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.

POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

aparch said:
How about you do some research for once and look them up yourself?

And I wasnt planning on it, because arguing with your dumb a** doesn't pay the bills.
Click to expand...

Your first four cases are almost identical in format. In each instance a state has passed a statute. Someone in that state affected by the statute challenges it, claiming that the statute violates a constitutionally protected right. And in each instance the Supreme Court rejected that argument. In subsequent cases the Supreme Court reversed itself.

I don't claim that the Supreme Court never reverses earlier decisions. To the contrary, there are plenty of examples of that. But my proposition, had you cared to actually read it, is that there aren't any examples where rights have been established or recognized by Supreme Court decision, only to be taken away by subsequent Supreme Court decision. The reversals always occur when the Supreme Court first rules that no such right exists, then society and society's morals and way of looking at things changes, and the Supreme Court reverses the earlier decision and recognizes the right.

In short, once a right is established, it isn't going anywhere.
 
SJHovey said:
Your first four cases are almost identical in format. In each instance a state has passed a statute. Someone in that state affected by the statute challenges it, claiming that the statute violates a constitutionally protected right. And in each instance the Supreme Court rejected that argument. In subsequent cases the Supreme Court reversed itself.

I don't claim that the Supreme Court never reverses earlier decisions. To the contrary, there are plenty of examples of that. But my proposition, had you cared to actually read it, is that there aren't any examples where rights have been established or recognized by Supreme Court decision, only to be taken away by subsequent Supreme Court decision. The reversals always occur when the Supreme Court first rules that no such right exists, then society and society's morals and way of looking at things changes, and the Supreme Court reverses the earlier decision and recognizes the right.

In short, once a right is established, it isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's been another situation in our history where a large population wanted a right abolished and also had the power and opportunity to make it happen.

In most cases, once a right is established, opposition to it is marginalized relatively quickly. That's not the case here.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

GrinCDXX said:
I'm not sure there's been another situation in our history where a large population wanted a right abolished and also had the power and opportunity to make it happen.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if you could go back 170 years, many in the South would argue they had a "God-given right" to own slaves, and thus why they tried to leave the Union when Lincoln was elected POTUS.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I'm sure if you could go back 170 years, many in the South would argue they had a "God-given right" to own slaves, and thus why they tried to leave the Union when Lincoln was elected POTUS.
Click to expand...

Opportunity to make it happen by getting their people on the court is what I meant.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I'm sure if you could go back 170 years, many in the South would argue they had a "God-given right" to own slaves, and thus why they tried to leave the Union when Lincoln was elected POTUS.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain, but I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled that the right to own slaves was unconstitutional - they never had to, because it was taken care of by the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states and then the Reconstruction Acts and Amendments. Imagine that - the executive and legislative branches actually going their fricken jobs.
 
LynahFan said:
I'm not certain, but I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled that the right to own slaves was unconstitutional - they never had to, because it was taken care of by the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states and then the Reconstruction Acts and Amendments. Imagine that - the executive and legislative branches actually going their fricken jobs.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the several states that had to ratify the amendments.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

joecct said:
Don't forget the several states that had to ratify the amendments.
Click to expand...

Per Lincoln, the Confederate states weren't needed to ratify the 13th as long as they were in open rebellion. They were occupied territories until they ratified new state constitutions that abolished slavery and setup new legislatures that were sworn and committed to the Union. Three days after making that statement, Lincoln was assassinated.

Johnson was a good ol' boy Southern Dem who allowed a lot of racist nonsense by the traitor states in readmitting them to the Union, and basically undermined the process of Reconstruction, to the point that it was allowed to die out and the South was left to its own devices of the KKK, poll taxes, citizenship tests, sharecropping, and all sorts of other quasi-slavery baloney under the guise of "states' rights".
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

LynahFan said:
I'm not certain, but I don't think SCOTUS ever ruled that the right to own slaves was unconstitutional - they never had to, because it was taken care of by the Emancipation Proclamation in the border states and then the Reconstruction Acts and Amendments. Imagine that - the executive and legislative branches actually going their fricken jobs.
Click to expand...

Whether or not they had to decide, might as well stick it in the Constitution to ensure there are no questions. You could justify, however, that Dred Scott's case did determine that.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

aparch said:
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
Adler v. Board of Education, 1952
Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
Pace v. Alabamam, 1883
Wolf v. Colorado, 1949
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

...

Nope, never has the Supreme Court ruled with in favor of racism, intolerence, or bias where it was overruled with follow up Supreme Court decisions or Constitutional Ammendments. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Same could be said about income taxes. If a generation chooses a Constitutional amendment, that's their prerogative. Hence why there were considerations about marriage about a decade ago.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
Whether or not they had to decide, might as well stick it in the Constitution to ensure there are no questions. You could justify, however, that Dred Scott's case did determine that.
Click to expand...

??? Dred Scott affirmed that whites *did* have the right to own slaves - a right that was later rescinded not by the courts, but by the executive, legislative, and (yes,joe) the states. So it doesn't qualify as a situation where the court affirmed a right and then later the court reversed itself.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

GrinCDXX said:
I'm not sure there's been another situation in our history where a large population wanted a right abolished and also had the power and opportunity to make it happen.

In most cases, once a right is established, opposition to it is marginalized relatively quickly. That's not the case here.
Click to expand...

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on this. I think both currently, and in the past, there have been plenty of examples where a large segment of the population wanted a right abolished.

But I guess my thinking with the Court is I just don't see them doing it, no matter who gets appointed. The Court has had numerous chances to overrule Roe and has simply declined to take that step. It's been a conservative court for almost all of Roe's existence. I just don't think five people want to be the ones to say that they're taking that right away.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

SJHovey said:
I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on this. I think both currently, and in the past, there have been plenty of examples where a large segment of the population wanted a right abolished.

But I guess my thinking with the Court is I just don't see them doing it, no matter who gets appointed. The Court has had numerous chances to overrule Roe and has simply declined to take that step. It's been a conservative court for almost all of Roe's existence. I just don't think five people want to be the ones to say that they're taking that right away.
Click to expand...

conservatives have never been so uniformly anti-choice. Trump even campaigned on the idea of appointing justices to the SC that would either reverse the Roe v Wade decision or severely weaken it. This used to be a small faction of the GOP. Now wanting to overrule Roe is the overwhelming view of the Republican party.
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

BassAle said:
conservatives have never been so uniformly anti-choice. Trump even campaigned on the idea of appointing justices to the SC that would either reverse the Roe v Wade decision or severely weaken it. This used to be a small faction of the GOP. Now wanting to overrule Roe is the overwhelming view of the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Obviously polls are just polls, but I don't think you're correct in this opinion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-wsj-poll-support-roe-v-wade-hits-new-high-n893806
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

So apparently this is an accurate description of the Presidents d*ck:

<img src=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Toad_3D_Land.png/220px-Toad_3D_Land.png>
 
Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

aparch said:
So apparently this is an accurate description of the Presidents d*ck:

<img src=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Toad_3D_Land.png/220px-Toad_3D_Land.png>
Click to expand...

what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top