Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UNLV2001

39%

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

So you can not. Despite all of Trumps flaws he has appointed two very good members to the SCOTUS.  Back up your position.  How are they "far righties".  By any measure they have been appointments whom have shown through their performance on the bench to have been far more moderate than even the most optimistic D could have hopped for.

You are just regurgitating a talking point based on ignorance, nothing more. 

The SCOTUS appointments have not worked out as badly as I feared. I do fear what’s happening in the lower courts. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

The SCOTUS appointments have not worked out as badly as I feared. I do fear what’s happening in the lower courts. 

As you should given your political leanings, but that is a more nuanced take.  IMHO appointing as many ascribing to originalism will ensure you do not arbitrarily loose your freedoms at the hands of lower courts.  Now we are getting into a tangent.

I would like to hear what @SleepingGiantFan can cite showing these two SCOTUS appointments are far right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL justices who continue to uphold Citizens United and opine that it is constitutional for the political party in power to gerrymander congressional districts are far right. Period.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

ALL justices who continue to uphold Citizens United and opine that it is constitutional for the political party in power to gerrymander congressional districts are far right. Period.

I don't understand how CU was a "far right" decision. If anything, all it did was reinforce the age-old concept of corporate personhood. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

ALL justices who continue to uphold Citizens United and opine that it is constitutional for the political party in power to gerrymander congressional districts are far right. Period.

Sounds like you're becoming a proponent of eliminating corporate taxation. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the holding on gerrymandering which is as significant for the continued outsize power of the Republican party as existence of the Electoral College?

In any event Republican SCOTUS packing is akin to the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike in that however modest, the percentage of the electorate which is composed of registered Republicans continues to diminish and given changing demographics, there's no reason to think that's going to change in the foreseeable future.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

What about the holding on gerrymandering which is as significant for the continued outsize power of the Republican party as existence of the Electoral College?

In any event Republican SCOTUS packing is akin to the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike in that however modest, the percentage of the electorate which is composed of registered Republicans continues to diminish and given changing demographics, there's no reason to think that's going to change in the foreseeable future.

You must be receiving the @jackmormon DNC talking point newsletter nowadays. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

What about the holding on gerrymandering which is as significant for the continued outsize power of the Republican party as existence of the Electoral College?

In any event Republican SCOTUS packing is akin to the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike in that however modest, the percentage of the electorate which is composed of registered Republicans continues to diminish and given changing demographics, there's no reason to think that's going to change in the foreseeable future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

What about the holding on gerrymandering which is as significant for the continued outsize power of the Republican party as existence of the Electoral College?

In any event Republican SCOTUS packing is akin to the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike in that however modest, the percentage of the electorate which is composed of registered Republicans continues to diminish and given changing demographics, there's no reason to think that's going to change in the foreseeable future.

The decision was that resolving partisan gerrymandering claims on the basis of "fairness" was not justiciable "federal courts are neither equipped nor authorized to apportion political power as a matter of fairness. It is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context. It may mean achieving a greater number of competitive districts by undoing packing and cracking so that supporters of the disadvantaged party have a better shot at electing their preferred candidates. But it could mean engaging in cracking and packing to ensure each party its “appropriate” share of “safe” seats. Or perhaps it should be measured by adherence to “traditional” districting criteria. Deciding among those different visions of fairness poses basic questions that are political, not legal."  

Citing back the the elections clause, Article I that it is the duty of the legislative branch to decide the "Time, places and manor of holding elections".  Congress has exercised it's elections clause power in the past, including on gerrymandering.  The court also noted there was no clear and manageable way brought forth in RUCHO to determine the level to which to determine permissible vs impermissible political motivation in distract drawing.  

The democrats had a super majority in 2009 and could have used their constitutional powers to resolve it the way they want it resolved now, back then.  So why didn't they?  And by not doing so they every bit as much upheld it as did the SCOTUS.  

 

As far as CU, it looks like others have already detailed it is not a far right position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Oh, look a bunch of articles about CU.  

Who were the judges?

Re gerrymandering, the SCOUTS did not condone it and even detailed how to stop it.  Read what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in reading what you wrote and arguing with you or anyone for that matter over something which in essence comes down to mere subjectivity is a waste of time.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

I'm not interested in reading what you wrote and arguing with you or anyone for that matter over something which in essence comes down to mere subjectivity is a waste of time.

"These new appointees are far right!!"

What makes them far right?

"Well, Citizens united, who cares it was a 2010 SCOTUS well before they took the bench!!! It is my opinion and you can not change my mind"  

Did you read what I wrote about the RUCHO decision

"No and I dont wana!!!!"

Child.  Take your L.  It is not that you are unwilling to articulate or defend your position, it is that you are unable to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

I'm not interested in reading what you wrote and arguing with you or anyone for that matter over something which in essence comes down to mere subjectivity is a waste of time.

:lol:

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2019 at 6:26 PM, SleepingGiantFan said:

In light of the stumbling economy, after reading the above, half of the fake president's base be thinking: "Damn! Without continued racism, Bannonization of the office and appointment of far-righties to SCOTUS, what good would another four years of Trump be?"

 

On 8/15/2019 at 6:36 PM, SleepingGiantFan said:

You know exactly who I mean, the designation is subjective and your differing opinion is noted.

For someone who thinks he’s such an intellectual you sure do write the most stupid things at times.  There is absolutely NOTHING far-righted about Trump’s SCOTUS appointees.  But keep blindly throwing out that leftist talking point.  

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...