Author Topic: SCOTUS  (Read 18797 times)

BOSmommy and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 161
  • -Received: 192
  • Posts: 1564
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2018, 10:38:25 AM »
despite all the excessive media coverage  this scotus thing is getting (and the MAGA high fives here) , this is very much a partisan issue and will activate the base on each side.  The right doesn't have any moral leg to stand on except "hey we owned the libs" after the treatment given to merrick garland (was he "good" or "bad" ? I don't know and I don't care as much) . 

The independents will get tired of this soon and move on to the next trump dumpster fire...

Offline Ready2Downsize

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 15
  • -Received: 170
  • Posts: 1379
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2018, 10:42:55 AM »
despite all the excessive media coverage  this scotus thing is getting (and the MAGA high fives here) , this is very much a partisan issue and will activate the base on each side.  The right doesn't have any moral leg to stand on except "hey we owned the libs" after the treatment given to merrick garland (was he "good" or "bad" ? I don't know and I don't care as much) . 

The independents will get tired of this soon and move on to the next trump dumpster fire...

When the dems get back in power, they'll just add more seats to the supreme court and move it back to the left and they can legislate thru the supreme court instead of the legislature.......... basically back to two branches of the government.

FDR tried to do it when he couldn't get his New Deal bills passed but it didn't work, but since when is that a reason to not try again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

By then, I'll be a whining senior complaining social security needs to be raised and of course the dems will make sure that happens. Won't be especially good for those still working to give me my entitlements but oh well........ who cares, right? As long as the liberals are back in power.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 11:01:27 AM by Ready2Downsize »

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 243
  • -Received: 260
  • Posts: 2554
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2018, 11:24:18 AM »
This is getting old, headlines at every confirmation hearing...13 years later, it's still here...boy who cried wolf...again.

Justice Roberts Hints He Could Overturn Roe


Alito argued to overturn Roe v. Wade

Feinstein sees Judge Gorsuch as a threat to Roe vs. Wade and the right to abortion

Yes, Susan Collins, Brett Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade


Offline Kings

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 180
  • -Received: 197
  • Posts: 956
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2018, 04:58:39 PM »
kavanaugh is a great pick! can’t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman’s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn’t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)

LOL!

No matter who the Don picked, it wouldn't be any good and would be worthy of trashing and protests out the wazoo.

Dems better hope Ruth doesn't have to step down.

dems are going to have to pull a weekend at bernie's to keep good ol' ruth on the bench for the next 6 years of trump's presidency

Offline Happiness

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 355
  • -Received: 299
  • Posts: 1465
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2018, 05:40:23 PM »
You ever wonder why Liberals are so paranoid about Roe v Wade?

It's because they know there is no sound legal basis for the decision.

The Roe SCOTUS held a state denying early term abortions to be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Go and read the US Constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy. The court said the right to privacy is found in a penumba of the constitution, not in actual text of the document and any state that restricts abortions violates that penumbra. So what is a penumbra? It is whatever the unelected judges say it is.

In other words, a different court can easily find a different penumbra. Or you might get a court who doesn't believes in penumbras at all and will instead look to the actual text of the constitution. Either of these would be a disaster for Liberals.

Offline Happiness

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 355
  • -Received: 299
  • Posts: 1465
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2018, 05:41:41 PM »
For most conservatives, the US Constitution is a sacred text.

For most liberals, the US Constitution is a flawed document because it's framers possessed the original sins of being white, male, and slave owners. Therefore, liberals have no problem finding things that don't exist in the Constitution (Abortion Rights) and ignoring things that do exist in the Constitution (2nd Amendment).

Liberals take the Marxist view of constitutions: a document to empower the government to carry out its current policies rather than the conservative view of an eternal unchanging restraint on government power.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 05:53:36 PM by Happiness »

Offline Soylent Green Is People

  • Lender, Abiding Dude.
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 550
  • -Received: 872
  • Posts: 1824
  • Make Room! Make Room!
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2018, 05:58:33 PM »
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench. There will be other justices to decide to keep or toss it that aren't even on the court yet.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 469
  • Posts: 4642
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2018, 05:59:24 PM »
You ever wonder why Liberals are so paranoid about Roe v Wade?

It's because they know there is no sound legal basis for the decision.

The Roe SCOTUS held a state denying early term abortions to be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Go and read the US Constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy. The court said the right to privacy is found in a penumba of the constitution, not in actual text of the document and any state that restricts abortions violates that penumbra. So what is a penumbra? It is whatever the unelected judges say it is.

