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 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScoobyDoo said:
That's corporate. Roberts and Gorsuch are locks.
Click to expand...

I'd assume the GOP wins this round. The bigger fight will be when states try to redistrict to exclude non citizens. I have to think even Roberts would kill that, since the Constitution clearly says the census counts people, not citizens.
 
BassAle said:
the thought of her losing brings me immense joy...

but one of my hobbies is writing her letters to let her know how much I think she sucks, so I'll have to find something to replace that...
Click to expand...

Write to her in retirement. She will still sux it
 
Rover said:
Yeah....I know some people think Collins is an icon up there but it seems to me she may be past her sell date. That's the kind of arrogance that comes from not having had a tough race in like forever and the country is littered with ex-Congressmen who thought the same thing going into the 2018 mid-terms.
Click to expand...

People are going to start showing up at congressperson homes and shooting them.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Roberts sided with the libs again. Wait for the angry tweets to start.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

He speaks! And he wants to look at the first amendment. *****.

“Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.”
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
He speaks! And he wants to look at the first amendment. *****.

“Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.”
Click to expand...

He's siding with Trump's calls of unfair media. It's kind of shocking, if this were 2016.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
He speaks! And he wants to look at the first amendment. *****.

“Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.”
Click to expand...

Thomas and Kavanaugh are embarrassments.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Roberts sided with the libs again. Wait for the angry tweets to start.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

In both of the original decisions on the abortion and death penalty cases, Roberts had been in dissent. His actions are not a sign that he has changed his mind; the ruling that the Louisiana law could not go into effect at this time was not a decision on the merits of the law.

But they do seem to an indication the chief justice believes lower courts must comply with Supreme Court precedents so long as they stand.
Click to expand...

I should f-cking hope so.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. No more extreme asset forfeiture.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
A tax isn't a fine, mookie. Now slip on these mittens so you don't hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

tomato, tomatoe to some.... :)

haven't you learned that just because you think something is obvious, that doesn't mean everyone else will as well ;)

kep really can't see some talking head start up a narrative about the libs fining the wealth cause they are successful? :p a 'wealth fine'! mookie knows how thomas and kav will vote :D
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

bronconick said:
Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. No more extreme asset forfeiture.
Click to expand...

What is considered extreme asset forfeiture? What's the definition being used?
Taking a drug dealers stash in a bust is OK, but impounding the car and house that was bought with the proceed of dealing is not?
Or is there some other definition that was being reviewed?

Edit: Read some of the WaPo story on same. I don't have a problem with taking assets ill-gained of convicted criminals; I do have a hard spot with taking without adjudication and conviction.


Could that ruling end up causing caps on civil judgement settlements as some would be deemed 'extreme'?
 
Last edited:
The Sicatoka said:
What is considered extreme asset forfeiture? What's the definition being used?
Taking a drug dealers stash in a bust is OK, but impounding the car and house that was bought with the proceed of dealing is not?
Or is there some other definition that was being reviewed?

Edit: Read some of the WaPo story on same. I don't have a problem with taking assets ill-gained of convicted criminals; I do have a hard spot with taking without adjudication and conviction.


Could that ruling end up causing caps on civil judgement settlements as some would be deemed 'extreme'?
Click to expand...

Constitution only applies to government action. A civil suit between two private persons or entities never involves the bill of rights unless the trial court itself farks up.

Edit: or, I suppose, a legislature passes a statute with respect to civil actions that is so biased or patently unfair as to violate the other party's due process rights.

But no, the prohibition on excessive fines does not apply to a civil judgement.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

unofan said:
Constitution only applies to government action. A civil suit between two private persons or entities never involves the bill of rights unless the trial court itself farks up.

Edit: or, I suppose, a legislature passes a statute with respect to civil actions that is so biased or patently unfair as to violate the other party's due process rights.

But no, the prohibition on excessive fines does not apply to a civil judgement.
Click to expand...

I know I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but, assume civil case and the ruling judge decides to "send a message" and imposes a monster settlement one way. I guess that's still not a 'fine' but a settlement ruling.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

The Sicatoka said:
I know I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but, assume civil case and the ruling judge decides to "send a message" and imposes a monster settlement one way. I guess that's still not a 'fine' but a settlement ruling.
Click to expand...

Appeal. If a jury awards too much, remittitur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top