Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    Well, if he was I think he’ll be proven wrong. I think Roberts will assume the Kennedy role.
    Roberts will inherently be Kennedy because he's now the de facto ideological center. That doesn't mean he moved left to the center, it means the center moved right to him.

    The question for him is whether his desire to protect the court outweighs his natural ideological leanings. The Obamacare decisions show he's capable of the former, but his votes on gay marriage, abortion, and race-based cases tend towards the latter. But now that he is the swing vote rather than Kennedy, we'll see if being the tiebreaker weighs more heavily on him.

    My favorite part about Roberts is that he constantly sided with police on traffic stop cases until he was pulled over for the first time in his life. All of a sudden he started siding with motorists.
    Last edited by unofan; 06-25-2019, 09:33 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by unofan View Post
      Roberts will inherently be Kennedy because he's now the de facto ideological center. That doesn't mean he moved left to the center, it means the center moved right to him.

      The question for him is whether his desire to protect the court outweighs his natural ideological leanings. The Obamacare decisions show he's capable of the former, but his votes on gay marriage, abortion, and race-based cases tend towards the latter. But now that he is the swing vote rather than Kennedy, we'll see if being the tiebreaker weighs more heavily on him.

      My favorite part about Roberts is that he constantly sided with police on traffic stop cases until he was pulled over for the first time in his life. All of a sudden he started siding with motorists.
      I tend to think that while he’ll retain conservative leanings, his position as chief and his desire to not preside over a kangaroo court will prevent him from moving too far left of Kennedy.
      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

      Comment


      • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
        .... What if Thomas woke up one morning and realized that gerrymandering is really just a way to keep them darkies out?
        it's always rich vs. poor at the end. skin color is like a shirt.
        thomas is rich.
        a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

        Comment


        • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

          Originally posted by mookie1995 View Post
          it's always rich vs. poor at the end. skin color is like a shirt.
          thomas is rich.
          Jesus. We agree on something. I feel funny.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

            Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
            That was exactly my prediction, which is Roberts would slide into the Kennedy role. Still waiting for the end of the world.
            But it hasn't happened yet so you don't get to say "I told you so" yet.

            We'll know before the week is out. I hope to hell you do get to say it. uno is far more knowledgeable in this than I but everything I've seen from Roberts is he'll bend on the stuff the Plutes don't care about to save the appearance of the Court. Will they care about gerrymandering and voter suppression? I would think so -- it's how they get their servants elected as voters (not you yet, but I have faith in you) wise up to their scam.

            We'll see. If Roberts actually pulls a switch and starts backing sane positions I owe you a beer and I will be HAPPY to pay up!
            Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2019, 08:08 AM.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
              I tend to think that while he’ll retain conservative leanings, his position as chief and his desire to not preside over a kangaroo court will prevent him from moving too far left of Kennedy.
              Citizens United already destroyed the country. All this Court has to do is hold serve. And as long as it's stacked GOP it will.
              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

              Comment


              • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                But it hasn't happened yet so you don't get to say it yet.

                We'll know before the week is out. I hope to hell you're right, but everything I've seen from Roberts is that he'll give on the stuff the Plutes don't care about. Will they care about gerrymandering and voter suppression? I would think so -- that's how they get their servants elected.
                If we have to wait until history is written, you guys will have to tell me the results on the other side. I agree that we really won't know whether I'm right for decades. I don't think any individual case(s) will be a true measure, although we can each claim it as such.

                But I feel comfortable making my victory claim just based upon history. First, too many people judge a court's direction by maybe one case a year, when a fair examination shows the various shifting alliances among the justices.

                Second, unlike some here, I don't view a case like the gerrymandering cases, to be a conservative vs. liberal outcome. Let's say the court refuses to set aside partisan gerrymandering. Is that a conservative victory as some here claim? In that individual case it may be because it may have been passed by a conservative state legislature to protect conservative seats. But is it really? Partisan gerrymandering isn't limited to conservatives. That's what has always frustrated me about politics. People are so short-sighted. They think they can gain an advantage by partisan gerrymandering, or by adding 4 Supreme Court seats, but who says your party will always be in power, even with gerrymandered districts?

                Partisan gerrymandering sucks, and it should definitely be outlawed, but if it isn't I certainly don't deem it any sort of victory for conservatives.
                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                Comment


                • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                  Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                  If we have to wait until history is written, you guys will have to tell me the results on the other side.
                  How about we wait til Friday.
                  Cornell University
                  National Champion 1967, 1970
                  ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                  Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                  Comment


                  • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    How about we wait til Friday.
                    I'm certainly happy to discuss it more on Friday, but again, if the direction of this court, as currently made up, is going to be judged by the census case or gerrymandering cases, I personally think you'll be applying an unfairly narrow analysis. Just my opinion.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      I'm certainly happy to discuss it more on Friday, but again, if the direction of this court, as currently made up, is going to be judged by the census case or gerrymandering cases, I personally think you'll be applying an unfairly narrow analysis. Just my opinion.
                      Landmark decisions define a Court. There aren't many -- 1 or 2 per term. A "Court" with continuity is about 10 years because of shifting membership. So about 15 decisions define a Court.