In other words, a different court can easily find a different penumbra. Or you might get a court who doesn't believes in penumbras at all and will instead look to the actual text of the constitution. Either of these would be a disaster for Liberals.

I hate the "read the Constitution" argument.  Constitution was written 237 years ago...Constitutional Law has been in existence of 237 years and SC rulings are just as "constitutional" as the Constitution. 

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 469
  • Posts: 4642
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2018, 06:00:02 PM »
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench. There will be other justices to decide to keep or toss it that aren't even on the court yet.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Oh good...I guess women in the other 20+ states are just going to have to deal with it.

Offline Happiness

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 355
  • -Received: 299
  • Posts: 1465
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2018, 06:01:15 PM »
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Good point no one ever mentions. If Roe is overturned, that just means each states gets to regulate abortions not that abortions will be banned. If Roe gets overturned and some states don't allow it, there will be a big abortion tourism industry in California. MAX ROI for us!

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 469
  • Posts: 4642
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2018, 06:02:26 PM »
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c

Good point no one ever mentions. If Roe is overturned, that just means each states gets to regulate abortions not that abortions will be banned. If Roe gets overturned and some states don't allow it, there will be a big abortion tourism industry in California. MAX ROI for us!

Sound conservative logic.

Offline Soylent Green Is People

  • Lender, Abiding Dude.
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 550
  • -Received: 872
  • Posts: 1824
  • Make Room! Make Room!
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2018, 06:03:39 PM »
Almost. Constitutional rulings are to interpret the Constitution, not add to intent, nor impress foreign law into their understanding of this unique American document. Recently some of the rulings used non-constitutional law in their findings - clearly not what is intended in the job description of a Supreme Court justice. Some Justices prefer to rule from the bench, not interpret law in rulings, which needs to stop.

Let the Congress do their job and make law. Let judges interpret said law. Pretty simple stuff here.

My .02c

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 469
  • Posts: 4642
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2018, 06:04:53 PM »
Almost. Constitutional rulings are to interpret the Constitution, not add to intent, nor impress foreign law into their understanding of this unique American document. Recently some of the rulings used non-constitutional law in their findings - clearly not what is intended in the job description of a Supreme Court justice. Some Justices prefer to rule from the bench, not interpret law in rulings, which needs to stop.

Let the Congress do their job and make law. Let judges interpret said law. Pretty simple stuff here.

My .02c

Justice Marshall and most of the Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Offline Soylent Green Is People

  • Lender, Abiding Dude.
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 550
  • -Received: 872
  • Posts: 1824
  • Make Room! Make Room!
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2018, 06:09:25 PM »
Yes, but I'll say Jefferson's view on it's impact was pretty spot on.

In any case, it's perfectly fine if States want to allow it. Once the issue was "Federalized" you can see the problems it has spawned - not just Roe, but other rulings that were more "law creation" than "law interpretation".

No more on this issue for now from me. Soylent Red and Soylent Blue are going to watch "Network". (I'm trying to introduce Soylent Blue to movie classics that aren't often seen by SB's generation)  "Network" seems appropriate today. Watch it if you have time.

My .02c

Offline Irvinecommuter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 565
  • -Received: 469
  • Posts: 4642
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2018, 06:11:32 PM »
Yes, but I'll say Jefferson's view on it's impact was pretty spot on.

In any case, it's perfectly fine if States want to allow it. Once the issue was "Federalized" you can see the problems it has spawned - not just Roe, but other rulings that were more "law creation" than "law interpretation".

My .02c

Of course you would...except that's not the viewpoint that the Republic has been operating under since 1803.   I don't have a problem with SC taking an active role to ensure people's rights are protected.  Courts  have been the best alternative for the common person to get their right vindicated, especially in the last 60 years.  Closing the door to that path just ensures that those in power stay in power. 

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Related Links

Recent Posts

Re: SCOTUS by fortune11
[Today at 04:44:55 AM]


Snowflakes by morekaos
[Yesterday at 10:12:03 PM]


Re: SCOTUS by Ready2Downsize
[Yesterday at 09:25:29 PM]


Re: 2008 Closed - 2019 List property. by Ready2Downsize
[Yesterday at 09:20:35 PM]


Re: 2008 Closed - 2019 List property. by meccos12
[Yesterday at 09:05:12 PM]