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

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
While the vast majority of Pro-Lifers are religious, there are atheists that are Pro-Life, just as there are religious people who are Pro-Choice. So, it is not exclusively a religious belief.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The vast majority are religious and that's why it's getting defunded. The only reason abortion isn't illegal is because of the Supreme Court. The same reason Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage aren't illegal.
 
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:
I guess the biggest issue I have is where do you begin to draw the line then?
Click to expand...

which is why I would expect a narrowly-tailored ruling, along the lines of "if this is a public program open to all applicants for a purely secular purpose."

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
The public money is being given for safer playgrounds for kids. It is not in any way promoting any religion. Denying the money on the basis that it is a religious institution is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I somewhat expect Kagan to ask to write the opinion: she seems fairly adept at the linguistic precision that will be needed to thread the needle. The state cannot deny funds to make a playground safer merely because it is on property owned by a religious organization.

She will have to write the opinion in such a way that she is not also opening the door to using public funds to pay for tuition at private schools.
 
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:
Replace church with Planned Parenthood. Somehow it's ok to deny them otherwise general use funds because they engage in a constitutionally protected activity.
Click to expand...

That is not a problem as long as they are not picking and choosing, right? they are not only defunding Planned [non]Parenthood, they are across the board not funding any organization that provides abortions under the Hyde Amendment, no?

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected activity but you don't see "otherwise general use funds" being applied to promote gun ownership. There are plenty of constitutionally protected activities that are not funded by the federal government.
 
FreshFish said:
which is why I would expect a narrowly-tailored ruling, along the lines of "if this is a public program open to all applicants for a purely secular purpose."



I somewhat expect Kagan to ask to write the opinion: she seems fairly adept at the linguistic precision that will be needed to thread the needle. The state cannot deny funds to make a playground safer merely because it is on property owned by a religious organization.

She will have to write the opinion in such a way that she is not also opening the door to using public funds to pay for tuition at private schools.
Click to expand...

You think Roberts will pass this one onto Kagan? I doubt it. Never say never, but they held this case until Gorsuch was confirmed because they wanted a clear conservative majority. They're not going to give it to Kagan to write a narrow opinion when they now have the votes to write an expansive one.

Put another way, it would have been argued last year if they were ok with a Kagan opinion.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
That is not a problem as long as they are not picking and choosing, right?
Click to expand...

Of course they are. Why do you think they talk about "repealing funding for Planned Parenthood," and not "repealing funding for abortion providers." We're not talking about the Hyde Amendment, we're talking about taking away Title VII and Medicaid funds that go to PP as reimbursement for their non abortion activities.

The states are getting away with defunding PP by foregoing all federal family planning funds to stop paying PP, essentially cutting of their noses to spite their faces. But similar federal legislation is proposed all the time.

Do try to keep up.
 
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

FreshFish said:
She will have to write the opinion in such a way that she is not also opening the door to using public funds to pay for tuition at private schools.
Click to expand...

You're still giving public money to a religious entity. If it's to give them a seesaw then they can take the money they'd have spent for the seesaw and spend it on Jesus Rides a Dinosaur geology textbooks.

But again it comes down to this: is BFE Oklahoma going to give public money to the local mosque? Oh, I really want to be the public official who defends that at the town hall.
 
Kepler said:
You're still giving public money to a religious entity. If it's to give them a seesaw then they can take the money they'd have spent for the seesaw and spend it on Jesus Rides a Dinosaur geology textbooks.

But again it comes down to this: is BFE Oklahoma going to give public money to the local mosque? Oh, I really want to be the public official who defends that at the town hall.
Click to expand...

Remember, Maryland took the casino money, gave it to the schools, and took the money that had previously had gone to the schools and gave it to their favorite contractors.

I don't want any public money going to any religious institution. Soon the institution compromises its principles to keep the money flowing.
 
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:
Remember, Maryland took the casino money, gave it to the schools, and took the money that had previously had gone to the schools and gave it to their favorite contractors.
Click to expand...

Oh, I quite agree that was garbage, and as far as I know every state that has gambling does it. IINM it was in OR where one of the referenda was that any gambling revenue would be segregated from the general fund so they couldn't play that shell game. The state leg threw a fit.
 
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

unofun said:
You think Roberts will pass this one onto Kagan?
Click to expand...

um, what I actually wrote was that "Kagan would ask to write the opinion."
 
