SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Comments
-
-
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?CM189191 said:0 -
I've considered this a lot, but apparently only democrats have an issue getting behind a candidate they aren't fond of. I mean, the R's stuck together and went all in fucking crazy on DT and defend him publicly all the time, still to this day.tempo_n_groove said:
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?CM189191 said:It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Well, now they love him.tbergs said:
I've considered this a lot, but apparently only democrats have an issue getting behind a candidate they aren't fond of. I mean, the R's stuck together and went all in fucking crazy on DT and defend him publicly all the time, still to this day.tempo_n_groove said:
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?CM189191 said:
I think the Dems really misread the impact of how hated Hillary had been and for how long. From the day Bill become a household name. Granted, the Dems didn't have a deep bench (and still don't) but she just rubbed so many people the wrong way...often for bad reasons or even no reason, but still. The third-party people would have happened either way but I think she really hurt with the semi-engaged middle. Trump may have scared some of them into voting for her, but she was definitely not the type of candidate who was going to win people that have histories of voting for both parties or spotty histories of voting at all. It was hard to lose to Trump. But they found a way.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
OnWis97 said:
Well, now they love him.tbergs said:
I've considered this a lot, but apparently only democrats have an issue getting behind a candidate they aren't fond of. I mean, the R's stuck together and went all in fucking crazy on DT and defend him publicly all the time, still to this day.tempo_n_groove said:
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?CM189191 said:
I think the Dems really misread the impact of how hated Hillary had been and for how long. From the day Bill become a household name. Granted, the Dems didn't have a deep bench (and still don't) but she just rubbed so many people the wrong way...often for bad reasons or even no reason, but still. The third-party people would have happened either way but I think she really hurt with the semi-engaged middle. Trump may have scared some of them into voting for her, but she was definitely not the type of candidate who was going to win people that have histories of voting for both parties or spotty histories of voting at all. It was hard to lose to Trump. But they found a way.I dont think Parties need a bench. Trump was never on any bench. He was the true wildcard of politics.Blaming the DNC may be silly. Blame the voters on the left who “need to fall in love” and give credit to the party who “falls in line.”
general note, voters for a second should not believe 60 to 70% support pro choice. Women did not support a woman candidate in 2016 so here we are. At least while women.
0 -
interesting that the justices believe that their opinions have some sort of right to privacy or something."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?CM189191 said:
Bernie lost fair and square primaries to Hillary and Biden. So being a sore loser seems to run par for the course. This culture of being a sore loser runs deep in the far left, as they boycotted and protest voted our nation into overturning Roe v Wade. I guess that showed the Democrats, as the far left cut off their nose to spite their face.
The bottom line is if Al Gore and Hillary Clinton picked those justices, Roe v Wade would not be overturned by the SCOTUS. But instead we got stuck with GW Bush and Trump justices who are ideologically bent on overturning it, and lied their way into a position to do so. This is not the fault of the establishment Democrats. This is the fault of those that decided to spite the establishment on the far left, and were probably manipulated by Russian trolls on social media just like the Trumpers.Had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton picked those justices, we would not be having this conversation. We cannot move forward to build a stronger social safety net when the far left have empowered the far right to where they control the courts and are now chipping away at established rights moving us backwards.Until the far left admits their mistakes rather than doubling down on them, the overturning of Roe v Wade is just the beginning of the oppressive GOP state we will one day live under.
/not stolen, borrowed with pride0 -
If the draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito disclosed by POLITICO Monday night is any guide, the constitutional right to abortion has only a few days or weeks left to go. The most conservative majority of the Supreme Court that was, already a decade ago, arguably the “most conservative in modern history” has singled out Roe for excoriation and oblivion. But what marked out Roe to this fate, and not many other decisions? It is not the reasons provided in the draft Alito opinion: The explanation for Roe’s demise is to be found not in law, per se, but in the court’s entanglement in our pernicious moment of partisan hyperpolarization and the Republican Party’s inextricable link to anti-abortion politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts has acknowledged the document is authentic, and its style certainly suggests it is indeed by Alito. So, how does his rationale for overturning Roe stack up as a justification for a large, and likely convulsive, change in American society? The reasons flagged by the draft opinion fall painfully short. In fact, their profound weakness highlights precisely why Roe and abortion rights have been singled out. Go down the list of contentious legal questions, and it quickly becomes clear that conservatives do not follow Alito’s approach anywhere else besides Roe.
