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.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
um, I thought that it was the First Amendment that said that people have the right peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Click to expand...

They nailed campaign finance reform on the 14th -- violation of due process.

It is of course equally idiotic to argue that corporations or unions have 1st amendment rights. Only the people in them do. Anything else the Courts tell you is just a payoff for Groundswell kickbacks, carefully laundered through the spouse.
 
Kepler said:
They nailed campaign finance reform on the 14th -- violation of due process.

It is of course equally idiotic to argue that corporations or unions have 1st amendment rights. Only the people in them do. Anything else the Courts tell you is just a payoff for Groundswell kickbacks, carefully laundered through the spouse.
Click to expand...

The Court a long time ago ruled on the personhood of a corporation.

Now, they have discovered ANOTHER penumbra in the 14th Amendment. You don't like this interpretation but like others?

We need a convention of the States to rectify some holes in the Constitution. You (we) won't get anything out of this (or any other) Congress.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
The Court a long time ago ruled on the personhood of a corporation.
Click to expand...

Fictive personhood for contract considerations is one thing.

Corporate personhood implying civil rights like speech and religion is so evil it rivals the 1920s courts using the 14th Amendment to strike down child labor laws.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
We need a convention of the States to rectify some holes in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Not with the crazies running around right now. Let's give it about fifty years to cool the f-ck down.

I hate it when people say "I'll leave the country if..." but if the f-ckstains in the current GOP got their dream convention they would literally destroy democratic government in the United States. There would be no reason to stay in their sick police state, and every reason to skip town and add our energy and effort to the free world. Not to mention to start building the army that would eventually have to contain/defeat their inevitable militarism.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
Yeah, no. Not with the crazies running around right now. Let's give it about fifty years to cool the f-ck down.

I hate it when people say "I'll leave the country if..." but if the f-ckstains in the current GOP got their dream convention they would literally destroy democratic government in the United States. There would be no reason to stay in their sick police state, and every reason to skip town and add our energy and effort to the free world.
Click to expand...

I'm headed for Vancouver if that happens, and inlaws have said Quito is good.
 
Kepler said:
Fictive personhood for contract considerations is one thing.

Corporate personhood implying civil rights like speech and religion is so evil it rivals the 1920s courts using the 14th Amendment to strike down child labor laws.
Click to expand...

So fix the Constitution that it is impossible for it to happen. The Court is reluctant to change precedent.

If the Convention of the States turns into a circus, I'll be right behind you - but probably headed to Oz. However, I have faith and to ensure that faith, nobody who has or is serving in any elective office at the State or Federal level is eligible to attend.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Yeah, the Koch brothers are inching toward ramming through a convention as is.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

burd said:
I'm headed for Vancouver if that happens, and inlaws have said Quito is good.
Click to expand...

York.

Luckily they're too dumb to figure out how the nukes work even if we leave them. They'll be like the Iraqi airforce 8 months after we leave.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
So fix the Constitution that it is impossible for it to happen. The Court is reluctant to change precedent.
Click to expand...

The civil right of personhood for corporations was a complete invention. The only good thing about it is it gave the lie to the obvious hypocrisy of the "strict constructionist" fig leaf that Scalia et al. hid behind. At least privacy can be inferred. This right was an absolute invention from wholecloth. And the right, in all their glorious integrity, said?

Nothing.
 
Kepler said:
The civil right of personhood for corporations was a complete invention. The only good thing about it is it gave the lie to the obvious hypocrisy of the "strict constructionist" fig leaf that Scalia et al. hid behind. At least privacy can be inferred. This right was an absolute invention from wholecloth. And the right, in all their glorious integrity, said?

Nothing.
Click to expand...

(I hate to go here, but) The lack of personhood in a fetus is equally as shocking.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
(I hate to go here, but) The lack of personhood in a fetus is equally as shocking.
Click to expand...

That's a religious argument (which many of us do not share), not a legal one.

But yes, the larger point is that these things are determined at the ground level by politics. Literally nothing is forever; nothing descends from an angry man in the clouds, everything can be changed by political processes given the right circumstances. And that is why I don't trust your side right now to get anything like the power to change in one swipe the fundamentals of the government. That would be a disaster akin to Germany winning WW2. A Germany with nukes.

Your side is amusing out of power. To the extent it gets power it becomes a threat. With a convention that threat would be maximized. We're not off this planet yet so that can simply not be permitted.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
The Court a long time ago ruled on the personhood of a corporation.
Click to expand...

They did so in error.

joecct said:
(I hate to go here, but) The lack of personhood in a fetus is equally as shocking.
Click to expand...

Don't lie Joe, the Lord hates that. You love going there, otherwise you'd recognize the futility of pressing the argument.
 
Last edited:
joecct said:
(I hate to go here, but) The lack of personhood in a fetus is equally as shocking.
Click to expand...

If you think it's fair for a woman to be forced to carry a child to term against her will, you should be willing to force the father to donate bone marrow, a kidney, blood, or anything else that won't kill him after the kid's birth.

Funny how the life only matters when it's only one sex impacted and even then only til a breath is taken.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Isn't a transgender boy a male that identifies as female? If so I'm confused why this required a court ruling.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Slap Shot said:
Isn't a transgender boy a male that identifies as female? If so I'm confused why this required a court ruling.
Click to expand...

trans boy: girl identifying as a boy
trans girl: boy identifyiog as a girl
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Makes sense.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
It may. Though I would prefer the states solving this legislatively. Secondary school and youth sports will be the 2nd most public "battleground".
Click to expand...

If it's an equal protection issue that requires clarification, the SCOTUS should hear it. In the 60s, the south wanted voting rights to be determined by the states too, and that is why the Court's counter-majoritarian role is so important on such issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top