What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zombie said:
Trump gets another SCOTUS pick.


We're in hell.

****.

This news is ruining my vacation.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, while I completely disagreed with how Garland got shafted, picking Gorsuch is one of the very few things Trump has done that I totally agreed with. I just hope his next pick is as good.
 
colton said:
For what it's worth, while I completely disagreed with how Garland got shafted, picking Gorsuch is one of the very few things Trump has done that I totally agreed with. I just hope his next pick is as good.
Click to expand...
According to the US law, what is the maximum damage the Supreme Court can cause to either a single person or company? Assuming all those members are as evil as possible. I.e can the Supreme Court alone pass/force any harassing laws etc.
 
colton said:
For what it's worth, while I completely disagreed with how Garland got shafted, picking Gorsuch is one of the very few things Trump has done that I totally agreed with. I just hope his next pick is as good.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, this is why the Democrats essentially forcing McConnell to use the nuclear option was so shortsighted. Gorsuch, was at least an agreeable candidate. Obviously not going to side with the left often, but he’s nobody’s puppet. He’s a good judge. Now though...it’s a lot easier to get a less worthy justice in. Just obviously shortsighted, and everybody said it/knew it at the time.
 
To add a bit: rigid adherence to a very stringent set of ideas, without regard in any fashion to changes in facts, circumstances, or cultural mores, is actually the mark of a terrible judge.

Conservative orthodoxy is presently engaged in a very long game of perverse selection when it comes to the judiciary.
 
im near 100% sure its the Russians...

Never forget how they did the honorable justice scalia o_O
 
The Thriller said:
I think we should wait until the new congress is sworn in. If 8 months was too close to an election then shouldn’t 4 months be too close? We need to let the American people decide who the next SC justice should be. Right?
Click to expand...

There’s a difference between a midterm election and a presidential election.

Either way, the Democrats forced the Republicans to go away from the 60 votes needed when they wouldn’t let Gorsuch in...and that was while they knew Kennedy was contemplating retirement. Incredibly shortsighted.
 
sirkickyass said:
To add a bit: rigid adherence to a very stringent set of ideas, without regard in any fashion to changes in facts, circumstances, or cultural mores, is actually the mark of a terrible judge.

Conservative orthodoxy is presently engaged in a very long game of perverse selection when it comes to the judiciary.
Click to expand...

Particularly with the first amendment cases we’ve seen recently.

Life Advocates v Becerra? “We need to defend the first amendment from authoritarianism. Religion/free speech must be protected!”
Trump v Hawaii? “ummm... Defending Islam isn’t the type of free speech we want. Let’s merely disregard everything Donald trump has said about this ban (i e admitting it was a Muslim ban) and just hope that authoritarianism doesn’t spread.”

It’ll be interesting to see in the next few years the effects of this conservative SC. In a country that is dying from wealth inequality and corruption, poor worker’s rights, and empowering more women, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.
 
lauriandres said:
According to the US law, what is the maximum damage the Supreme Court can cause to either a single person or company? Assuming all those members are as evil as possible. I.e can the Supreme Court alone pass/force any harassing laws etc.
Click to expand...
They don't write the laws themselves, but could do major damage by allowing, and setting future precedent for any horrible law that is passed by any kind of horrible group of lawmakers at a lower level.
 
The Thriller said:
Particularly with the first amendment cases we’ve seen recently.

Life Advocates v Becerra? “We need to defend the first amendment from authoritarianism. Religion/free speech must be protected!”
Trump v Hawaii? “ummm... Defending Islam isn’t the type of free speech we want. Let’s merely disregard everything Donald trump has said about this ban (i e admitting it was a Muslim ban) and just hope that authoritarianism doesn’t spread.”

It’ll be interesting to see in the next few years the effects of this conservative SC. In a country that is dying from wealth inequality and corruption, poor worker’s rights, and empowering more women, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Ahh you forgot that they just signed the death certificate of American labor unions.
 
colton said:
They don't write the laws themselves, but could do major damage by allowing, and setting future precedent for any horrible law that is passed by any kind of horrible group of lawmakers at a lower level.
Click to expand...
Colton, what are the worse top3 laws in history of USA, that were activated thanks to the combination of bad lawmakers and bad group of SCOTUS? Am i correct that the only way to abolish bad laws approved by SCOTUS is to replace all SCOTUS members with better ones?
 
♪alt13 said:
Ahh you forgot that they just signed the death certificate of American labor unions.
Click to expand...
If not being able to forcibly take money from people who have chosen not to be in a union is the death of unions then unions absolutely deserve to die. If unions have value then it seems that the people they serve would join them and pay dues. This crazy idea that the way for unions to survive is to allow them to take money from people who don't want to be in them and don't want to give them money is ridiculous.
 
Bulletproof said:
If not being able to forcibly take money from people who have chosen not to be in a union is the death of unions then unions absolutely deserve to die. If unions have value then it seems that the people they serve would join them and pay dues. This crazy idea that the way for unions to survive is to allow them to take money from people who don't want to be in them and don't want to give them money is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

From my understanding public sector unions are required to offer their services to non-members as well as members. Seems like it was 'unfair' both ways to me before the ruling in a way that somewhat balanced out. Now it seems like a way to hamstring unions, as they're legally required to offer their service, but aren't allowed to require payments.
 
Bulletproof said:
If not being able to forcibly take money from people who have chosen not to be in a union is the death of unions then unions absolutely deserve to die. If unions have value then it seems that the people they serve would join them and pay dues. This crazy idea that the way for unions to survive is to allow them to take money from people who don't want to be in them and don't want to give them money is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the issues engendered by free-riders?
 
Bulletproof said:
If not being able to forcibly take money from people who have chosen not to be in a union is the death of unions then unions absolutely deserve to die. If unions have value then it seems that the people they serve would join them and pay dues. This crazy idea that the way for unions to survive is to allow them to take money from people who don't want to be in them and don't want to give them money is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

the CFMEU would beg to differ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top