife than his own.

by **Trapper Gus** Wed Jun 19, 2024 7:28 pm

This has been a long-term goal of the people who want to turn our country into a dictatorship of the wealthy and the rest of us don't have the time or money to fight them.

The Goal of Taking Over the Courts

by **Robert J Sakimano** Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:37 am

Supreme Court upholds law banning domestic abusers from having guns

it's a good start.

now at least pretend to be 'pro-life' with all of your other gun-related decisions.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

by sεяεηιτλ Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:46 am

Trapper Gus wrote:This has been a long-term goal of the people who want to turn our country into a dictatorship of the wealthy and the rest of us don't have the time or money to fight them.

The Goal of Taking Over the Courts

How predictable is it that Thomas is the lone dissenter?

Thomas wrote some BS:
"The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's second amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence, yet in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, today's decision puts at risk the second amendment rights of many more."

In Thomas's world, everything needs to be explicitly in writing, there's no room for common sense

by AvgMSUJoe Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:24 pm

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:This has been a long-term goal of the people who want to turn our country into a dictatorship of the wealthy and the rest of us don't have the time or money to fight them.

The Goal of Taking Over the Courts

How predictable is it that Thomas is the lone dissenter?

Thomas wrote some BS:
"The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's second amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence, yet in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, today's decision puts at risk the second amendment rights of many more."

In Thomas's world, everything needs to be explicitly in writing, there's no room for common sense

Except for "well regulated" militia of course.

by **Jake from State Farm** Tue Jun 25, 2024 3:19 pm

Is the bought and paid for faction of The Supreme Court going to allow a ruling next week on whether or not Trump has absolute immunity for life or can they kick it down the road to their next session?

by **Trapper Gus** Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:43 pm

Jake from State Farm wrote:Is the bought and paid for faction of The Supreme Court going to allow a ruling next week on whether or not Trump has absolute immunity for life or can they kick it down the road to their next session?

WOTS is that they are going to say he has immunity for some official acts and then kick it back to the lower court to determine if any of the acts he is indicated for fall under there definition of official acts.

by **GRR Spartan** Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:55 pm

Once the GOP controls the courts they don't have to worry about nearly as many elections and if they maintain control of Federal elections in low population states they have a great chance at controlling the US Senate that's duty is to approve or disapprove Federal Judicial nominations by the sitting President.

Mitch McConnell was openly talking about having the SCOTUS operate with less than 9 members by directing the GOP to oppose any judicial nominees if Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election. He was willing to let the SCOTUS operate with 7 or fewer just to keep anyone nominated by a potential President Clinton just like he put Garland's nomination on the back burner because the had to wait for the new President.

Remember Jan 6 was Trump's first attempt to overthrow the government. It took Hitler more than one try.

by **Trapper Gus** Wed Jun 26, 2024 8:36 pm

I do tire of the Hitler analogy. Trump is way dumber than Hitler.

by **Trapper Gus** Thu Jun 27, 2024 4:19 pm

[tw]1805977007538209042[/tw]

It will be hugely ironic if she turns out to be the David Sutare(sp) of Moscow Mitches choices

by **kingstonlake** Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:54 am

Supreme Court guts federal regulatory ability

The landmark 6-3 ruling along ideological lines overturns the court's 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine. It could make it harder for executive agencies to tackle a wide array of policy areas, including environmental and health regulations and labor and employment laws.

by **kingstonlake** Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:03 am

Also ruled you can arrest homeless people for sleeping in public.

by **kingstonlake** Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:05 am

Also ruled to make it harder to prosecute Jan 6th insurrectionist for obstruction. Basically they had to physically destroy the actual documents of the electoral certification in order to be prosecuted for obstruction. For some reason Jackson was on the majority side on that one.

by **Trapper Gus** Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:17 am

kingstonlake wrote:Also ruled to make it harder to prosecute Jan 6th insurrectionist for obstruction. Basically they had to physically destroy the actual documents of the electoral certification in order to be prosecuted for obstruction. For some reason Jackson was on the majority side on that one.

This one is huge as it will require a whole bunch of already adjudicated cases to be reviewed & it undercuts the case against Trump in the DC court.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:20 am

kingstonlake wrote:Supreme Court guts federal regulatory ability

The landmark 6-3 ruling along ideological lines overturns the court's 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine. It could make it harder for executive agencies to tackle a wide array of policy areas, including environmental and health regulations and labor and employment laws.

This is very, very bad.

by **Trapper Gus** Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:24 am

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:Supreme Court guts federal regulatory ability

This is very, very bad.

It is also a power grab by the court, as now a bunch of cases will be tried in court instead of following the science.

by Zurn Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:07 pm

kingstonlake wrote:Also ruled you can arrest homeless people for sleeping in public.

Seems reasonable. Unless you support vagrancy.

by Zurn Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:20 pm

Supreme Court throws out obstruction charges for Jan 6.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-throws-obstruction-charges-145821007.html

6-3 vote.

Swill liberals will be outraged but at the same time will have trouble explaining away the vote.

by Sponsored content