For instance, the draft majority opinion spills a good deal of ink on the history of abortion regulation in England and the United States (skimming over, as it does it, the considerable periods in which abortion was left to the free choice of women). But precisely this kind of appeal to a history of close regulation can be made in respect to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. As the legal scholars Reva Siegel and Joseph Blocher documented in extensive detail, there is a “centuries” old tradition of common law rules regulating weapons, especially when they are carried into the public sphere. This has not stopped the conservative justices from creating a novel individual right to bear arms and extending that right against both the federal and the state governments.
Next, the Alito opinion spends a good deal of energy shellacking the reasoning of Justice Harry Blackmun’s 1972 opinion in Roe v. Wade. The opinion, says Alito, is “hard to defend” and “egregiously wrong.” But by the very standards that Alito himself brings to bear, there are many opinions that are so “egregiously wrong” that they should be chucked out. And yet they awake nary a peek from our most conservative of courts.
To see this, it is helpful to see why Alito says Roe is wrong. The core of Alito’s argument is the idea that the Roe Court defined the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment at too high, and too abstract, a level of generality. It is, in other words, unanchored from the text of the Constitution. But let’s say we took seriously the idea that the court should avoid readings of the Constitution pitched at too high a level of generality, and not anchored in the text of the Constitution. What else would have to go?
The first thing to go would be the Roberts Court’s rulings on the so-called removal power of the president to oust agency heads, which has been used to attack the regulatory state. Next to go would be the court’s rulings that an ambient, unwritten principle of “state sovereign immunity” precludes all sorts of damages claims against the federal government. This despite the fact no such principle is mentioned in the Constitution. Ironically, Alito himself authored one such opinion almost exactly a decade ago. And third, consider all of the court’s campaign finance opinions: They interpret the word “speech” in the First Amendment at a highly abstract level to sweep in not just speaking but spending — a sleight of hand that would have seemed absurd in 1791.
Is the Supreme Court about to throw out its campaign finance jurisprudence, its special solicitude for the government’s purse, or raw presidential power? Don’t get your hopes up.
There’s more, but it’s embarrassing in its meagerness. Abortion, Alito says by way of example, is just different from other fundamental rights — including the right to marry and the right against involuntary sterilization — because it raises a “critical moral question.” The suggestion here is that miscegenation laws and state eugenics programs raise no “critical” moral issue. This is worse than absurd; it’s morally obscene.
The reasons Alito himself gives, in short, for singling out Roe cannot explain the decision to overrule that case. All apply equally to opinions that Alito and colleagues have embraced and enforced with vigor.
So what then is going on? The answer is embarrassingly clear. When Alito cautions against the injection of the justices’ own “ardent views” into the law, he skips over a fateful step. The problem with Roe and the draft Dobbs opinion alike is not that they are tainted with the tincture of the justices’ own views. Of course they are: Just notice Alito’s loaded pejorative talk of “abortionists” if you were doubtful on this score.
No, the problem is that the sole explanation for the disparate anger and disdain targeted at Roe is that that right to abortion has been the ardent target of key factions within the Republican Party for years. And the untimely death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg allowed former President Donald Trump to deploy judicial appointments to deliver Roe’s execution notice in late 2020. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed this out at oral argument in Dobbs, she was only stating what every single participant in the confirmation battles of the last several years well understood, and only the willfully blind could deny.
Indeed, what is striking about the modern Supreme Court is not so much that its members have “ardent views” but that those views reflect the immediate priorities of the Republican Party. Abortion, of course, is central to key religious elements of the Republican coalition, and thus an election issue of singular importance. But to make my point, a non-abortion example may be helpful: Until the Obama presidency, there was broad agreement among both liberal and conservative justices over the idea that courts should generally give federal regulatory agencies a great deal of leeway. But in 2016, the Republican National Committee included in its platform item an attack on such deference. In short order, the legal historian Craig Green has demonstrated, the attack was taken up by conservative think tanks, and then by conservative justices. On this issue, as on abortion, the arguments professed as law have nakedly partisan origins.
continues....
