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

Supreme Court is going to take up political redistricting
 
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

bronconick said:
Supreme Court is going to take up political redistricting
Click to expand...

LOL. Money is speech. Won't make any difference.
 
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

bronconick said:
Supreme Court is going to take up political redistricting
Click to expand...

As much as I want Maryland to be redistricted, this is a function of the legislature, not the courts.

If we don't like how the Dems have divided Maryland, we need to vote more Republicans in, or at least get rid of the Senate President Mike Miller who holds all the political power in the state.
 
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:
As much as I want Maryland to be redistricted, this is a function of the legislature, not the courts.

If we don't like how the Dems have divided Maryland, we need to vote more Republicans in, or at least get rid of the Senate President Mike Miller who holds all the political power in the state.
Click to expand...

As with EVERYTHING that is up to the legislative branch, the courts can tell them they went too far.

Courts are not going to make up the lines, they will tell the legislative guys to do it again, within the bounds of the US and state Constitutions.

Can we stop this "legislation from the bench" BS? There HAS to be bounds on what can be done, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the higher court system. Remember check's and balances are 3 branches in balance.
 
joecct said:
As much as I want Maryland to be redistricted, this is a function of the legislature, not the courts.

If we don't like how the Dems have divided Maryland, we need to vote more Republicans in, or at least get rid of the Senate President Mike Miller who holds all the political power in the state.
Click to expand...

If blacks don't like the poll tax, they just need to vote for more representatives that oppose the poll tax.
 
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:
As much as I want Maryland to be redistricted, this is a function of the legislature, not the courts.

If we don't like how the Dems have divided Maryland, we need to vote more Republicans in, or at least get rid of the Senate President Mike Miller who holds all the political power in the state.
Click to expand...

I don't remember why, but I had occasion to look at Maryland's congressional districts recently and I have to say it is quite an impressive piece of work. Which isn't to say there aren't tons of heavily gerrymandered others, but it does sort of stand out as a particularly spectacular example.
 
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

alfablue said:
As with EVERYTHING that is up to the legislative branch, the courts can tell them they went too far.

Courts are not going to make up the lines, they will tell the legislative guys to do it again, within the bounds of the US and state Constitutions.

Can we stop this "legislation from the bench" BS? There HAS to be bounds on what can be done, and that's the WHOLE POINT of the higher court system. Remember check's and balances are 3 branches in balance.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but is it the responsibility of the court to inject itself into partisan politics? The only "right" I have lost is having a reasonable expectation that a GOP candidate running in MD 8th will win. Is that a right guaranteed in the Constitution?

In another case SCOTUS struck down a NC law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites.
 
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:
Ahhh, but is it the responsibility of the court to inject itself into partisan politics? The only "right" I have lost is having a reasonable expectation that a GOP candidate running in MD 8th will win. Is that a right guaranteed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

If the actions violates someone right's, of course it is. Does not matter one side or the other. Can't bias the gerrymandering based on race- we've been through that before. SCOTUS has ruled that gerrymandering based on party is somewhat ok. But not race.

It will be interesting to hear the SCOTUS's opinion on who and what rights were violated. I don't exactly buy yours.
 
joecct said:
In another case SCOTUS struck down a NC law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites.
Click to expand...

Which was the easiest call they've made all term. That was a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
 
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:
Which was the easiest call they've made all term. That was a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

I suspect the SCOTUS is going to also side with sex offenders in the lawsuit over Minnesota's sex offender program:
http://www.startribune.com/minnesot...heir-case-to-the-u-s-supreme-court/423234353/
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Fixed that for you. Nobody plays the "just asking questions with a strong hint of silent disapproval" act better than Fishy. I suggest leaving it to him.
Click to expand...

Now, now. Don't sell Joe short - he is a champ in this arena. The limerick I made up for him in that other thread:

There once was a poster named Joe
Who pretended never to know.
But the questions he asked
Were transparent as glass -
Supposition and innuen-do.

:D
 
LynahFan said:
Now, now. Don't sell Joe short - he is a champ in this arena. The limerick I made up for him in that other thread:

There once was a poster named Joe
Who pretended never to know.
But the questions he asked
Were transparent as glass -
Supposition and innuen-do.

:D
Click to expand...
As Cornell grads go, you don't hold a candle to Kepler. He may out vitriol you in certain matters, but at least you can follow and understand his opinions, even when we strongly disagree.

To simplify -

If 3 people can be called "parent" why can't they get married? It's coming, I'm giving it 10 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

It was plainly obvious what you were getting after. It's also plainly obvious that after 2 years, Obergefell still chaps your hide, and so you go after it with the tired slippery slope argument, "If same-sex marriages are OK, then why not polygamy?"

The state has a legitimate financial and legal interest in keeping polygamy illegal. Not so with same-sex marriages.

Please Joe, you don't have to hide your distaste for the decision. Just admit you don't find it natural, and/or the Bible says it's a sin, and that's how you try to live. It's perfectly fine (wrong, but fine).
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
LOL. Money is speech. Won't make any difference.
Click to expand...

Hard to believe this Court will deliver anything but the usual pro forma plute knob job, but hey... Kennedy does like to Go Big.
 
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 3 people can be called "parent" why can't they get married? It's coming, I'm giving it 10 years.
Click to expand...

It may be coming. But this is not a harbinger -- marriage and parenthood have never been identical, and their overlap waxes and wanes with hemlines.

Let me ask you something, though. Let's say there were several studies with impeccable methodology that cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that having 2 parents was better for children. The ideal number turned out to be, let's say, odd to prevent deadlocks.

Honestly, would you consider re-evaluating your position?
 
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

dxmnkd316 said:
I suspect the SCOTUS is going to also side with sex offenders in the lawsuit over Minnesota's sex offender program:
http://www.startribune.com/minnesot...heir-case-to-the-u-s-supreme-court/423234353/
Click to expand...

Good that program is wrong. The intention is good but the State doesnt get to lock you up for the same crime twice and that is exactly what that program does.
 
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:
It may be coming. But this is not a harbinger -- marriage and parenthood have never been identical, and their overlap waxes and wanes with hemlines.

Let me ask you something, though. Let's say there were several studies with impeccable methodology that cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that having 2 parents was better for children. The ideal number turned out to be, let's say, odd to prevent deadlocks.

Honestly, would you consider re-evaluating your position?
Click to expand...

What does The Bible and its sequel Jesus Boogaloo say on the matter? That is what joe is gonna answer...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top