What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

WeWantMore said:
So how about an era when the court waned non-political then? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. I don't think that's such a bad thing either.
Click to expand...

Brown v. Board was 9-0. Today you'd have 3 or 4 hatchetmen dissenting about "state's rights."

The current Court is going to go down as another Lochner Era (not just for the poor quality of the decisions, but for the bald partisanship of both sides, devoid of any goal but justifying forgone ideological conclusions).
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

WeWantMore said:
So how about an era when the court waned non-political then? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. I don't think that's such a bad thing either.
Click to expand...

A lot of people only think it's political when it votes against their wishes.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler said:
Brown v. Board was 9-0. Today you'd have 3 or 4 hatchetmen dissenting about "state's rights."

The current Court is going to go down as another Lochner Era (not just for the poor quality of the decisions, but for the bald partisanship of both sides, devoid of any goal but justifying forgone ideological conclusions).
Click to expand...

Brown isn't an era though. It's a decision. There's been a few 9-0 decisions on this court, which is oh so political.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

WeWantMore said:
Brown isn't an era though. It's a decision. There's been a few 9-0 decisions on this court, which is oh so political.
Click to expand...

There haven't been any 9-0 landmark decisions where a part of the country threatened to murder the justices afterwards, though. That was both important *and* controversial, and there was enough integrity on the bench to look at the law rather than the polls. That's what is missing now.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler said:
There haven't been any 9-0 landmark decisions where a part of the country threatened to murder the justices afterwards, though. That was both important *and* controversial, and there was enough integrity on the bench to look at the law rather than the polls. That's what is missing now.
Click to expand...

Okay, fine. But you still haven't named an era. Curious as to which decisions this current court should have found as 9-0 in your opinion as well.

Because by golly I think that McDonald v. Chicago case deserved a 9-0.:D
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler said:
There haven't been any 9-0 landmark decisions where a part of the country threatened to murder the justices afterwards, though.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't think parts of the South would've taken up arms after Brown? Cripes, it took troops to integrate certain southern educational centers.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

unofan said:
Seriously? You don't think parts of the South would've taken up arms after Brown? Cripes, it took troops to integrate certain southern educational centers.
Click to expand...

True. That was a major landmark decision that some folks vehemently disagreed with.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

unofan said:
Seriously? You don't think parts of the South would've taken up arms after Brown? Cripes, it took troops to integrate certain southern educational centers.
Click to expand...

I took it to mean that people did do that after Brown, yet this current court hasn't made such a decision.

Which makes them inferior or something.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

WeWantMore said:
I took it to mean that people did do that after Brown, yet this current court hasn't made such a decision.

Which makes them inferior or something.
Click to expand...

Ah. In that light, his comment makes a little more sense.

Though you can just as easily point to the liberal wing as the conservative wing for why none of the hot-topic cases have been 9-0 decisions. It'd be just as easy for them to cave as it would be the conservative side.

If the point is simply a lack of unity, well, there's a reason there's nine justices and not 1. Reasonable people can disagree.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

unofan said:
Ah. In that light, his comment makes a little more sense.

Though you can just as easily point to the liberal wing as the conservative wing for why none of the hot-topic cases have been 9-0 decisions. It'd be just as easy for them to cave as it would be the conservative side.

If the point is simply a lack of unity, well, there's a reason there's nine justices and not 1. Reasonable people can disagree.
Click to expand...
But can reasonable people disagree reasonably?;)
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Virginia had "Massive Resistance" initiated by Sen. Harry (no relation to Robert) Byrd.

And 26 Stat. 417 is still on the books which allows for the establishment of separate land grant colleges for whites and "people of color" (2nd Morrill Act (or the Act of 1890)). Subsequent amendments have established Land Grants colleges for Native Americans.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

unofan said:
Seriously? You don't think parts of the South would've taken up arms after Brown? Cripes, it took troops to integrate certain southern educational centers.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding me and/or I am being confusing (though looking back it seems clear to me):

My point was that IS what constituted that definitively non-partisan decision under difficult political circumstances, not remotely like anything now (even a 9-0 decision, either way, in Bush v Gore would not have been equivalent, but would have made the Court's reasoning seem more legitimate than that 5-4 decision right down partisan lines made it look like just another fight between party hacks).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top