Jump to content
Motor City Sonics

The Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, pfife said:

Trump nominees have refused to say that Brown is rightly decided as well, so your definition of the term is quite problematic.

It's the accepted use of the term.  People may disagree about exactly which cases fall within the definition, but it is generally accepted that it is a very small number of cases.  Also, there is a difference between thinking that a case was correctly decided and thinking that its bare holding was wrong or that it should be overturned.  I am confident that most people have never read even part of a Supreme Court opinion, much less an entire opinion.  Some of them are very long, and contain a lot of statements and discussion and reasoning aside from the bare holding, and it is a rare if not nonexistent long opinion that does not contain things that even the winners do not agree with.  

I'm pretty sure that there are very few people who think that we should go back to the pre-Brown legal regime, and I doubt that there is any federal judge who thinks it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

14 minutes ago, pfife said:

The GOP has put at least several judges on the federal bench that were rated as unqualfied.  So Shelton's point stands - senators confirm based on whether they agree with them.  You seem to have higher standards for shelton's advise and consent standards than US senators which is weird since one side of that comparison has power in the matter and the other side is shelton

yes, and if Lee had asked me if those judges were qualified, i would have said no.

but he didnt.  he asked about barrett, and she is qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Buddha said:

yes, and if Lee had asked me if those judges were qualified, i would have said no.

but he didnt.  he asked about barrett, and she is qualified.

I didn't ask you.  I asked Shelton.

But it's always about you!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I didn't ask you.  I asked Shelton.

But it's always about you!

1) yes.  yes it is.

2) its not my fault you asked someone who wasnt QUALIFIED to answer....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, pfife said:

uh the money is rolling in for democrats b/c we're giving it to them

even cocaine mitch says it's actblue that's killing them

money has evened out on the corporate side too, then add in things like actblue and yes, GOP is getting killed.   It was Just a quick point that a few years ago, we didn't need to worry about Trump as Citizen's United was the end of the United States.  The democrats adjusted, built a ground game, and have so much money they don't even know how to spend it all (a very rare thing for dems).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little known fact, the constitution actually does require the tepid ABA qualification standard to count for 73% of the senate’s advice and consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Buddha said:

yes, and if Lee had asked me if those judges were qualified, i would have said no.

but he didnt.  he asked about barrett, and she is qualified.

Right but it was Shelton who you disagreed with 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

It's the accepted use of the term.  People may disagree about exactly which cases fall within the definition, but it is generally accepted that it is a very small number of cases.  Also, there is a difference between thinking that a case was correctly decided and thinking that its bare holding was wrong or that it should be overturned.  I am confident that most people have never read even part of a Supreme Court opinion, much less an entire opinion.  Some of them are very long, and contain a lot of statements and discussion and reasoning aside from the bare holding, and it is a rare if not nonexistent long opinion that does not contain things that even the winners do not agree with.  

I'm pretty sure that there are very few people who think that we should go back to the pre-Brown legal regime, and I doubt that there is any federal judge who thinks it.

sounds like knowing which cases they think are super-precedent is pretty important in determining confirmation!   

I totally think they put judges on the court that would like to go to the pre-Brown legal regime.   They missed the opportunity to disabuse me of that notion quite thoroughly so I will take the info they gave me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

money has evened out on the corporate side too, then add in things like actblue and yes, GOP is getting killed.   It was Just a quick point that a few years ago, we didn't need to worry about Trump as Citizen's United was the end of the United States.  The democrats adjusted, built a ground game, and have so much money they don't even know how to spend it all (a very rare thing for dems).

That we overcame their injustice via our grit and determination and awesomeness and also being super great human beings doesn't mean their injustice doesn't still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, pfife said:

Right but it was Shelton who you disagreed with 

i answered Lee's question with the ABA results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

Little known fact, the constitution actually does require the tepid ABA qualification standard to count for 73% of the senate’s advice and consent. 

true.  if you look at the transcripts from the constitutional convention, i'm pretty sure it was Madison who wanted to go with "Shelton's bull**** criteria" but he was unfortunately overruled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but Shelton's bull**** criteria is the same as the criteria senators use when confirming, and also the criteria presidents use when nominating, so its interesting that of the three:  Shelton, Senators, and Presidents, you hammer Shelton and attribute the criteria to Shelton.  Interesting entity to hold to the highest standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i answered Lee's question with the ABA results.

anything else between me and shelton is just teasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i must have a different definition of "qualified."

its ok to not vote for someone even though they are qualified for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Buddha said:

i must have a different definition of "qualified."

its ok to not vote for someone even though they are qualified for the job.

Of course it is. Appointments have always been political decisions, that's why 'ABA qualified' is not the criteria laid out in the Constitution, while that very mushy terminology "advise and consent' is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Of course it is. Appointments have always been political decisions, that's why 'ABA qualified' is not the criteria laid out in the Constitution, while that very mushy terminology "advise and consent' is.

Sure.  But when the question is: "Is she "qualified" for the Supreme Court", one would likely look to a neutral third party in the industry to tell us their opinion.  Ergo the ABA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 7:04 PM, tiger337 said:

It's been pretty well established that climate change is real.  

