Jump to content
Motor City Sonics

The Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

He may be a good writer,  but does/will his more property centered outlook  - while certainly a conservative value, have the kind of mythic draw to other conservative minds that Scalia could marshall with his constant invocations of the founders and 'original intent' et al? And again, you can't separate personality from persuasiveness.   Philosophically Thomas should have taken up Scalia's mantle. but he is too prickly and Quixotic - he  goes too easily to places that too obviously expose the weakness of his overall approach.

thomas is much more of a "strict constructionist" when it comes to originalism (as much as that is really a thing) than scalia was.  by scalia's own admission he was an "originalist when convenient".

thomas was never going to become scalia.  he's not that type of personality.  the idea of thomas just following scalia no matter what is another liberal press narrative that simplifies reality into a convenient story so they can portray thomas as stupid.

we'll see where gorsuch is on the original intent issue.  both alito and thomas cited the original meaning of title vii in denying that sex discrimination was meant to cover trans people, but gorsuch did not and instead used the definition of the word sex.  not sure where he'll come down on in interpreting the words in the bill of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I agree with you generally, he had the right to confirm her and the courts (bound by lifetime appointments) haven't performed as many liberals expected during this time period. 

Having said that,, the appearance of the party in the Rose Garden (which subsequently became a Superspreader event), the subsequent after party post-confirmation, and Trump's own words on his expectations of what she would do in the event of an elections case didn't help.

trump and mcconnell (and reagan) have done more to undermine the authority of government institutions than any democrat.

Share this post


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

  both alito and thomas cited the original meaning of title vii in denying that sex discrimination was meant to cover trans people, but gorsuch did not and instead used the definition of the word sex. 

this is an interesting question on purely linguistic terms. If you write a law, and the plain meaning of the words evolves, what should happen. OTOH you can say - that isn't what "they" meant, but on the OTOH, and just as valid you can say, if we wanted to write that law that way (i.e. by the new definition) today, that is exactly how we would write it, so how do you deny that should be the meaning? Either way you look at it it's not simple. I think I would argue that from a practical standpoint that it makes more sense for the legislatures to amend laws to correct for linguistic drift when they see the need or let them stand when they don't than add another thing judges are put into a position to guess about. 

Of course, the lucky thing for us is that since 'mass media' came to language with Guttenberg, it dramatically slowed what used to be very high rates of language change. And it's only gotten slower with the advent of audio/video recording that pins down not only meaning but even pronunciation. Compare the drift in English between Chaucer and Shakespeare to that between the Constitution and ourselves. Each is about the same number of years but we can read Jefferson with ease, whereas you need a translator to get from Chaucer to Shakespeare. Can you imagine where courts would be if the US laws on the books from the 19th century had been written originally in Middle English? xD

Share this post


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

supreme court denies trump again.

sheesh, barrett, gorsuch, and kavanagh are really not earning their paychecks.

That’s okay, it’ll serve to look less egregious when they finally pay off for him. 

Share this post


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

Yep.

If anything, Alito/Thomas' position was even less ideal for Paxton's case.

This tweet is part of the setup to campaign against the (Republican-appointed) deep state liberal judiciary in 2022 and 2024. 

Share this post


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

This tweet is part of the setup to campaign against the (Republican-appointed) deep state liberal judiciary in 2022 and 2024. 

Is that what he said? He said he would deny 'relief' as in any kind of immediate injunction, so the electoral college would still go ahead, but it seems to me to even accept the filing opens up new worlds of uncertainty around the election. Isn't it a huge difference to have any kind of case 'pending' - even with no immediate relief - as opposed to none?

Share this post


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

That’s okay, it’ll serve to look less egregious when they finally pay off for him. 

and how are they going to do that?

Share this post


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

trump and mcconnell (and reagan) have done more to undermine the authority of government institutions than any democrat.

Still think your criticism of Senate Dems is fair though... I understand the skepticism given how Trump has politicized a lot of his judicial picks, but it's fair to say that, for a variety of reasons (lifetime appointments, more rigidity in ideology), justices of a particular stripe may not have the same pressures or inclinations that elected politicians have in terms of Constitutional adherence.

That nuance is lost when every Trump justice is counted as a hypothetical vote to hand him the election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mtutiger said:

John Cornyn and Kay Granger. And Chip Roy. Those are the ones I saw come out vocally against it.

There were at least eight GOP US House Reps from Texas who refused to sign on to the lawsuit.  Plus Cornyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful. Let’s give them medals of Freedom. 

.... so what.

Is this supposed to be praise-worthy? 

Talk about a low bar.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Melody said:

There were at least eight GOP US House Reps from Texas who refused to sign on to the lawsuit.  Plus Cornyn.

That's right, although those three were the only ones who actually came out and criticized the effort.

Share this post


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

There were at least eight GOP US House Reps from Texas who refused to sign on to the lawsuit.  Plus Cornyn.

And of those who refused to sign the lawsuit, 75% of them will lose their 2022 primaries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for Pete's sake, Sue.  I voted for Biden and agreed with the SCOTUS.  I was clarifying an incorrect statement about politics relating to my state.    Is this no longer permitted in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Melody said:

Oh, for Pete's sake, Sue.  I voted for Biden and agreed with the SCOTUS.  I was clarifying an incorrect statement about politics relating to my state.    Is this no longer permitted in here?

