Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Kavanaugh
4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 3:43PM #21
NW
Posts: 4,355

Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:38PM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 2:26PM, NW wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 2:07PM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 11:42AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 11:37AM, newinn wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 9:13AM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 8:13AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 6:55AM, bertram wrote:


Jun 24, 2022 -- 7:37PM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 24, 2022 -- 6:56PM, Max wrote:


Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should 'reconsider' rulings that protect access to contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade


www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-s...




I noticed one item missing from Thomas' right-wing hit list was interracial marriage.




I doubt if Thomas would even recuse himself if one of those cases were brought before the high court...




Did either of you read the article?  The writer specified those things.  Thomas' point was not that those issues were decided incorrectly, it was using the same flawed stretch that made Roe bad law should not stand as the reasoning for other bad law.  They could be overturned or placed on firmer legal standing.




One thing Thomas has in common with you and me, he is no legal expert; he is just an empty-headed right-wing extremist.


Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases


Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases (msn.com)



Thomas was opening the door to more legal challenges by the radical and American-hating right to take away as many Constitutional protections as possible to those who aren't white, male, faux-Christian, rich, and heterosexual.







exactly!!!




Because the court is not a super legislature to push through the things congress can't accomplish.  They are there to interpret existing law and the constitutionality of law.




Today's radical right-wing activist judges believe that they are to interpret existing law and the constitutionality of the law as if it is 1822, rather than 2022.




The SC didn't make a decision of "radical right-wing activist judges".  They overturned a bad decision that was made 50 years ago.  Left-leaning and right-leaning constitutional experts are nearly unanimous in the opinion that Roe was an extremely shaky decision.  In fact, Justice Ginsberg spoke of it often during her speeches, often warning that, without supporting legislation, Roe would likely fall.  Until this point, the SC, even at times with liberal majorities, has made rulings which either chipped away at or were in conflict with Roe.  The only reason such a bad decision as Roe had remained on the books for so long is that many justices, liberal and conservative, felt that fully overturning Roe would have consequences that were more devastating than letting a bad decision stand.  In fact, Roberts' concurring opinion said just that.


Although I consider myself pro-life personally, I am extremely upset with the results of this case.  The end result isn't an abortion ban, but instead an abortion ban for those in the wrong zip code or those without the means to get to a state that allows abortions.  The overturning of Roe has a disparate effect on poor communities.  While that isn't a reason to keep bad case law on the books, the onus now falls upon Congress to create legislation to correct it.  




5 right-wing activist SC judges overruled a REAFFIRMED precedent to overturn Roe without a compelling basis to do so.  Now, because of these ignorant judges, a new hornet nest has been created by them without any understanding of the consequences of their juvenile-level decision. 





You can continue bilovating your false facts but the real facts are that Roe was bad case law and just about every legal expert is in agreement.

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 3:50PM #22
NY23
Posts: 20,951

Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:43PM, NW wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:38PM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 2:26PM, NW wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 2:07PM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 11:42AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 11:37AM, newinn wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 9:13AM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 8:13AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 6:55AM, bertram wrote:


Jun 24, 2022 -- 7:37PM, NY23 wrote:


Jun 24, 2022 -- 6:56PM, Max wrote:


Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should 'reconsider' rulings that protect access to contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade


www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-s...




I noticed one item missing from Thomas' right-wing hit list was interracial marriage.




I doubt if Thomas would even recuse himself if one of those cases were brought before the high court...




Did either of you read the article?  The writer specified those things.  Thomas' point was not that those issues were decided incorrectly, it was using the same flawed stretch that made Roe bad law should not stand as the reasoning for other bad law.  They could be overturned or placed on firmer legal standing.




One thing Thomas has in common with you and me, he is no legal expert; he is just an empty-headed right-wing extremist.


Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases


Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases (msn.com)



Thomas was opening the door to more legal challenges by the radical and American-hating right to take away as many Constitutional protections as possible to those who aren't white, male, faux-Christian, rich, and heterosexual.







exactly!!!




Because the court is not a super legislature to push through the things congress can't accomplish.  They are there to interpret existing law and the constitutionality of law.




Today's radical right-wing activist judges believe that they are to interpret existing law and the constitutionality of the law as if it is 1822, rather than 2022.