Of course it is.  It has been changing for billions of years, or 6000, depending on who does the counting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Of course it is.  It has been changing for billions of years, or 6000, depending on who does the counting.

I know you guys long for days past, but what has happened in the last several decades is a lot more relevant to our future than what happened a billion years ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're a long way from what qualifies as a historical Greenhouse Period, during at least some of which -- according to climate scientists -- there were no glaciers at all and no ice or snow even at high altitudes.  And no people, if you are in the billions of years camp.  

And what is there to worry about?  If the past is any guide, another ice age will come around one of these days and cool things down.  We may even have to return to going straight from the regular season to the World Series.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, six-hopper said:

And what is there to worry about?  

Wild fires, droughts, historic storms, rising water levels,...

I am not a huge climate change guy.  I believe the concern may be over done, but it's a real problem which should be addressed continually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Wild fires, droughts, historic storms, rising water levels,...

I am not a huge climate change guy.  I believe the concern may be over done, but it's a real problem which should be addressed continually. 

the world has been gradually warming for hundreds of years now.  we are actually in an ice age that may be coming to an end.  that said, we appear to be hastening this process in a way that will be detrimental to us in the long run.

as to individual catastrophes, the recent wild fires are more due to improper vegetation removal than a change in the climate.  droughts happen all the time.  the uptick in the number of hurricanes was predicted by climate scientists for a while as a result of the earth's warming.  rising water levels are a concern for many.

climate change is overdone by the press because the press overdoes everything.  but that doesnt mean its not an issue.

continuing to press the issue will lead to technological advances in energy that produces less harmful pollution.  thats the only solution.  were not going to stop buying cars or flying, you simply must make those technologies cleaner and more energy efficient.  in the interim, you prepare for a warmer world. 

the best way to get people motivated to change is by making people aware of how their world may be changing and have corporations start making money by making this new, cleaner technology.

the wrong way to do that is to tell them the world is ending every time there is a hurricane or a fire because they will stop believing you after they wake up the next morning and the world is, in fact, still here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buddha said:

the world has been gradually warming for hundreds of years now.  we are actually in an ice age that may be coming to an end.  that said, we appear to be hastening this process in a way that will be detrimental to us in the long run.

as to individual catastrophes, the recent wild fires are more due to improper vegetation removal than a change in the climate.  droughts happen all the time.  the uptick in the number of hurricanes was predicted by climate scientists for a while as a result of the earth's warming.  rising water levels are a concern for many.

climate change is overdone by the press because the press overdoes everything.  but that doesnt mean its not an issue.

continuing to press the issue will lead to technological advances in energy that produces less harmful pollution.  thats the only solution.  were not going to stop buying cars or flying, you simply must make those technologies cleaner and more energy efficient.  in the interim, you prepare for a warmer world. 

the best way to get people motivated to change is by making people aware of how their world may be changing and have corporations start making money by making this new, cleaner technology.

the wrong way to do that is to tell them the world is ending every time there is a hurricane or a fire because they will stop believing you after they wake up the next morning and the world is, in fact, still here.

I agree with your conclusions. The technological advances will be made when profits can be made off of them.  We need to make changes but the world isn't going to end.  We will figure it out.  At the same time, people burying their heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to lead to any solutions.  

I don't think we know that climate change does not contribute to forest fires and droughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I agree with your conclusions. The technological advances will be made when profits can be made off of them.  We need to make changes but the world isn't going to end.  We will figure it out.  At the same time, people burying their heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to lead to any solutions.  

I don't think we know that climate change does not contribute to forest fires and droughts.

i wouldnt say it doesnt contribute, i would say that these particular wildfires were more caused by california's internal politics stopping it from properly addressing the issue.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Buddha said:

i wouldnt say it doesnt contribute, i would say that these particular wildfires were more caused by california's internal politics stopping it from properly addressing the issue.

Doesn't the federal government own 47% of California's land?

EDIT: According to this pdf, the United States Government owns 40% of California's land, the State of California owns 2.25%.

I understand that there are other aspects that the state policy that may impact things that happen off their land, but blaming it all on the state seems to ignore the Federal Government's role as a stakeholder.

https://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, its both.  hotter and drier conditions lead to more fires.  however, the lack of fire management caused partially by internal politics leads to more fuel for the fires.  and people keep moving further and further into the hinterlands leading to more damage and more deaths.

proper fire management costs money and they dont want to spend it on that.  also, the people who fight the fires get paid more for fighting a fire than for doing a managed burn.  and if the managed burn gets out of control, then the state is on the hook for any damage it caused (which costs more money and leaves politicians looking bad).

its much easier for democrat politicians in california to blame it all on "climate change."  that way, none of their actual policies can be blamed and they can point the finger at those darn ignorant republicans in washington.

again, thats not to say that the changing climate doesnt contribute, but instead to note that it is one factor in many, and is the one factor we cannot immediately change.

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-forest-management-have-both-fueled-todays-epic-western-wildfires-146247

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/17/1008473/wildfires-california-prescribed-burns-climate-change-forests/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...