Opinion | Alito’s Case for Overturning Roe is Weak for a Reason (msn.com)
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
Exactlytbergs said:
This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.bootlegger10 said:
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.static111 said:
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
0
-
dankind said:
There's been a long-running agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, and the fact that the SCOTUS even took the time, effort, and taxpayer dollars to rule on such a ludicrous nothing of a case signals to me that they are now on board with that agenda. Unanimously, I might add.bootlegger10 said:
It was a 9-0 ruling. I don’t think there is an agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, but they looked at the specific facts of the case and ruled appropriately. I find it hard to believe that the liberal judges would be part of this agenda.dankind said:https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-a872f0bfe945ca59d5077515449ec4b4
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.I am stoked that there is a 9-0 ruling. I get that the SC only sees the gray area cases, but the 5-4 votes are the ones that bother me the most. It just seems like it is less about application of the law at that point and more about personal beliefs.
Make it reciprocal, and tax the fuck out of houses of worship!seen this coming...Satanic Temple asks Boston to fly flag after court rulingBy PHILIP MARCELOTodayBOSTON (AP) — The Satanic Temple is requesting to fly a flag over Boston City Hall after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the city violated the free speech rights of a conservative activist seeking to fly a Christian flag outside the downtown building.
continues.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
fucking Gilead.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
Republicans are convinced it’s a democrat. It’s possible but doesn’t make as much sense as an Alito or a Thomas clerk.tbergs said:
This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.bootlegger10 said:
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.static111 said:
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.It’s a draft opinion, subject to change. Some extreme pro life clerk could have leaked it to try to lock in the 5 votes.
vote changing happens all the time (although it’s unlikely here) as dissenting opinions also get circulated. You can’t really moderate your position after a leak makes your initial position public.
if a democrat leaked it, there is no upside. There is a ton of upside for a Republican to have leaked it. When the leaker gets found their law career is over. That also points to a Republican. There is far more passion and extremism in the pro life movement so that tradeoff may be worth itPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
Hagimmesometruth27 said:interesting that the justices believe that their opinions have some sort of right to privacy or something.
no right to privacy and leaking a government document isn’t a crime
the only time it’s a crime is if it’s a leak of classified information which this isn’t or if it was obtained through a crime IE breaking into a building
I don’t agree with the leak but according so some on the right the leak is an “insurrection” and worse than Jan 60 -
There's benefit for democrats in this. It totally changes the subject from the economy and kick starts the fall campaign. You could also argue it puts pressure on the justices to moderate the opinion.Cropduster-80 said:
Republicans are convinced it’s a democrat. It’s possible but doesn’t make as much sense as an Alito clerk.tbergs said:
This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.bootlegger10 said:
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.static111 said:
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.It’s a draft opinion, subject to change. Some extreme pro life clerk could have leaked it to try to lock in the 5 votes.
vote changing happens all the time (although it’s unlikely here) as dissenting opinions also get circulated. You can’t really moderate your position after a leak makes your initial position public.
if a democrat leaked it, there is no upside. There is a ton of upside for a Republican to have leaked it. When the leaker gets found their law career is over. That also points to a Republican. There is far more passion and extremism in the pro life movement so that tradeoff may be worth it
I'm not saying it was a left wing clerk, just saying both sides have something to gain from the leak.0 -
Agreed assuming the clerk has a wider political agenda IE supporting the other branches of government and changing the subject on the economy. It’s kind of out of their lane thoughmrussel1 said:
There's benefit for democrats in this. It totally changes the subject from the economy and kick starts the fall campaign. You could also argue it puts pressure on the justices to moderate the opinion.Cropduster-80 said:
Republicans are convinced it’s a democrat. It’s possible but doesn’t make as much sense as an Alito clerk.tbergs said:
This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.bootlegger10 said:
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.static111 said:
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.It’s a draft opinion, subject to change. Some extreme pro life clerk could have leaked it to try to lock in the 5 votes.
vote changing happens all the time (although it’s unlikely here) as dissenting opinions also get circulated. You can’t really moderate your position after a leak makes your initial position public.
if a democrat leaked it, there is no upside. There is a ton of upside for a Republican to have leaked it. When the leaker gets found their law career is over. That also points to a Republican. There is far more passion and extremism in the pro life movement so that tradeoff may be worth it
I'm not saying it was a left wing clerk, just saying both sides have something to gain from the leak.
I just assume either way it’s a judicial specific motivation directly related to this case0 -
The whole thread is a must read...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help