SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

HughFreakingDillon

I figured since the death of RBG, with so much attention being cast upon this judicial body, it was time for a thread of its own. I just read an article that two justices, Alito and Thomas, have "lashed out" at the decision that paved the way for legalization of same-sex marriage. Blows my mind that (at least) two justices believe that religious liberty trumps civil liberties. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html

HughFreakingDillon

first day of confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett. 

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon said:

I figured since the death of RBG, with so much attention being cast upon this judicial body, it was time for a thread of its own. I just read an article that two justices, Alito and Thomas, have "lashed out" at the decision that paved the way for legalization of same-sex marriage. Blows my mind that (at least) two justices believe that religious liberty trumps civil liberties. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html

believe both are Catholic....

cblock4life

mickeyrat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I figured since the death of RBG, with so much attention being cast upon this judicial body, it was time for a thread of its own. I just read an article that two justices, Alito and Thomas, have "lashed out" at the decision that paved the way for legalization of same-sex marriage. Blows my mind that (at least) two justices believe that religious liberty trumps civil liberties. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html

believe both are Catholic....

If you’re correct, how dare they after what priests have done and covered up....it’s a joke of a religion 

HughFreakingDillon

mickeyrat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I figured since the death of RBG, with so much attention being cast upon this judicial body, it was time for a thread of its own. I just read an article that two justices, Alito and Thomas, have "lashed out" at the decision that paved the way for legalization of same-sex marriage. Blows my mind that (at least) two justices believe that religious liberty trumps civil liberties. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/index.html

believe both are Catholic....

yes, but faith should not inform judicial decisions. i'm sure it must be terribly difficult to separate the two, but to me, it's just common sense that civil rights trumps religious rights. 

HughFreakingDillon

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

Gern Blansten

I've been listening to most of the hearings....not sure why the Dems don't hammer her on her previous statements related to election year appointments.

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

Gern Blansten

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Ledbetterman10

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Yeah no case that I know of. Since you know of one, enlighten me. 
Edit: It must be this one: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/19/politics/supreme-court-obamacare/index.html

And yeah the court was expanded like over 150 years ago, but in more (somewhat) recent years, even the democratic party was against it when FDR wanted to expand it. It's such a shame that the court is so partisan and that there "liberal" justices and "conservative" justices. It really shouldn't matter if their job is just to interpret the law. 

Gern Blansten

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Yeah no case that I know of. Since you know of one, enlighten me.

And yeah the court was expanded like over 150 years ago, but in more (somewhat) recent years, even the democratic party was against it when FDR wanted to expand it. It's such a shame that the court is so partisan and that there "liberal" justices and "conservative" justices. It really shouldn't matter if their job is just to interpret the law. 

It shouldn't matter but it does.  

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-california-v-texas-a-guide-to-the-case-challenging-the-aca/

There is the link to start your enlightenment.  I can't fathom how someone can criticize anyone on this board and not know that case is pending.

Ledbetterman10

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Yeah no case that I know of. Since you know of one, enlighten me.

And yeah the court was expanded like over 150 years ago, but in more (somewhat) recent years, even the democratic party was against it when FDR wanted to expand it. It's such a shame that the court is so partisan and that there "liberal" justices and "conservative" justices. It really shouldn't matter if their job is just to interpret the law. 

It shouldn't matter but it does.  

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-california-v-texas-a-guide-to-the-case-challenging-the-aca/

There is the link to start your enlightenment.  I can't fathom how someone can criticize anyone on this board and not know that case is pending.

Yeah I edited my post then when I found that. But I wasn't criticizing anybody on the board so I'm not sure what you mean there. 

Gern Blansten

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Laughing at a plausible argument....that's critical.

Regardless...that you come on here and argue this shit without knowing about that case tells us all we need to know.  

Kat

Re: the Senate confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett...
It sounds like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse followed the money. I wish I had seen his presentation. 

Gern Blansten

Kat said:

Re: the Senate confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett...
It sounds like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse followed the money. I wish I had seen his presentation. 

It was great.  Sad that it won't gain traction.

Ledbetterman10

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Laughing at a plausible argument....that's critical.

Regardless...that you come on here and argue this shit without knowing about that case tells us all we need to know.  

I'll always laugh at the popular vote argument. It's not a good one. We all know how the president is elected. 

Fair enough on calling me out for not knowing that case was pending. I bolded "us" and "we" though because I thought I was talking to you. 

Gern Blansten

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Laughing at a plausible argument....that's critical.

Regardless...that you come on here and argue this shit without knowing about that case tells us all we need to know.  

I'll always laugh at the popular vote argument. It's not a good one. We all know how the president is elected. 

Fair enough on calling me out for not knowing that case was pending. I bolded "us" and "we" though because I thought I was talking to you. 

Yes we know how the president is elected....that doesn't change the fact that 5 of the justices were placed by a president that did not receive the popular vote. That means something to a lot of us.

HughFreakingDillon

the whole "he lost the popular vote" thing, honestly, just seems like losers trying to take a win when they didn't get one. Trump's campaign knew where he needed to campaign to win the EC. Hillary's didn't and they blew it. 

it's no different than the people whining about republicans using the rules to their full advantage and democrats whining that republicans are being mean. grow a spine and maybe fight. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

the whole "he lost the popular vote" thing, honestly, just seems like losers trying to take a win when they didn't get one. Trump's campaign knew where he needed to campaign to win the EC. Hillary's didn't and they blew it. 

Right....understood.  No one is arguing that.