The SC didn't make a decision of "radical right-wing activist judges".  They overturned a bad decision that was made 50 years ago.  Left-leaning and right-leaning constitutional experts are nearly unanimous in the opinion that Roe was an extremely shaky decision.  In fact, Justice Ginsberg spoke of it often during her speeches, often warning that, without supporting legislation, Roe would likely fall.  Until this point, the SC, even at times with liberal majorities, has made rulings which either chipped away at or were in conflict with Roe.  The only reason such a bad decision as Roe had remained on the books for so long is that many justices, liberal and conservative, felt that fully overturning Roe would have consequences that were more devastating than letting a bad decision stand.  In fact, Roberts' concurring opinion said just that.


Although I consider myself pro-life personally, I am extremely upset with the results of this case.  The end result isn't an abortion ban, but instead an abortion ban for those in the wrong zip code or those without the means to get to a state that allows abortions.  The overturning of Roe has a disparate effect on poor communities.  While that isn't a reason to keep bad case law on the books, the onus now falls upon Congress to create legislation to correct it.  




5 right-wing activist SC judges overruled a REAFFIRMED precedent to overturn Roe without a compelling basis to do so.  Now, because of these ignorant judges, a new hornet nest has been created by them without any understanding of the consequences of their juvenile-level decision. 





You can continue bilovating your false facts but the real facts are that Roe was bad case law and just about every legal expert is in agreement.




In other words, you have no idea what you are saying.

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 4:36PM #23
SSBob
Posts: 11,574

Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:50PM, NY23 wrote:


In other words, you have no idea what you are saying.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~


He's the master at pontificating on subjects he knows nothing about.

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:00PM #24
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 22,059

Jun 25, 2022 -- 4:36PM, SSBob wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:50PM, NY23 wrote:


In other words, you have no idea what you are saying.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~


He's the master at pontificating on subjects he knows nothing about.




He knows exactly what he is saying.  The court is the interpreter of the law, not the super legislature of last resort.  Scalia put it best:


"The Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination."


They are a judiciary interpreting constitutional law, not philosopher kings.

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:07PM #25
SSBob
Posts: 11,574

Jun 25, 2022 -- 5:00PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 4:36PM, SSBob wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:50PM, NY23 wrote:


In other words, you have no idea what you are saying.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~


He's the master at pontificating on subjects he knows nothing about.




He knows exactly what he is saying.  The court is the interpreter of the law, not the super legislature of last resort.  Scalia put it best:


"The Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination."


They are a judiciary interpreting constitutional law, not philosopher kings.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Gosh...why is it you and other "conservaliberfascists" constantly lobby for "conservative" judges?

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:11PM #26
bertram
Posts: 17,776

The current con majority on the SCOTUS is composed of political hacks twisting and contorting interpretations to fit their party's agendas.

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:27PM #27
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 22,059

Jun 25, 2022 -- 5:07PM, SSBob wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 5:00PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 4:36PM, SSBob wrote:


Jun 25, 2022 -- 3:50PM, NY23 wrote:


In other words, you have no idea what you are saying.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~


He's the master at pontificating on subjects he knows nothing about.




He knows exactly what he is saying.  The court is the interpreter of the law, not the super legislature of last resort.  Scalia put it best:


"The Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination."


They are a judiciary interpreting constitutional law, not philosopher kings.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Gosh...why is it you and other "conservaliberfascists" constantly lobby for "conservative" judges?




I waish to conserve the revolutionary principles of the American founding that created a renaissance of individual liberty, prosperity, and upward mobility never before imagined that inspired the world.  To oppose conserving that is regressive.

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:28PM #28
SSBob
Posts: 11,574

Jun 25, 2022 -- 5:00PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).


Not a single evangelical Christian... 




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Why doesn't California "count" as Western State? Doesn't fit your narrative?


You do realize Catholicism is Christianity...in fact the original Christianity...right?

4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:29PM #29
SSBob
Posts: 11,574

Jun 25, 2022 -- 5:27PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


I waish to conserve the revolutionary principles of the American founding that created a renaissance of individual liberty, prosperity, and upward mobility never before imagined that inspired the world.  To oppose conserving that is regressive.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You are so FOS. You want to impose your warped philosophy and morality on everyone...just as any self-respecting fascist would do.


4 months ago  ::  Jun 25, 2022 - 5:30PM #30
louisiana_lightning
Posts: 22,059

Jun 25, 2022 -- 5:11PM, bertram wrote:


The current con majority on the SCOTUS is composed of political hacks twisting and contorting interpretations to fit their party's agendas.




Why do progressives always accuse their opponents of doing the things they are doing?  Show me a profound and compelling decision or dissent from Justice Sotomayor.

Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum