The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3819 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 ... 191  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue October 27, 2020 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am
Posts: 21740
Last week I would have said there was no way in hell they’d expand the court. Now I’m not so certain.

Joe Manchin and Angus King have been talking it up in the last few days. That’s a clear message that it’s fully attainable within the caucus. Obviously someone like Brian Schatz or some House progressive discussing it means nothing, but the types of senators who would ordinarily be the hardest sells are now openly wrestling with the idea.

I’d say it really depends on the actions the Court takes in the next few months. If the court were to make or signal any controversial decisions in the near term, or were to decide against the ACA (for example), I would be hesitant to bet against Democrats undertaking significant reforming action.

_________________
(patriotic choking noises)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue October 27, 2020 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Troglodyte
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 22378
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA

_________________
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue October 27, 2020 6:47 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 6:10 pm
Posts: 6950
Is she catholic? I thought she was in a cult.

_________________
Nihilist lives don't matter


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue October 27, 2020 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Looks Like a Cat
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 14138
JuanHamm wrote:
Is she catholic? I thought she was in a cult.



My sweet summer child

_________________
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri October 30, 2020 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6932
4/5 wrote:
So what now, court stacking or jurisdiction stripping? (If/when Democrats win)
I doubt jurisdiction stripping will be that effective, given that SCOTUS could still intervene on constitutional matters.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun November 01, 2020 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 22182
pack that shit they fuckin broke their own rule

_________________
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed November 04, 2020 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fulton v. Philadelphia today, a case over whether religious organizations are entitled to exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue November 10, 2020 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
Looks like Roberts and Kavanaugh are on board with the severability argument, leaving most of the ACA intact. Also sounds like there are questions over whether Texas and other claimants have standing in the first place to bring this case to the Court.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue November 10, 2020 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am
Posts: 2811
Location: Connecticut
4/5 wrote:
Looks like Roberts and Kavanaugh are on board with the severability argument, leaving most of the ACA intact. Also sounds like there are questions over whether Texas and other claimants have standing in the first place to bring this case to the Court.


My younger brother was following someone who was live tweeting it and suggested Gorsuch was sympathetic to the law, and that he and maybe even Barrett seemed skeptical of this lawsuit. Is that your take?

And if I can ask a broader question to you guys who follow this closely - It doesn't seem like the conservative justices are the scary activist types that conservatives want them to be, and liberals fear. Usually, anyway, I don't know enough on my own. Barrett is still new, so we'll see. But the other 2 don't seem to have made the left mad yet. Again, is this how you guys feel, generally?

edit - the other 2 Trump appointees, I mean. (Roberts, too).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue November 10, 2020 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
Rob wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Looks like Roberts and Kavanaugh are on board with the severability argument, leaving most of the ACA intact. Also sounds like there are questions over whether Texas and other claimants have standing in the first place to bring this case to the Court.


My younger brother was following someone who was live tweeting it and suggested Gorsuch was sympathetic to the law, and that he and maybe even Barrett seemed skeptical of this lawsuit. Is that your take?

I was teaching this morning, so I couldn't follow it live, just read a quick recap so I'm not sure. The article I read said Roberts and Kavanaugh specifically sounded like severability was the preferred route and that "multiple Justices, both conservative and liberal" raised questions over whether the challengers had standing to challenge the law, so that might be what your brother is talking about, I'm not sure. I'll read more when scotusblog has some posts up.
Rob wrote:
And if I can ask a broader question to you guys who follow this closely - It doesn't seem like the conservative justices are the scary activist types that conservatives want them to be, and liberals fear. Usually, anyway, I don't know enough on my own. Barrett is still new, so we'll see. But the other 2 don't seem to have made the left mad yet. Again, is this how you guys feel, generally?

edit - the other 2 Trump appointees, I mean. (Roberts, too).

Obviously that's a really broad question. I'm inclined to somewhat agree with what you've said, a lot of it is political theater and can be overblown. At the same time I think that the Court is very likely to agree to further limits to abortion access by states. I know some people say (probably including me at various times) that the right doesn't really want to take away abortion, they just want to use abortion as an issue to get people to polls, but there are 6 pro-life Justices on the Court and 4 of them were willing to directly overturn a precedent from like 3 or 4 years ago on a virtually identical law just a few months ago. I have no reason to believe Barrett wouldn't be the 5th vote for a similar case.

That said, I think the Justices are smart enough to not go too far against public opinion, so I'd expect them to continue slowly expanding civil rights protections to groups they might not be fond of while at the same time rolling back more expansive federal policies and giving states more freedom in areas that the public might not be watching as vigorously. Idk. I guess I think it depends, which is a pretty terrible answer on a message board.

Personally, I mostly want the Court to protect individual rights and civil rights and I'm definitely concerned about some of the Justices eagerness to uphold the 4th Amendment as strongly as I'd like them to.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue November 10, 2020 8:51 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 5562
Aren't all the new justices substantially better than Merrick Garland on 4A and criminal justice issues?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue November 10, 2020 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 6635
simple schoolboy wrote:
Aren't all the new justices substantially better than Merrick Garland on 4A and criminal justice issues?

I've read that about Garland, yes. Honestly, I haven't read up on Barrett at all. I certainly hope you're right.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 13, 2020 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Troglodyte
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 22378
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Quote:
"Whatever one may think about the COVID restrictions, we surely don't want them to become a recurring feature after the pandemic has passed," said Alito, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... s-n1247657

There goes our secret plans to use COVID-19 to keep anyone from every going to church again! Curses!

Image

_________________
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 4:59 am 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 5562
Liberals are simultaneously angry and not understanding the mild rebuke NY State received from SCOTUS.

You cannot keep religious organizations entirely closed and deem them non essential, especially when you allow operation of not clearly 'essential' commercial operations (bars and restaurants).

Previously SCOTUS declined several suits regarding occupancy restrictions. What cannot be done is relegate religious institutions to a more restrictive form of regulations whatever equivalent sized or occupied commercial interest are subject to. Also commercial entities are not subject to strict scrutiny in their regulation, while anything 1A covered surely must be.

Related (After ACB made the difference):



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 5:30 am 
Offline
User avatar
Gone
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 10:53 pm
Posts: 24014
Location: Illinois
Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.

_________________
Dick/Balls


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 5:54 am 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 5562
verb_to_trust wrote:
Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.


Clearly the Emmy comitte > SCOTUS. Sorry I don't make the rules.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Troglodyte
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 22378
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
verb_to_trust wrote:
Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.


I mean, he had that sick burn about liquor stores not being essential, but other than that, his argument that "stores get to be open, why not church?" is stupid and certain to kill people.

_________________
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Gone
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 10:53 pm
Posts: 24014
Location: Illinois
B wrote:
verb_to_trust wrote:
Gorsuch really hammered Cuomo. You love to see it.


I mean, he had that sick burn about liquor stores not being essential, but other than that, his argument that "stores get to be open, why not church?" is stupid and certain to kill people.


Oh well

_________________
Dick/Balls


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
Posts: 10170
Location: in the air tonight
Liquor stores are essential because you can't just cut an alcoholic off cold turkey. Drugs are legal, these are the consequences

_________________
Please consider voting for me


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri November 27, 2020 6:19 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 5562
Maybe draft laws that on their face don't discriminate against religious institutions and they wont get smacked down.

Cuomo could have made the rules neutral but he has a hard on for religion. Anti-religious animus is pretty easy to avoid.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3819 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 ... 191  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Thu March 28, 2024 8:14 am