Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58

Thread: There is no doubt any more: the US supreme court is run by partisan hacks

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Mitch made the Court partisan, first with his denying even a hearing the sitting President's nominee, second making it a majority vote, and last steamrolling the last appointee thru in record time to beat an election.

    And to make matters worse, he set numerous precedents that is going to keep the Court partisan for quite some time now

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,808
    Thanks
    30,527
    Thanked 12,930 Times in 11,517 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    (shaking head) Queers can get married now.
    The federal government has no authority over marriage.
    Queers can be 'married', but they cannot produce offspring. It's a sham.
    "The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
    "Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
    "Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
    "no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
    "Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
    "Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,808
    Thanks
    30,527
    Thanked 12,930 Times in 11,517 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Looks like the Court is leaning towards granting States the Right to Regulate 'Abortion'.
    They have no other choice. They MUST rule under the Constitution. Any other ruling can be ignored.
    "The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
    "Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
    "Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
    "no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
    "Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
    "Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,808
    Thanks
    30,527
    Thanked 12,930 Times in 11,517 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Which invalidates the law established in Roe and Casey, according to Bret at his hearings, any precedent set twice is law and should not be overturned
    The Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.
    "The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
    "Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
    "Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
    "no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
    "Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
    "Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Looks like the Court is leaning towards granting States the Right to Regulate 'Abortion'.
    States Rights worked out so well before.

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.
    Yeah, we know, you say that all the time, the Court isn't changing the Constitution, only interpreting it, and don't respond with they don't have the authority to do that, seen that one also, the reality is that the Constitution in essence is nothing more than a five page document on paper, men have had to apply it, didn't you ever notice such as the military draft or interstate highways aren't anywhere in the Constitution yet they exist today

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,713
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Looks like the Court is leaning towards granting States the Right to Regulate 'Abortion'.
    Maybe, but I listened to the oral arguments and don't know why we think they are about to make that decision.

    States can already regulate abortion after the 1st trimester and prohibit it after the 2nd.

    I don't know why Clarence Thomas would change his mind by the oral arguments. If he is doing his job he has already read the briefs that contain the oral argument(s). Asking too many questions just takes the lawyers away from their main point(s).

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,713
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    States Rights worked out so well before.
    States led the way for much progressive legislation. Some of it was used by the courts in expanding those policies to the entire nation.

    Gay marriage, integration, the right to an attorney, abortion, gun regulations, term limits, healthcare, etc. all started at the state level and spread to more states or eventually to the national level.

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The federal government has no authority over marriage.
    Queers can be 'married', but they cannot produce offspring. It's a sham.
    Federal Government gives Tax Breaks to 'married' people. (can you connect the dots?)

  10. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    They have no other choice. They MUST rule under the Constitution. Any other ruling can be ignored.
    Yeah, if you say so.

  11. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    States Rights worked out so well before.
    Well, it was different when it came to Bush v. Gore.

  12. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Maybe, but I listened to the oral arguments and don't know why we think they are about to make that decision.

    States can already regulate abortion after the 1st trimester and prohibit it after the 2nd.

    I don't know why Clarence Thomas would change his mind by the oral arguments. If he is doing his job he has already read the briefs that contain the oral argument(s). Asking too many questions just takes the lawyers away from their main point(s).
    Let's cut to the chase. The Jesus Freaks want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Who will win?

  13. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    States led the way for much progressive legislation. Some of it was used by the courts in expanding those policies to the entire nation.

    Gay marriage, integration, the right to an attorney, abortion, gun regulations, term limits, healthcare, etc. all started at the state level and spread to more states or eventually to the national level.
    Those movements may have begun at the state level, but that’s not what I was referring to as “States Rights”. States Rights were national guard and the governor at the University of Alabama. University of Mississippi. Poll taxes. Different drinking fountains.

    And, as your post indicates, states don’t have rights. People do

  14. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,713
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Those movements may have begun at the state level, but that’s not what I was referring to as “States Rights”. States Rights were national guard and the governor at the University of Alabama. University of Mississippi. Poll taxes. Different drinking fountains.

    And, as your post indicates, states don’t have rights. People do
    That is one unfortunate example of states' right. All the other examples I used would be considered progressive.

    States don't have rights, but they have powers to make those decisions.

  15. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,970
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is one unfortunate example of states' right. All the other examples I used would be considered progressive.

    States don't have rights, but they have powers to make those decisions.
    The difference between our examples is that yours represents the people seeking expansion of their rights, while my reference was the state governments, under the guise of “States Rights”, flexing their muscle to suppress rights. That’s why the term is still considered dog whistle for discrimination.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-06-2018, 07:20 AM
  2. Obamacare and the Supreme Court: Partisan goose for the partisan gander
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 06:15 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 03:35 PM
  4. Biggest Partisan Hacks Ever
    By Beefy in forum In Memoriam
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 10:22 AM
  5. Biggest Partisan Hacks Ever
    By Beefy in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 10:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •