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

Recommended Posts

Republican Party Nukes the US Senate for "Trump's Corrupt Agenda"

"Today, the world's so-called greatest deliberative body has become the latest casualty in the right-wing onslaught on our democracy"

 

"When it became clear that President Trump's Supreme Court nominee could not meet the 60-vote threshold and should be replaced with a more consensus choice, Leader [Mitch] McConnell opted for a naked partisan power play by changing the rules in the middle of the game,"

 

"The country will never forget that these Republicans blindly enabled a reckless president under gathering clouds of investigation to steal a seat on the Supreme Court and enshrine his dangerous agenda for a lifetime."....

 

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/04/06/republican-party-nukes-us-senate-trumps-corrupt-agenda?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

<_<

 

question, to your knowledge when HARRY REID first used the nuclear option...

 

 

did that bleep schumer ever object? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

question, to your knowledge when HARRY REID first used the nuclear option...

 

 

did that bleep schumer ever object? :P

a concensus choice?....like ruth bader ginsburg who wanted to abolish mother's day. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Reid did it, McConnell had a major hissy fit, calling him

every name in the book and saying it was a disaster for the Senate.

Then he goes and does the same thing. This guy isn't fooling

anybody.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Insights On The Senate's 'Nuclear' Battle Over Neil Gorsuch-

 

"....The checks and balances that were set up to force bipartisanship and protect minority-party rights are frustrating but their purpose is to prevent the WGDB from devolving to simple majoritarianism.

It's always better when big pieces of legislation or Supreme Court justices get bipartisan support — the more, the better. If the Affordable Care Act hadn't been passed on a party-line vote, it wouldn't have remained so polarizing. But those traditions and norms only work if people want them to.

Trust in all American institutions is at an all-time low, including the Supreme Court and Congress. The end of the judicial filibuster will make that trust deficit even bigger."

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522701122/5-insights-on-the-nuclear-battle-over-the-gorsuch-supreme-court-nomination?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170406

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice

WASHINGTON — Judge Neil M. Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate on Friday to become the 113th justice of the Supreme Court, capping a political brawl that lasted for more than a year and tested constitutional norms inside the Capitol’s fraying upper chamber.

 

The development was a signal triumph for President Trump, whose campaign last year rested in large part on his pledge to appoint another committed conservative to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016. However rocky the first months of his administration may have been, Mr. Trump now has a lasting legacy: Judge Gorsuch, 49, could serve on the court for 30 years or more.

**************************************************

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch' senatorial opponents cited a case where he sided with a company against a driver who abandoned his truck in a blizzard to avoid freezing to death...

 

they make out like Gorsuch' ruling meant he didn't care if the guy froze to death...

 

how bleeping stupid is that? some of these liberal democrats have become so intellectually disconnected from average ordinary human beings and their affairs, they think that we think stupid like them...

 

I'd like to say to the lot of them...

 

"unlike you all, most americans are not quite that far gone yet in terms of basic reason and common sense.

 

we can't help you. you need to rejoin humanity.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Supreme Court Prepares To Hear Gerrymandering Case-

 

 

 

"The high court hears arguments Tuesday testing whether extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. The case from Wisconsin has the potential to radically reorder politics in America.

 
 

In the short run, if the court sides with Gaddie, Republicans would be the losers. In the last two decades, the GOP has greatly increased and entrenched its dominance in the state legislatures and Congress through the use of partisan redistricting. The GOP now has control of state legislatures in 32 states, covering 61 percent of the population, while Democrats control just 13 state legislatures, covering 28 percent of the population.

 

What is "gerrymandering"?

 

Partisan gerrymandering is a practice that goes back to the early years of the republic. It got its name in 1812 when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into law a legislative map drawn to benefit his own party; it included a district so misshapen that it looked like a salamander, and the term gerrymander was born.

 

Since then, politicians from both parties have practiced, denounced and embraced it as a way to leverage their power....

 

— packing large concentrations of Democratic voters into a district to give the opposition party far more voters than they needed to win. They then spread out the remaining Democrats into districts where they would be clearly outnumbered (a practice known as cracking)...

 

The legal question before the Supreme Court is whether such partisanship in gerrymandering is so extreme that it is unconstitutional. Does it deny citizens the equal protection of the law; does it deny them their First Amendment right of free speech and association by making their votes less valuable? And ultimately is that something a court can accurately measure?.......

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/552904504/this-supreme-court-case-could-radically-reshape-politics?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202703

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering Case-

 

 

"The argument had gone on for nearly an hour when Gorsuch began a question as follows: “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution.”

 

Gorsuch’s statement that the Court should spare “a second” for the “arcane” subject of the document was thus a slap at his ideological adversaries; of course, they, too, believe that they are interpreting the Constitution,

but, in Gorsuch’s view, only he cares about the document itself

.Gorsuch went on to give his colleagues a civics lecture about the text of the Constitution. “And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines?....

 

In other words, Gorsuch was saying, why should the Court involve itself in the subject of redistricting at all—didn’t the Constitution fail to give the Court the authority to do so?....

 

(Ginsburg) grumbled, “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” There might have been an audible woo that echoed through the courtroom. (Ginsburg’s comment seemed to silence Gorsuch for the rest of the arguments.)...

 

...Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that

the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections....

 

Ginsburg was saying to Gorsuch that he and his allies might control the future of the Supreme Court, but she wasn’t going to let them rewrite the history of it—at least not without a fight."

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch?mbid=social_facebook

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering Case-

 

 

"The argument had gone on for nearly an hour when Gorsuch began a question as follows: “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution.”

 

Gorsuch’s statement that the Court should spare “a second” for the “arcane” subject of the document was thus a slap at his ideological adversaries; of course, they, too, believe that they are interpreting the Constitution,

but, in Gorsuch’s view, only he cares about the document itself

.Gorsuch went on to give his colleagues a civics lecture about the text of the Constitution. “And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines?....

 

In other words, Gorsuch was saying, why should the Court involve itself in the subject of redistricting at all—didn’t the Constitution fail to give the Court the authority to do so?....

 

(Ginsburg) grumbled, “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” There might have been an audible woo that echoed through the courtroom. (Ginsburg’s comment seemed to silence Gorsuch for the rest of the arguments.)...

 

...Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that

the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections....

 

Ginsburg was saying to Gorsuch that he and his allies might control the future of the Supreme Court, but she wasn’t going to let them rewrite the history of it—at least not without a fight."

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch?mbid=social_facebook

 

It will come down to a 5-4 decision in favor of the Republicans and then the floodgates will really open for gerrymandering.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Justice Thomas unleashes angry pro-gun rant

......“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

Thomas accused other justices of showing contempt toward constitutional protections for gun owners, and he complained they would likely have heard cases involving potential waiting periods for abortion, racist publications or police stops.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas complained that the Supreme Court had not heard a gun case in eight years, as students from a Parkland, Florida, high school beg lawmakers to pass gun safety restrictions after a mass shooting killed 17 of their classmates and teachers....

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/justice-thomas-unleashes-angry-pro-gun-rant-parkland-kids-beg-lives-television/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Justice Thomas unleashes angry pro-gun rant

......“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

Thomas accused other justices of showing contempt toward constitutional protections for gun owners, and he complained they would likely have heard cases involving potential waiting periods for abortion, racist publications or police stops.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan. And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas complained that the Supreme Court had not heard a gun case in eight years, as students from a Parkland, Florida, high school beg lawmakers to pass gun safety restrictions after a mass shooting killed 17 of their classmates and teachers....

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/justice-thomas-unleashes-angry-pro-gun-rant-parkland-kids-beg-lives-television/

Jill Abramson has written a recent article in New York Magazine-- "Do You Believe Her Now?"--

about a white female lawyer from Alaska who has made accusations against Clarence Thomas concerning sexual impropriety. Moira Smith alleges that Thomas groped her multiple times in 1999. Ms. Smith was 24 at the time.

Marcia Coyle, a US Supreme Court reporter of the National Law Journal, wrote a detailed story about Ms. Smith's accusations, published on October 27th 2017, which was buried under the onslaught of the Comey letter story (reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.)

 Upon hearing Trump's Access Hollywood audio tape in October of last year, Ms. Smith got the impetus to write on Facebook about her allegations against Clarence Thomas from 1999.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramson was also the co-author of a book about the Thomas-Hill 

controversy, one that gives the best case for the truthfulness of

Hill's accusations. Remember there was a second woman ready to

come forth and make similar allegations about Thomas, but she was

mostly shunted aside at the time. 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Dave Jamieson, LLCVerified account @jamieson

 

Breaking: #SCOTUS rules against unions in Janus v AFSCME, making the entire public sector right-to-work.

A severe blow to the labor movement. The fallout will be felt for years -- for unions and the Democratic Party.

7:03 AM - 27 Jun 2018
--------------------------------------------------

"In a blow to organized labor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers who choose not to join a union cannot be charged for the cost of collective bargaining.

