Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ElCid said:

Pelosi is right in this instance, increasing the size of the court is the wrong thing to do.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Let the commission figure it out.

Personally I would like to see a Constitutional amendment setting term limits and age limits on all federal judges.

One thing they could do is pass a law stating that in the event of a vacancy, the Senate must hold hearings within 30 days of the nomination being delivered by the President.  Then they have 90 days to have a vote on confirmation.  Neither the senate majority leader nor any other person may delay consideration of a nominee.  Also, NO filibusters allowed.  So, within 4 months it would be done.  Actually this should apply to all appointments needing approval of the Senate.

Pushing this,  but not really,   is just a political stunt by the Dem establishment wing of the party to appease the progressive wing.      

Funny but CNN's article was clear about that but Fox's coverage was classic fear mongering.    I.e.  CNN understood this was pandering that was going to go nowhere,  while Fox pushed the narrative that,  well,  the Dems and Biden are serious about this,,,  it may really happen,   it will bring on a socialist America,,,,  and hey,   didn't Fox warn you about this prior to the election! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

:(

"Since 1956, the Supreme Court has applied a well-established framework to businesses that wished to exclude union organizers from their property. On Wednesday, however, the Court effectively scrapped that framework — one that was already fairly restrictive of union organizing — and replaced it with something far more restrictive.........

 

But Cedar Point is a sign the radical new conservative regime that many Republicans crave and that liberals fear could actually be upon us. The Court fundamentally reshaped much of American property law in Cedar Point. It did so in a party-line vote. And it did so in a case involving labor unions — institutions that are often celebrated by liberals and loathed by conservatives.............

Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that California’s longstanding regulation violates the Constitution’s “takings clause,” which provides that no one shall have their property taken from them by the government “without just compensation.”

And, in order to reach this result, Roberts rewrites decades of law interpreting that clause.

The Court’s new interpretation of the takings clause is extraordinarily deferential to property owners.....

.......

“The right to exclude is ‘one of the most treasured’ rights of property ownership,” Roberts writes. And much of his opinion suggests that any intrusion on this right to exclude amounts to a taking.

But then Roberts’s opinion takes an unusual turn, in an apparent effort to ward off some of the radical implications of its expansive vision of per se takings.

Roberts isn’t willing to live with the implications of his opinion for cases that don’t involve unions

One problem with Roberts’s expansive view of the takings clause is that it could prevent the government from performing very basic functions, such as health and safety inspections........

The Court has simply made a value judgment here. It views health inspections as sufficiently important to justify creating an exception to its new understanding of the takings clause, but it doesn’t view protecting a worker’s right to organize as important enough to justify a similar exception...........

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/23/22547182/supreme-court-union-busting-cedar-point-hassid-john-roberts-takings-clause

:wacko:

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

:(

"Since 1956, the Supreme Court has applied a well-established framework to businesses that wished to exclude union organizers from their property. On Wednesday, however, the Court effectively scrapped that framework — one that was already fairly restrictive of union organizing — and replaced it with something far more restrictive.........

 

But Cedar Point is a sign the radical new conservative regime that many Republicans crave and that liberals fear could actually be upon us. The Court fundamentally reshaped much of American property law in Cedar Point. It did so in a party-line vote. And it did so in a case involving labor unions — institutions that are often celebrated by liberals and loathed by conservatives.............

Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that California’s longstanding regulation violates the Constitution’s “takings clause,” which provides that no one shall have their property taken from them by the government “without just compensation.”

And, in order to reach this result, Roberts rewrites decades of law interpreting that clause.

The Court’s new interpretation of the takings clause is extraordinarily deferential to property owners.....

.......

“The right to exclude is ‘one of the most treasured’ rights of property ownership,” Roberts writes. And much of his opinion suggests that any intrusion on this right to exclude amounts to a taking.

But then Roberts’s opinion takes an unusual turn, in an apparent effort to ward off some of the radical implications of its expansive vision of per se takings.

Roberts isn’t willing to live with the implications of his opinion for cases that don’t involve unions

One problem with Roberts’s expansive view of the takings clause is that it could prevent the government from performing very basic functions, such as health and safety inspections........

The Court has simply made a value judgment here. It views health inspections as sufficiently important to justify creating an exception to its new understanding of the takings clause, but it doesn’t view protecting a worker’s right to organize as important enough to justify a similar exception...........

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/23/22547182/supreme-court-union-busting-cedar-point-hassid-john-roberts-takings-clause

:wacko:

 

 

 

I think the SC got in right on the Union access.   No one should have a legal right to entry someone else's property,  without expressed permission.   This include the government.    As for health and safety inspections;   a business should be allowed to refuse permission,  but if they do so they get a failing grade by default.    Therefor that was a bogus strawman POV from the person who wrote this.

