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

Kennedy still serves!
bump
 
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

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra/

Can someone explain to me why this would be a First Amendment issue? Cigarettes are required to tell you they will kill you. Why can't a business be forced to carry a notice that they don't provide medical services?
 
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:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra/

Can someone explain to me why this would be a First Amendment issue? Cigarettes are required to tell you they will kill you. Why can't a business be forced to carry a notice that they don't provide medical services?
Click to expand...

There's one of those in my town. It's right next to a store called "Hangers". That's what we call "a little too on the nose".
 
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:
There's one of those in my town. It's right next to a store called "Hangers". That's what we call "a little too on the nose".
Click to expand...

No way
 
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:
No way
Click to expand...

I went looking under "Hangers" and "Pro Life." Didn't find it but found this:

<img src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8d/ed/59/8ded5952599948f203c9a29163a28c86.jpg" />

Also this:

<img src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/89/97/1c/89971c4474be25e52d13dbf4207387a5.jpg" />

We are a strange species.
 
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

DUDE. NSFW!!!! o.O

Also, what in the actual **** lolol!!!!
 
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:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.406...HPE4vJk1j6TxzwOUHv62I!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840
Click to expand...

Two comments:
1. Google's algorithm for stitching kind of sucks.
2. Because it was garbled, I thought the name of that place was "Adoptions" not "RealOptions" Seems appropriate.

The sign in the lower right just about killed me
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.405...U5FLFBE1z94RIT_XlCJPQ!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192
 
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:
A badly written law gets a smackdown. Fine with me.

But that should not change the fact that he is still here illegally.
Click to expand...

He's a permanent resident. So...no?
 
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:
But that should not change the fact that he is still here illegally.
Click to expand...

I love how the people angriest about people who didn't observe the rules are the descendants of people who came here before there were rules.
 
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

FOX Snooze break out the T word yet?

Here's what was stated:

"Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien's crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law's silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more."

He has a decent point there.
 
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

mookie1995 said:
So then, rules are ???
Click to expand...

Apparently not important enough that those accused of violating them get defense counsel.

But, you know, they're brown so f-ck em.

I am all in favor of kicking out one herpa-derp for every immigrant we admit. I agree that some people are a useless drain on the country. I just think whites who have been here for 300 years and haven't made anything of themselves despite every unfair advantage should be the lazy ones we boot. Carlos who walked here from Honduras with 3 kids on his back? Let him the f-ck in. That's an American.
 
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:
I love how the people angriest about people who didn't observe the rules are the descendants of people who came here before there were rules.
Click to expand...

I would think those angrier would be the ones who came through the process legally (or descendants thereof), just to watch a bunch of ne'er-do-wells get a free pass.
 
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

Oh I don't doubt they're angry. They're also morons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top