Why on earth would you say “is this no longer permitted in here?” Am I stopping you from saying anything? I just happen to totally disagree with your perspective on this that somehow these people are to be admired. And that all of this is just normal and everything will be just peachy come inauguration day. This has been a travesty. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

And of those who refused to sign the lawsuit, 75% of them will lose their 2022 primaries.  

I'm curious to know what Fox is going to do. I don't doubt they will go right into support of total obstruction mode, but will they do with or without Trump? He can go to OAN or try to run his own new network, but I'd put my money Fox being better at the ratings game than whatever competition Trump might go to. I guess that logic argues that since they know who their audience is they are going to welcome him back as roving guest #1. The question is maybe more whether that role would satisfy him now. Logically he would want to headline his own show, but that is a lot of real work ( i.e. tons more than a show like 'the Apprentice' ever was)  and I would have to wonder if he has either the work ethic or the remaining erudition to succeed.

Share this post


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

Oh, for Pete's sake, Sue.  I voted for Biden and agreed with the SCOTUS.  I was clarifying an incorrect statement about politics relating to my state.    Is this no longer permitted in here?

It wasn't an incorrect statement. (Notice the use of the word "vocally")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Why on earth would you say “is this no longer permitted in here?” Am I stopping you from saying anything? I just happen to totally disagree with your perspective on this that somehow these people are to be admired. And that all of this is just normal and everything will be just peachy come inauguration day. This has been a travesty. 

 

Also, I am making a distinction between issuing or making statements against the lawsuit (as Cornyn, Granger and Roy did) and simply not signing onto the suit. 

The former is active, the latter is passive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Still think your criticism of Senate Dems is fair though... I understand the skepticism given how Trump has politicized a lot of his judicial picks, but it's fair to say that, for a variety of reasons (lifetime appointments, more rigidity in ideology), justices of a particular stripe may not have the same pressures or inclinations that elected politicians have in terms of Constitutional adherence.

That nuance is lost when every Trump justice is counted as a hypothetical vote to hand him the election

i agree.

i hate that trump has resulted in everything being politicized, and the democrats falling into the same pattern.

Share this post


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

i agree.

i hate that trump has resulted in everything being politicized, and the democrats falling into the same pattern.

It didn't start with Trump, it's been building in the system as least as far back as Reagan, maybe a lot further than that. As much as we talk about the Presidency and the Court though, the real breakdown has been in the operation of the Congress. The real shift that is making the country ungovernable is the unwillingness of the majority parties to allow legislation to pass with a minority of their caucus plus the majority of the minority caucus. That is a relatively new twist and it has destroyed functional majority rule in the US. There has been net majority support for action on all kinds of the country's most pressing problems, from immigration reform to infrastructure, that cannot get past the 'majority of the majority' (which is a minority!) hurdle now in place.  

Share this post


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

It didn't start with Trump, it's been building in the system as least as far back as Reagan, maybe a lot further than that. As much as we talk about the Presidency and the Court though, the real breakdown has been in the operation of the Congress. The real shift that is making the country ungovernable is the unwillingness of the majority parties to allow legislation to pass with a minority of their caucus plus the majority of the minority caucus. That is a relatively new twist and it has destroyed functional majority rule in the US. There has been net majority support for action on all kinds of the country's most pressing problems, from immigration reform to infrastructure, that cannot get past the 'majority of the majority' (which is a minority!) hurdle now in place.  

I think the difference now is how badly every crisis gets politicized under Trump.  Pretty much the whole county rallied behind Bush for a little after 911.  I don't think even that would have brought us together under Trump.  

Share this post


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

i agree.

i hate that trump has resulted in everything being politicized, and the democrats falling into the same pattern.

To be fair, that's been going on for a number of years - it's just more obvious perhaps just now. Look back at Clinton and you see the same sorts of things starting to be become more obvious, for example.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

To be fair, that's been going on for a number of years - it's just more obvious perhaps just now. Look back at Clinton and you see the same sorts of things starting to be become more obvious, for example.

Another way to look at it is that we have allowed the Sports metaphor to overtake our politics. Is it the media only casting politics as winners and losers - the constant horse race coverage? I don't know which is the chicken or the egg here but running for office has ceased to be about governing, it's only about winning the contest. Which of course is devoid of any value if you don't want to govern. Why wouldn't all compromise fail when you aren't trying to go anywhere anyway? No one needs cooperation to just stand still. The GOP is already congenitally prone to this by virtue of its absurd 'government is bad' mindset. But McConnell stands above it all as the apotheosis of this in the US today. A man completely devoid of even a shred of motivation to provide governance. His total ambition is his position itself, which he has in turn made a nullity by having no ambition whatsoever to put it to productive use. And worst of all, his nihilism is just a reflection of that of the voters of Ky. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CMRivdog said:

I can trace it back to at least Gingrich  and his so called Contract with America BS.

Yes. Specifically in 1990 when they railroaded the president for the budget deal.  

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 launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...