One decision the SC didn't get right was on the Cheerleader case:    Being on the squad isn't a right,  but instead a privilege.   The gal wasn't punished (e.g. suspended) but instead denied a privilege.

   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court Ruling Delivers 'Dark, Dark Day for Democracy'

"We are now on a clear path to enshrining a constitutional right to anonymous spending in our democracy, and securing an upper hand for dark-money influence in perpetuity."

".......The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Thursday further empowered moneyed interests to manipulate elections through untraceable campaign contributions—dark money—by ruling in favor of two right-wing nonprofit groups who argued that California's donor disclosure requirement violated their First Amendment rights.

 

..........Some observers asserted that Thursday's Supreme Court ruling was the latest in a chain of decisions favoring moneyed interests at the expense of democracy in the name of the First Amendment. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the court affirmed that money in the form of unlimited campaign donations is free speech; in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, the justices ruled that dark money is free association. 

As Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) president Noah Bookbinder noted Thursday, "even in Citizens United, the Supreme Court said all that money in politics was okay because it would all be disclosed."

"But the court now says there is a right to donor privacy which, make no mistake, will mean more dark money in politics," he added. "This is bad news."...........

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/01/supreme-court-ruling-delivers-dark-dark-day-democracy?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1625172639

:(

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Saw a clip on MSNBC this morning of where Sen. Susan Collins (R) was earlier defending her support for Kavanaugh based on his testifying that he did not plan to vote to reverse Roe v. Wade as it was settled law.  He effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.  I believe Barrett also said something similar when she testified.  She effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Trump's legacy:  Reversal of Roe v. Wade. 

While the blue states will continue to offer abortions, how long before some state resident brings a law suit that gets to the Supreme Court and the five or six Republican, Catholic justices vote to overturn Roe v. Wade nation-wide?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Saw a clip on MSNBC this morning of where Sen. Susan Collins (R) was earlier defending her support for Kavanaugh based on his testifying that he did not plan to vote to reverse Roe v. Wade as it was settled law.  He effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.  I believe Barrett also said something similar when she testified.  She effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Trump's legacy:  Reversal of Roe v. Wade. 

While the blue states will continue to offer abortions, how long before some state resident brings a law suit that gets to the Supreme Court and the five or six Republican, Catholic justices vote to overturn Roe v. Wade nation-wide?

maxresdefault.jpg

Someone clearly has not learned her lesson.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha. I've read a number of "don't worry" articles about the SC over the last few years. The takeaway is

that the conservatives are not some kind of extremists or ideologues and they would never let their personal

feelings or religious beliefs guide their decisions. Nope, they are objective jurists who will carefully consider

the law and then come to a just decision. Ha ha. The Supreme Catholics of the United States have spoken.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

maxresdefault.jpg

Someone clearly has not learned her lesson.

Bogie. I should hire a band and bake a cake - that I cannot eat since I am diabetic - but I digress. I think we have finally found an issue in which there is no light or air between our positions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ElCid said:

Saw a clip on MSNBC this morning of where Sen. Susan Collins (R) was earlier defending her support for Kavanaugh based on his testifying that he did not plan to vote to reverse Roe v. Wade as it was settled law.  He effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.  I believe Barrett also said something similar when she testified.  She effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Trump's legacy:  Reversal of Roe v. Wade. 

While the blue states will continue to offer abortions, how long before some state resident brings a law suit that gets to the Supreme Court and the five or six Republican, Catholic justices vote to overturn Roe v. Wade nation-wide?

Won't be long.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ElCid said:

Saw a clip on MSNBC this morning of where Sen. Susan Collins (R) was earlier defending her support for Kavanaugh based on his testifying that he did not plan to vote to reverse Roe v. Wade as it was settled law.  He effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.  I believe Barrett also said something similar when she testified.  She effectively just voted to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Trump's legacy:  Reversal of Roe v. Wade. 

While the blue states will continue to offer abortions, how long before some state resident brings a law suit that gets to the Supreme Court and the five or six Republican, Catholic justices vote to overturn Roe v. Wade nation-wide?

RvW doesn't apply on a per-state basis;   that isn't how US Constitutional law works.     RvW just limited the ability of a state to overly restrict abortion access due to the right to privacy.     The SC decide to not hear if the newest Texas law overly restricts abortion.     The SC, as well as Kavanaugh did not  "effectively just voted to reverse RvW" since they didn't hear even hear the case.   In a few months the SC will be taking up the Mississippi abortion law case and my guess is that how they decide that will also impact this new Texas law.   

In addition pro-choice activist can bring the Texas law to a Federal count to get it overturned.    I.e. the SC not blocking the Texas  law doesn't prevent anyone from challenging the law in Federal court.