FreshFish said:
um, what I actually wrote was that "Kagan would ask to write the opinion."
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

Edit: Just in case you're being sincere for once, the senior justice in the majority assigns who will write the opinion, and the Chief is always most senior. There is consideration given to balancing the workload by sitting (so each justice will write only one or two majority opinions per month, which is how you can guess authors towards the end), but other than that, no one "asks" to write a specific opinion.

A majority opinion can be lost if votes switch (Obamacare when Roberts switched sides) or a concurrence gets more votes (violent video games - Alito's concurrence reads like it was originally a majority opinion, and my guess is Scalia stole it when he got four votes to sign on to his more strident defense of the first amendment that was originally to be a concurrence).

Further edit: and as for why I think you're not being sincere, the Court held this over because it wants to open the door to private school funding. You don't sit on a case for over a year, waiting for a tiebreaking vote to be seated, if you don't think you'll need it.
 
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

Get ready for The Heist.

A White House official confirmed reports that President Donald Trump intends to add to Washington’s already tickey to-do list for next week by rolling out his long-promised plan to simplify the tax code and slash federal rates sometime next week.

“The president was saying what we’ve been saying all along, that he wants to do tax reform as quickly as possible while still doing it right,” a the official said.

The plan will propose a “massive tax cut” for individuals and businesses, Trump told the AP. As he often does, the president did not speak in specifics during the interview, according to an AP report, but he did say his proposal would, if enacted, be “bigger, I believe, than any tax cut ever.”
Click to expand...

As with Reagan and Dubya, this is all that matters and the sole reason the GOP exists. Those two prior tax cuts allowed the richest 6000 families in the US to amass approximately 15 trillion dollars in wealth at the expense of the US taxpayer, now on the hook for all of it in debt. For this gift we were assured that everyone would benefit. The red and green lines on this chart are the result: the economy grew at the same rate as before, saved by worker productivity (driven by technology) soaring, while median wealth in the US stagnated. The 1% disappeared into the stratosphere as the US was transformed from a representative republic with an inequality problem to an outright oligarchy.

This is the whole ballgame. Republican tax policy is a heist. Ideally we would restore the tax rates which created the middle class in the US, but as a bare minimum we have to hold the line on the crooks and prevent a third big haul to the Caymans.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Get ready for The Heist.



As with Reagan and Dubya, this is all that matters and the sole reason the GOP exists. Those two prior tax cuts allowed the richest 6000 families in the US to amass approximately 15 trillion dollars in wealth at the expense of the US taxpayer, now on the hook for all of it in debt. For this gift we were assured that everyone would benefit. The red and green lines on this chart are the result: the economy grew at the same rate as before, saved by worker productivity (driven by technology) soaring, while median wealth in the US stagnated. The 1% disappeared into the stratosphere as the US was transformed from a representative republic with an inequality problem to an outright oligarchy.

This is the whole ballgame. Republican tax policy is a heist. Ideally we would restore the tax rates which created the middle class in the US, but as a bare minimum we have to hold the line on the crooks and prevent a third big haul to the Caymans.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread.
 
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:
Get ready for The Heist.



As with Reagan and Dubya, this is all that matters and the sole reason the GOP exists. Those two prior tax cuts allowed the richest 6000 families in the US to amass approximately 15 trillion dollars in wealth at the expense of the US taxpayer, now on the hook for all of it in debt. For this gift we were assured that everyone would benefit. The red and green lines on this chart are the result: the economy grew at the same rate as before, saved by worker productivity (driven by technology) soaring, while median wealth in the US stagnated. The 1% disappeared into the stratosphere as the US was transformed from a representative republic with an inequality problem to an outright oligarchy.

This is the whole ballgame. Republican tax policy is a heist. Ideally we would restore the tax rates which created the middle class in the US, but as a bare minimum we have to hold the line on the crooks and prevent a third big haul to the Caymans.
Click to expand...

But, I might be rich some day and I don't want to pay taxes. :mad:
 
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:
But, I might be rich some day and I don't want to pay taxes. :mad:
Click to expand...

If we make smart, hard-working people who have earned their wealth the Murican Way pay more than their fair share, they will have less money to create jobs and pay wages. At the same time, the gubmint will just take that extra money and give it to illegal mexicans, welfare bums, abortionists, and left-wing radio. That aint what our honest, god-fearing forefathers had in mind.
 
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

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
While the vast majority of Pro-Lifers are religious, there are atheists that are Pro-Life, just as there are religious people who are Pro-Choice. So, it is not exclusively a religious belief.
Click to expand...

The former are too few in number to make a difference, the latter are irrelevant to my point.
 
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:
The former are too few in number to make a difference
Click to expand...

This is interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top