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.
GrinCDXX said:
Does the fact that Kennedy wrote this opinion offer any hints about any of the upcoming rulings? Would there be any expectation of who would issue the opinion in the gerrymandering case(s) if they were to come down on the side of basic democratic values?
Click to expand...

The only time you can start guessing about who is writing a given opinion is once enough have been written that you can fill in the blanks on who has some left. As a general rule of thumb, they try to divide the majority opinions up equally by monthly sitting. So if, for instance, there's only one left from November and Alito hasn't written one yet, it's a good bet he's writing that one. It's not always accurate (because occasionally votes switch late or a concurrence will steal the majority away), but is as good a barometer as anything we have.

I haven't looked at the data lately to see if we can predict anything like that, yet.
 
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

FlagDUDE08 said:
Absolutely the right thing to do. There are plenty of cases where people refuse the right to service, but I haven't heard you ***** and moan about those as much as you do with this. Your argument is about destroying people's belief systems and forcing them onto yours. And you're supposedly the tolerant one...

How about just going to another baker if you don't like what you're getting?
Click to expand...

It's pretty amazing how WWJD has turned into "hate my neighbor". It's no wonder I don't attend Church anymore.
 
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:
It's pretty amazing how WWJD has turned into "hate my neighbor". It's no wonder I don't attend Church anymore.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
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:
It's pretty amazing how WWJD has turned into "hate my neighbor". It's no wonder I don't attend Church anymore.
Click to expand...

WWJD has gone through periods of hate thy neighbor before -- in fact it's probably been the majority of Christian history.

Love and peace have been revolts against politically-connected Christianity. The perfect example of Christianity in action is MLK. He was a Christian... and so were the racist f-cks he was fighting. That's the difference between transgressive, personal Christianity of conscience and "Moral Major," establishment Christianity which is just another engine of oppression.
 
Last edited:
You want to discriminate? Let us know, so we can shut you down.

Being bi and trans, I am fortunate that I don't have to call around to see who will make a cake for me.
 
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

Rover said:
Typical Republican response:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-color-later-apologizes/ar-AAyhmlJ?ocid=ientp
Click to expand...

At least he was honest about what they want, for once.

I'd have at least a smidge of respect for Republicans if they didn't lie, and if they said, "no, it's not about rights or the Constitution, it's about my liberty to associate with people I like and to keep out people I don't."

"Republican: the freedom to hate in public those we hate in private." That's the real party motto and driver of their policies from blacks to immigrants to gays to non-Christians. They should just state it clearly and unequivocally. It is an internally consistent philosophy.
 
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:
At least he was honest about what they want, for once.

I'd have at least a smidge of respect for Republicans if they didn't lie, and if they said, "no, it's not about rights or the Constitution, it's about my liberty to associate with people I like and to keep out people I don't."

"Republican: the freedom to hate in public those we hate in private." That's the real party motto. They should just state it clearly and unequivocally. It is an internally consistent philosophy.
Click to expand...

For me, personally, this attitude isn't surprising, but one has to wonder how many USCHO conservatives and defenders of Trump and crew feel the same way. Sadly, I think we'd be unpleasantly surprised by 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

Rover said:
For me, personally, this attitude isn't surprising, but one has to wonder how many USCHO conservatives and defenders of Trump and crew feel the same way. Sadly, I think we'd be unpleasantly surprised by that.:(
Click to expand...

There are people I loathe and don't want around. If a host from the 700 Club got into my house through the door they would assuredly go out through the window.

I could actually see somebody make an argument for "liberty of hate" -- that they shouldn't have to pretend to tolerate in, say, their private business, those they wouldn't allow in their home. I think it would be a p-ss poor way to try to build a community, but I can see people thinking that dancing cheek to cheek with a person your religion teaches you to stone to death is hypocritical.

I'd almost rather we just allow those people to self-identify, so we could know them by their rules. Let Hobby Lobby put a "Colored Only" water fountain in their store. It would a way to know exactly who the as-sholes were. Let the bakers with half a brain and any soul put a little rainbow decal in their window saying "we support all marriages." That's where I'll shop. And I'll send a nice little letter to the flour suppliers for the homophobe bakery to tell them maybe it would be a good idea to respect a boycott of that place, or else be boycotted themselves.

Let the market destroy the haters. And if the market means hatred wins in parts of this country, well, then at least we know where we stand as a country and as a people, and we know which backwaters to pull all investment from and let suffocate in their own filth.
 
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:
At least he was honest about what they want, for once.