The vote was a predictable 5-4. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion with the court's conservatives joining him.

"Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities," Alito wrote. "We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

The decision reverses a 4-decades-old precedent and upends laws in 22 states. It also comes on the last day of this Supreme Court term, adding an exclamation point on the final sentence of a chapter that began with the appointment of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and saw conservative wins in decision after decision. This term was also an affirmation of the risky political gambit played by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who denied a confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's pick for the court after Justice Antonin Scalia died.......

In 1977, the Supreme Court had drawn a distinction between such mandatory "agency fees" and other, voluntary union dues, which might be used for lobbying or other political activity. ...

Alito dismissed the argument that allowing nonmembers to opt out of negotiating fees would allow them to unfairly piggyback on their dues-paying co-workers.

Janus "strenuously objects to this free-rider label," Alito wrote. "He argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage."..

"Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissenting opinion. "Across the country, the relationships of public employees and employers will alter in both predictable and wholly unexpected ways. Rarely if ever has the Court overruled a decision — let alone one of this import — with so little regard for the usual principles of stare decisis," that is, allowing past rulings to stand.

"This case is yet another example of corporate interests using their power and influence to launch a political attack on working people and rig the rules of the economy in their own favor,"

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/606208436/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-government-unions
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

 

"This case is yet another example of corporate interests using their power and influence to launch a political attack on working people and rig the rules of the economy in their own favor,"

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/606208436/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-government-unions

Like a Russian oligarchy where everyone becomes lifelong indebted worker ants to the billionaire class.  Thanks Donald!

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sonia Sotomayor Delivers Sharp Dissent in Travel Ban Case

".........“As here, the government invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion,” she said. “As here, the exclusion was rooted in dangerous stereotypes about, inter alia, a particular group’s supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States.”

Justice Sotomayor continued that “our nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind” in the years since Korematsu. But, she reasoned, “it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right.”

“By blindly accepting the government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security,” she said, “the court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one ‘gravely wrong’ decision with another.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was the risk in McConnell's decision. He had the votes and held out until the

election. If Clinton won, she would have nominated Garland or another person. If

Trump won, McConnell's bet would have paid off and it did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Where was the risk in McConnell's decision. He had the votes and held out until the

election. If Clinton won, she would have nominated Garland or another person. If

Trump won, McConnell's bet would have paid off and it did.

Yes,  no risk for McConnell \ GOP,  only a possible upside that ended up becoming true.

The really poor decision (also arrogant one),  was that liberal justices didn't retire during the first half of Obama's second term.    McConnell wouldn't have been able to delay a vote that early in a President's term.   Of course Dem party leaders,  even the President,  can force a justice to retire.    Bottom line now is that the odds are high Trump and the GOP will be able to seat a few more justices before Trump leave office. 

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

Yes,  no risk for McConnell \ GOP,  only a possible upside that ended up becoming true.

The really poor decision (also arrogant one),  was that liberal justices didn't retire during the first half of Obama's second term.    McConnell wouldn't have been able to delay a vote that early in a President's term.   Of course Dem party leaders,  even the President,  can force a justice to retire.    Bottom line now is that the odds are high Trump and the GOP will be able to seat a few more justices before Trump leave office. 

I can understand how someone who has reached the position of a SC justice would find

it hard to give it up just because of age, however politically practical it would be. The

Notorious RBG may soon be notorious for a bad reason. It will basically become a health

watch for her and Breyer. As things stand, Roberts will become a swing vote, though

likely nowhere near as often as Kennedy was. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hibi said:

No way will RBG  retire and let DUMP replace her. She'll hang on till the end. And I cant really blame her. She hates DUMP.

Uh,    she can't prevent herself from dying.   Trump will then be able to replace her. 

Of course if she can hang on until 2020,  the Dems can pull a similar stunt the GOP did to Garland.   But I don't know if the Dems will have that type of power in the Senate after the 2018 election.

Either way,  the Dems should have never taken these risks;  the 2 very old and liberal justices should have retired in 2014.    Too late now so the odds are really, really high the SC will be controlled by conservatives for years, if not decades, to come.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

how the hell can schumer suggest to mcconnell that he be guided by his own advice to obama back in 2016 to not confirm a scotus pick before the big election, how can he now turn that around and aim it at mcconnell WHEN OBAMA, HIM AND HIS FELLOW SENATE DEMOCRATS REJECTED THAT SAME ADVICE BACK IN 2016?

:huh:

 

does chucky wucky now agree with mcconnell that Obama shouldn't have ever nominated merrick garland?

:D

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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...