I admit I'm surprised that the SC didn't block the Texas law until they could rule on it when they litigate the Mississippi case.   This is typically what the court does;  not allowing a state law to make major changes to existing practices,  without it being litigated in Federal court.     That is likely the impact of the new conservative members,   but I can't go as far as saying RvW will be overturned when the court rules in a few months on the Mississippi case.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hibi said:

Won't be long.

I wouldn't be in favor of overturning Roe V Wade. I think women in every state deserve that right. So don't get me wrong by what I am about to say. If Roe V. Wade was overturned tomorrow things would go back to the way they were just prior to that decision. Blue states would still offer abortion on demand. Red states could do away with it entirely or put any hurdles they want in the way. The worry would be if SCOTUS somehow how gave rights to a fetus from the moment of conception that are above those of the woman carrying it. That would have a nationwide effect. And this is where the GOP gets on perilous ground. There are a few true believers in outlawing abortion completely - truly useful idiots for the GOP. But to continue getting votes this is a battle the GOP wants to fight but never truly win. The day they win this battle is the day they lose all women who will decide that higher taxes and more migrants are an OK price to pay - that is voting with the Dems - to keep control of their bodies. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

RvW doesn't apply on a per-state basis;   that isn't how US Constitutional law works.     RvW just limited the ability of a state to overly restrict abortion access due to the right to privacy.     The SC decide to not hear if the newest Texas law overly restricts abortion.     The SC, as well as Kavanaugh did not  "effectively just voted to reverse RvW" since they didn't hear even hear the case.   In a few months the SC will be taking up the Mississippi abortion law case and my guess is that how they decide that will also impact this new Texas law.   

In addition pro-choice activist can bring the Texas law to a Federal count to get it overturned.    I.e. the SC not blocking the Texas  law doesn't prevent anyone from challenging the law in Federal court.

I admit I'm surprised that the SC didn't block the Texas law until they could rule on it when they litigate the Mississippi case.   This is typically what the court does;  not allowing a state law to make major changes to existing practices,  without it being litigated in Federal court.     That is likely the impact of the new conservative members,   but I can't go as far as saying RvW will be overturned when the court rules in a few months on the Mississippi case.

 

Still believe it is an indication of how the Supreme Court will rule on MS case, as well as any other.  The fact that they did not place a hold on TX law is significant in that it shows how the five Catholic GOPer justices are thinking.  Maybe they won't reverse Roe v. Wade, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that.

As for citizens of TX filing suit in a Federal court, I considered that possibility but hasn't happened yet and I don't see it getting anywhere.  A lower court could place a hold on TX law, but would they knowing that the Supreme Court has already indicated the majority is opposed to that.

Regardless, don't be surprised when other Red state legislatures begin passing their own versions of the TX law effectively closing down all abortion providers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

Still believe it is an indication of how the Supreme Court will rule on MS case, as well as any other.  The fact that they did not place a hold on TX law is significant in that it shows how the five Catholic GOPer justices are thinking.  Maybe they won't reverse Roe v. Wade, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that.

As for citizens of TX filing suit in a Federal court, I considered that possibility but hasn't happened yet and I don't see it getting anywhere.  A lower court could place a hold on TX law, but would they knowing that the Supreme Court has already indicated the majority is opposed to that.

Regardless, don't be surprised when other Red state legislatures begin passing their own versions of the TX law effectively closing down all abortion providers.

This is sad news but Dems were asleep in 2016 when they didn't got out and support Clinton and as we have been saying for years now,  this is just one result of that election.

But I have been reading that this could help Dems in future elections,  at all levels.    We will just have to wait and see.   

 

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

I wouldn't be in favor of overturning Roe V Wade. I think women in every state deserve that right. So don't get me wrong by what I am about to say. If Roe V. Wade was overturned tomorrow things would go back to the way they were just prior to that decision. Blue states would still offer abortion on demand. Red states could do away with it entirely or put any hurdles they want in the way. The worry would be if SCOTUS somehow how gave rights to a fetus from the moment of conception that are above those of the woman carrying it. That would have a nationwide effect. And this is where the GOP gets on perilous ground. There are a few true believers in outlawing abortion completely - truly useful idiots for the GOP. But to continue getting votes this is a battle the GOP wants to fight but never truly win. The day they win this battle is the day they lose all women who will decide that higher taxes and more migrants are an OK price to pay - that is voting with the Dems - to keep control of their bodies. 

Yes, certain states will allow it, but most of them will not. It's poor women who will pay the price. Yes, if they cross that line and the Supremes rule at conception, that's the end of the GOP. It's obvious to me the right wingers on the court are trying to find ways around Roe w/out actually ruling against it which after 50 yrs will cause a firestorm. The court definitely needs an overhauling and term limits should be the first step.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

This is sad news but Dems were asleep in 2016 when they didn't got out and support Clinton and as we have been saying for years now,  this is just one result of that election.

But I have been reading that this could help Dems in future elections,  at all levels.    We will just have to wait and see.   

 

Agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...