                      This isn't like one plate appearance in a career of 10,000. It's like 2 seasons of a 20 year career. It's fair to make judgments based on that sample size.

                      As for gerrymandering not disproportionately benefiting the GOP: when combined with the Census scam it's lethal. Not to mention the inherent "gerrymander" that is the Senate, which will benefit rural voters, and thus conservatives, for a century.

                      As with rotten boroughs, the only people who don't see the unfairness are those who benefit. These are undemocratic practices and I hope we'll see a raft of constitutional amendments, similar to the Progressive Era, to remedy them.

                      In the end we'll all benefit because more democracy is better. I say that even though I don't regard the majority of the people as capable of tying their shoes. But as long as minority rights are protected the day to day threats to people come typically from the rich few, not the poor many, if only because the rich few are well informed and well organized while the poor many can never get their sh-t together. Right now the GOP is the vanguard of the rich few. They are not your friend. I know you're an ally for whatever ideological reason but the stronger they get the more you suffer. If not now then tomorrow. Anywhere the rich grow too strong everyone else suffers.
                      Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2019, 08:41 AM.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                        Landmark decisions define a Court. There aren't many -- 1 or 2 per term. A "Court" with continuity is about 10 years because of shifting membership. So about 15 decisions define a Court.

                        This isn't like one plate appearance in a career of 10,000. It's like 2 seasons of a 20 year career. It's fair to make judgments based on that sample size.

                        As for gerrymandering not directly benefiting the GOP, when combined with the Census scam it's lethal. Not to mention the inherent "gerrymander" that is the Senate, which will benefit rural voters, and thus conservatives, for a century.

                        Like rotten boroughs the only people who don't see the unfairness are those who benefit from it.
                        Is the census problem permanent, even if the court allows the question during this census? Wasn't Clinton in office at this time before the last census? Isn't it entirely possible a D will be in office before the next census?

                        Yeah, I know the whole Senate/rural issue is a hot button item for you, but even with that in place, haven't we had D President's and both houses of Congress controlled by the D's, in the very recent past?
                        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                          Ok, so they declined to take the final step and kill agency deference.

                          I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road Gorsuch is the justice, perhaps with Roberts, that conservatives will biatch about the most. I don't picture him going full Souter, but I don't think he'll necessarily be the dependable Alito type vote the diehards were hoping for.
                          That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                            Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                            Ok, so they declined to take the final step and kill agency deference.

                            I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road Gorsuch is the justice, perhaps with Roberts, that conservatives will biatch about the most. I don't picture him going full Souter, but I don't think he'll necessarily be the dependable Alito type vote the diehards were hoping for.
                            That's the hope. Gorsuch is the closest in the Furious Five to an actual justice. Roberts, while not entirely toxic, was hired to do a job for the GOP, not be a justice.

                            However, with Scalia we saw just how far even an intelligent and principled justice can embarrass himself with partisan casuistry. Torquemada was an educated man.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment


                            • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              That's the hope. Gorsuch is the closest in the Furious Five to an actual justice. Roberts, while not entirely toxic, was hired to do a job for the GOP, not be a justice.

                              However, with Scalia we saw just how far even an intelligent and principled justice can embarrass himself with partisan casuistry. Torquemada was an educated man.
                              Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                                Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
                                CO is weird. It's also one of the few remaining states where if you touch the 2A third rail you die.

                                But I don't think states matter. There are non-geographical conveyor belts that produce units with identical mindsets. Look at Kavanaugh -- he would have been at home with Billo at Chaminade in Mineola or any other Pseudo-Jesuit righty Catholic apologetics camp. Heck, he could be joecct!

                                Geography doesn't mean squat anymore. There are a handful of people Makes, each cranking out a handful of Models. Within the Makes, Models fight for resources. Between the Makes the fight is for market share. Maybe it's always been like that but the Makes used to align with geography but now they align with cultural tribe. Maybe that's the inevitable tendency of communications and globalism. Once everybody from the same town had more in common with each other than with the town over the hill. Then it was states. Then it was countries. And soon knucks in Mississippi will have more in common with NeoNazis in Norway than their next door liberal neighbor.
                                Last edited by Kepler; 06-26-2019, 10:13 AM.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X