I'd have at least a smidge of respect for Republicans if they didn't lie, and if they said, "no, it's not about rights or the Constitution, it's about my liberty to associate with people I like and to keep out people I don't."

"Republican: the freedom to hate in public those we hate in private." That's the real party motto and driver of their policies from blacks to immigrants to gays to non-Christians. They should just state it clearly and unequivocally. It is an internally consistent philosophy.
Click to expand...

If you go back to a point in time 55 years ago, or longer, racism in this country was overt. People were openly racist, used openly racist names or terms and were unafraid to announce decisions that were racist in nature.

Legislation in the mid-1960's did not, by any stretch, cause racism to disappear. It may have produced marginal improvement, but more importantly it provided a remedy to the victims. But as for the racism itself, it was essentially unchanged and driven underground. It became covert, unspoken, but nevertheless present. In many ways it made it more difficult for the victims because it at least created some doubt as to whether the actions or motives were racist.

There is no question that the election of Trump has emboldened a sizable portion of the racist section of this country to return to the open, to become more overt in their actions or statements. In some ways that might be good because it removes the questions of motive or cause that existed in the more covert racism we've seen for 55 years.
 
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

America wanted a racist in the oval office and they got it. And he has never let them down since taking office.
 
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:
If you go back to a point in time 55 years ago, or longer, racism in this country was overt. People were openly racist, used openly racist names or terms and were unafraid to announce decisions that were racist in nature.

Legislation in the mid-1960's did not, by any stretch, cause racism to disappear. It may have produced marginal improvement, but more importantly it provided a remedy to the victims. But as for the racism itself, it was essentially unchanged and driven underground. It became covert, unspoken, but nevertheless present. In many ways it made it more difficult for the victims because it at least created some doubt as to whether the actions or motives were racist.

There is no question that the election of Trump has emboldened a sizable portion of the racist section of this country to return to the open, to become more overt in their actions or statements. In some ways that might be good because it removes the questions of motive or cause that existed in the more covert racism we've seen for 55 years.
Click to expand...

On the whole, I think there has been positive change in racial attitudes. I've seen it in my kids, who are in their mid to late 20s and grew up in rural 'murica. We discussed such things at home, and they were not afraid to speak out about bigoted behavior at school or among friends and classmates. It's still there--we all can see that. But cultures just aren't as isolated as they once were, and that is helping.

I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness or extent of the problem, and what you say has a lot of truth to it.
 
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

Racism has evolved IMHO. I'd like to think even most (but not all) Trump supporters would be horrified by cops sending dogs after peaceful protesters or blacks being beaten on their way to the polling station. Or segregated lunch counters.

Racism now is white privilege. Its not that non-whites shouldn't have basic rights. Its that those rights need to be secondary to those of whites. Trump voters don't mind one Hispanic kid in class with their kids. They don't want a majority of the kids to be non-white. Trump voters don't mind one Indian family in the neighborhood. They don't want the neighborhood to be even close to a majority non-white. They might not mind seeing one black guy in the office. 3 or 4 or them? That starts to become a problem. This attitude is what Trump appeals to. It has little to do with economics although one could make the case that if people's economic situation was better maybe they'd be less likely to look for scapegoats. I'm a bit skeptical of that argument. Its about taking older people back to a country where whites were like 80-90% of the population and you could use racial and ethnic slurs as part of your everyday conversation.
 
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

French Rage said:
I am shocked SHOCKED that that is where this led.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if it was what they were after all along...
 
Kepler said:
There are people I loathe and don't want around. If a host from the 700 Club got into my house through the door they would assuredly go out through the window.

I could actually see somebody make an argument for "liberty of hate" -- that they shouldn't have to pretend to tolerate in, say, their private business, those they wouldn't allow in their home. I think it would be a p-ss poor way to try to build a community, but I can see people thinking that dancing cheek to cheek with a person your religion teaches you to stone to death is hypocritical.

I'd almost rather we just allow those people to self-identify, so we could know them by their rules. Let Hobby Lobby put a "Colored Only" water fountain in their store. It would a way to know exactly who the as-sholes were. Let the bakers with half a brain and any soul put a little rainbow decal in their window saying "we support all marriages." That's where I'll shop. And I'll send a nice little letter to the flour suppliers for the homophobe bakery to tell them maybe it would be a good idea to respect a boycott of that place, or else be boycotted themselves.

Let the market destroy the haters. And if the market means hatred wins in parts of this country, well, then at least we know where we stand as a country and as a people, and we know which backwaters to pull all investment from and let suffocate in their own filth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that worked real well from 1860 to 1960.

Sometimes you really do hit that ivory tower academic elite trope really well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top