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

joecct said:
If POTUD goes off the statutes, he needs to be corrected/stopped. If you disagree on moral grounds, sorry. Tried that for 45 years - doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You're not listening.
 
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

BTW, the GOP doesn't want to overturn Roe. It's been one of their best fundraising tools for 40 years. They want abortions to keep happening so they can keep fulminating against them so their dupes will keep paying them in coin and votes.

The day science renders abortions OBE will be a very sad day at the RNC.
 
Kepler said:
Both Roberts and Scalia were consummate politicians, so I hope Gorsuch has some of those instincts but will use them for good as so far Roberts has and Scalia never did. Gorsuch appears to be principled, which is good as far as it goes (Stanley Fish wrote an excellent book about how limited principle is). I look forward to him disappointing conservatives when they go nuts and not being a rubber stamp like Thomas and Alito.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. A lot of people are getting themselves worked up when it is completely unnecessary.
 
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

Drew S. said:
Agree with this. A lot of people are getting themselves worked up when it is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is getting worked up about Gorsuch. We're getting worked up about Cinnamon Hitler's combination of idiocy and entitlement, and the GOP's cynicism and cowardice in shirking their duty to bring him to heel.
 
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:
As I've said a hundred times, I'm fine with the politics. We lost and you guys get your political choices because elections have consequences. You had to live with us for 8 years, now we have to live with you. Sucks but OK.

But the process violations and the dictatorial personality, style and actions of Hair Fuhrer are a different story. That's something we should all be opposed to. The rules and the law are there to protect us all. You may laugh now because you have the ax, but do you trust us with it? America is more important than politics. Your side is losing sight of that because of temporary convenience and that is a huge mistake.

John Wayne is great in Stagecoach and True Grit and Quiet Man and Liberty Valence. In most things he just mails it in like most actors. I'm OK with watching him for fun, but several generations of reactionary dingbats built their personalities around aping his characters because they superficially fit in with the reactionary mindset. That's as dumb as being an Elvis impersonator.
Click to expand...

Be more like David Frum. Don't be like Mitch.
 
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:
BTW, the GOP doesn't want to overturn Roe. It's been one of their best fundraising tools for 40 years. They want abortions to keep happening so they can keep fulminating against them so their dupes will keep paying them in coin and votes.

The day science renders abortions OBE will be a very sad day at the RNC.
Click to expand...

They can replace abortion with Muslims and get the same fundraising. They practically already have.
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
They can replace abortion with Muslims and get the same fundraising. They practically already have.
Click to expand...

yup. I think they are going to try to deliver on the abortion promise and roll back rights for gays too. Pence is a true believer in Christian Sharia Law. Now they have the Muslims!! as the bogeyman instead of the baby killers!!.
 
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

BassAle said:
yup. I think they are going to try to deliver on the abortion promise and roll back rights for gays. Pence is a true believer in Christian Sharia Law.
Click to expand...

And they can fund raise till the cows come home on that.
 
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:
The self-image of the Strong Man Standing Against The Wind is quite narcissistic.
Click to expand...
Rural cousin of Coastal Ubermensch?
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Gee, I wonder why that could be?
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, it's because it gets harder to overturn your own precedent than it is someone else's. As a junior justice, you generally only get to write boring opinions that the senior judges pass on. And you have no personal precedent, so you're free to go wherever you wish.

But after 5-10 years, it gets tougher to act as a firebrand because then you'd have to overrule yourself.
 
Drew S. said:
It's obviously your right to fear the worst, but I don't think it will happen. Even if it did come to pass you're still not in that bad of shape. I don't think Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginaburg, Roberts will let anything very extreme get through. I wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch is more along the lines of Roberts than Scalia.
Click to expand...

Roberts sided with Texas last year in that abortion case. You have more faith in him than is warranted.
 
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

unofan said:
If I had to guess, it's because it gets harder to overturn your own precedent than it is someone else's. As a junior justice, you generally only get to write boring opinions that the senior judges pass on. And you have no personal precedent, so you're free to go wherever you wish.

But after 5-10 years, it gets tougher to act as a firebrand because then you'd have to overrule yourself.
Click to expand...

Huh. Interesting. 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

SJHovey said:
Rural cousin of Coastal Ubermensch?
Click to expand...

No, it's Coastal Sensitive Man Who Discovers He's Strong In A Crisis Yet Still Doesn't Lose His Spiritual Generosity.

Geez, man, try to keep up. :)
 
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

Drew S. said:
Agree with this. A lot of people are getting themselves worked up when it is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Remember the backdrop. If this were a constitutional appointment, this would be a dem nomination.
 
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

What would be the impact if we changed "critical" appointments to the following:
--require 60 votes
--require a committee hearing within 30 days
--require full floor vote within 90 days
--remove the filibuster

Is something like this workable? Any other requirements?

Complete pipe dream?
 
unofan said:
Roberts sided with Texas last year in that abortion case. You have more faith in him than is warranted.
Click to expand...

If you put personal feelings aside and look at it strictly based on the legality, he was on the right side. I understand why the court ruled how they did though.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
What would be the impact if we changed "critical" appointments to the following:
--require 60 votes
--require a committee hearing within 30 days
--require full floor vote within 90 days
--remove the filibuster

Is something like this workable? Any other requirements?

Complete pipe dream?
Click to expand...

The day when something like this would have passed you wouldn't have needed them to begin with.
 
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

you guys,

with the way things are going this could be the last year of Trump's presidency.


Precedent says we should leave it up to the next president to fill this vacancy.
 
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

dxmnkd316 said:
What would be the impact if we changed "critical" appointments to the following:
--require 60 votes
--require a committee hearing within 30 days
--require full floor vote within 90 days
--remove the filibuster

Is something like this workable? Any other requirements?

Complete pipe dream?
Click to expand...

I don't think we should require a supermajority for appointments.

The current problem with the government is gridlock. It operates in two different ways. Most obviously, nothing gets done. But just as importantly, candidates and sitting Members can propose stupid red meat stuff they know will never get past cloture. There is no penalty for doing this because the other party will rescue them by forcing amendments as a condition to reach cloture. Then the majority can run around telling its constituents it would have made guns mandatory in preschool and legalized the stoning of gays but the evil Democrats stopped them.

If the majority had the power to enact on a simple majority it would also have nowhere to hide. Most of the stupidity we see emanating from the GOP is them playing their slaves, er, voters. A 50+ rule would ensure they could no longer do that.

And given that we are a democratic republic, if the people want to live in a neofeudal conservative hellhole where rights are prorated by wealth (I mean, even more of one than they've already foisted on us), then their votes should matter. We can always, I dunno, get our butts to the polls to beat them. There are more of us. And, once we have 50+, our own legislators would then be bound to follow us or suffer.
 
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

As long as one party is willing to burn the ****ing house down there's not a single thing anyone can do. Especially when people keep voting for that party over and over and over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top