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.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

burd said:
When did "legislating from the bench" begin, in your opinion, and with what cases? Explain the faulty rationale.
Click to expand...

What's so funny about most of those claims- they are laws being overturned by judges appointed by the same party that wrote the laws.

And at no point does anyone want to consider that the laws that are being overturned are, in fact, un-constitutional. They just want the rule of the masses to over rule the rights of the individual. Duh. And then they demand that their amendment get zero anything applied to it. Duh, again.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

It's only "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" when it overturns your pet bullsh-t.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

MissThundercat said:
It's only "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" when it overturns your pet bullsh-t.
Click to expand...

Creating entirely new "rights" in Heller and McCutcheon was just fine for the ahem "strict constructionists."

It's just a partisan fig leaf. The interpretation of the law is, unavoidably, politicization of the law. The only difference between conservative and liberal judicial activists is the former wrap their agenda in hypocrisy.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court upholds Ohio's method for removing names from voter rolls. Voting rights groups say the system amounts to voter suppression. <a href="https://t.co/jcRULrQrNN">https://t.co/jcRULrQrNN</a> <a href="https://t.co/p6KI4rL1C9">pic.twitter.com/p6KI4rL1C9</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1006193608943423488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court upholds Ohio's method for removing names from voter rolls. Voting rights groups say the system amounts to voter suppression. <a href="https://t.co/jcRULrQrNN">https://t.co/jcRULrQrNN</a> <a href="https://t.co/p6KI4rL1C9">pic.twitter.com/p6KI4rL1C9</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1006193608943423488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Turtle Boy Wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court upholds Ohio's method for removing names from voter rolls. Voting rights groups say the system amounts to voter suppression. <a href="https://t.co/jcRULrQrNN">https://t.co/jcRULrQrNN</a> <a href="https://t.co/p6KI4rL1C9">pic.twitter.com/p6KI4rL1C9</a></p>— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1006193608943423488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

5-4. The 5 cons aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
 
Kepler said:
Blacks.

So, dead to the GOP anyway.
Click to expand...

People who hadn't voted in 6 years AND failed to respond to a notice in the mail.

If one met both of the above criteria, they have failed their civic duty, are no longer able to vote, or have moved and perhaps registered in another jurisdiction.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

So because they hadnt voted they dont deserve the right to vote? I dont think you know what "Rights" are.
 
Handyman said:
So because they hadnt voted they dont deserve the right to vote? I dont think you know what "Rights" are.
Click to expand...

They could have moved or died. Declining to vote is a failure of civic duty. Isn't declining to vote for *6 years* a problem?
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

joecct said:
They could have moved or died. Declining to vote is a failure of civic duty. Isn't declining to vote for *6 years* a problem?
Click to expand...

A problem for the parties that the choices suck, perhaps.

Declining to vote is a choice just as much as voting is, as can be seen in the last election. Now you don't have the choice, apparently.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Rover said:
If only there was some way we could have prevented this....
Click to expand...

There wasn't. Because of God, Gays, and Guns we had to vote the Republicans into office. If only there was a Democratic Party that supported controlling women's bodies, discriminating against homosexuals, and an Uzi for everyone. Then we'd have something to vote for, but right now we're stuck.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

ScoobyDoo said:
There wasn't. Because of God, Gays, and Guns we had to vote the Republicans into office. If only there was a Democratic Party that supported controlling women's bodies, discriminating against homosexuals, and an Uzi for everyone. Then we'd have something to vote for, but right now we're stuck.
Click to expand...

But HER EMAILZZZZ DARNIT!!! :D :D :D

Look at it this way. If these people couldn't be bothered to vote in the 2016 election, even though restricting the right to vote is a central core of Republicanism, perhaps these people get what they deserve?
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

joecct said:
They could have moved or died. Declining to vote is a failure of civic duty. Isn't declining to vote for *6 years* a problem?
Click to expand...

A problem...yes. That doesnt mean you can arbitrarily tell them they now CANT vote. (which is what purging the rolls does)

Not voting is a choice...not being able to vote pretty much goes against everything we stand for in this country.

But please just keep "asking the question" maybe one day you will lose your right to vote and then you will actually care.

But hey let me "just ask a question" does it not seem odd that the only place this seems to be a problem is in districts where GOPers want less Dem voters? Must be a coincidence. The fact it often happens in minority neighborhoods is just another coincidence I am sure. Who needs Civil Rights anyways?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top