The point is that the people should have a hand in who gets placed on the SC.  And in 5 out of 9 cases that didn't happen.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the whole "he lost the popular vote" thing, honestly, just seems like losers trying to take a win when they didn't get one. Trump's campaign knew where he needed to campaign to win the EC. Hillary's didn't and they blew it. 

Right....understood.  No one is arguing that.

The point is that the people should have a hand in who gets placed on the SC.  And in 5 out of 9 cases that didn't happen.

should. of course. and the popular vote should also be the deciding factor. but it isn't. 

I hope democrats actually do something when they control the WH and possibly both chambers instead of sitting on their hands and hoping republicans will do the same the next time they are in power. 

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Laughing at a plausible argument....that's critical.

Regardless...that you come on here and argue this shit without knowing about that case tells us all we need to know.  

I'll always laugh at the popular vote argument. It's not a good one. We all know how the president is elected. 

Fair enough on calling me out for not knowing that case was pending. I bolded "us" and "we" though because I thought I was talking to you. 

Yes we know how the president is elected....that doesn't change the fact that 5 of the justices were placed by a president that did not receive the popular vote. That means something to a lot of us.

but why should the popular vote mean squat when it doesn't decide the election? I actually believe trump when he says that their campaign would have been wildly different had it been decided on vote count alone. he may have won it that way had it been the rules. so saying he didn't get the popular vote is completely moot. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the whole "he lost the popular vote" thing, honestly, just seems like losers trying to take a win when they didn't get one. Trump's campaign knew where he needed to campaign to win the EC. Hillary's didn't and they blew it. 

Right....understood.  No one is arguing that.

The point is that the people should have a hand in who gets placed on the SC.  And in 5 out of 9 cases that didn't happen.

should. of course. and the popular vote should also be the deciding factor. but it isn't. 

I hope democrats actually do something when they control the WH and possibly both chambers instead of sitting on their hands and hoping republicans will do the same the next time they are in power. 

Me too...it's time

HughFreakingDillon

and people's voting behaviour even changes based on the EC. people who know their vote doesn't matter don't even bother. that goes for both sides. so the popular vote, in reality, really means absolutely nothing, because everything would be turned on its head if the popular vote were in play. 

Halifax2TheMax

I’m looking forward to three Muslims and one satanist being added to the court, with liberal biases of course. Like canceling Christmas.

Ledbetterman10

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

kinda surprised only crickets in here for the most part. 

I guess there's not all that much to talk about. She'll be confirmed. When (presumably) Biden wins and the Dems take over the Congress, they'll expand the court because they're bitter that they lost an election to a gameshow host and he was able to appoint three justices. 

One thing that strikes me as strange is the Democrats are going on and on about Obamacare in regards to the Barrett appointment. Why? There's no case that I know of that's calling into question the whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. They're treating this like it's an election campaign ("Our opponent will take away your healthcare!") but I don't think it works like that. 

LOL....no case that you know of?  There is a case to be decided in the SC right now.  

And...expanding the court is constitutional.  Especially so when there is an imbalance in the court like now where 5 of the justices were placed by presidents that did not win the popular vote.

Oh my god, the popular vote argument? LOL

Laughing at a plausible argument....that's critical.

Regardless...that you come on here and argue this shit without knowing about that case tells us all we need to know.  

I'll always laugh at the popular vote argument. It's not a good one. We all know how the president is elected. 

Fair enough on calling me out for not knowing that case was pending. I bolded "us" and "we" though because I thought I was talking to you. 

Yes we know how the president is elected....that doesn't change the fact that 5 of the justices were placed by a president that did not receive the popular vote. That means something to a lot of us.

Well you noted that expanding the court is constitutional. Well so is the president being elected without winning the popular vote. As is the president appointing justices to the supreme court. 

I'm not a fan of the system either, by the way. Not necessarily because the person with less total votes can win, but because it renders so many votes useless. If every vote counted, then general election candidates would have to campaign in non-swing states, which would be good. The people of those states deserve to have their votes mean something. But if the popular vote determined the winner, the results (both electorally and popular-vote wise) could've possibly been different in 2000 and 2016 due to how differently Gore, Bush, Hillary, and Trump would've campaigned. 

HughFreakingDillon

i think many of us agree the EC is just plain stupid. one vote should be one vote. 

HughFreakingDillon

I gotta say, everything I've read about her responses today and yesterday have me impressed. she is way more intellectual than Kavanaugh. 

Kat

I'm horrified.

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/1316042356651589632

https://twitter.com/jonathanalter/status/1316076728801005568

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

I gotta say, everything I've read about her responses today and yesterday have me impressed. she is way more intellectual than Kavanaugh. 

She just much more reserved and knows how to say what she needs to. Kavanaugh is a stooge and typical of a white male in power, couldn't handle someone challenging him. 

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I gotta say, everything I've read about her responses today and yesterday have me impressed. she is way more intellectual than Kavanaugh. 

She just much more reserved and knows how to say what she needs to. Kavanaugh is a stooge and typical of a white male in power, couldn't handle someone challenging him. 

I've never seen anything like what we witnessed with Kavanaugh. He was off the rails. You'd think a guy who got to the heights of a SCJ would be able to keep it together. Maybe he just set the bar really low. LOL

Ledbetterman10

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I gotta say, everything I've read about her responses today and yesterday have me impressed. she is way more intellectual than Kavanaugh. 

She just much more reserved and knows how to say what she needs to. Kavanaugh is a stooge and typical of a white male in power, couldn't handle someone challenging him. 

Yeah never mind that he was being accused of rape, in front of the world, from an alleged incident decades ago, with had no evidence against him except the testimony of the accuser. He's just a typical white male in power acting like one!