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.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think everyone who has XM access should listen to Smerconish's hour on asset forfeitures from yesterday. It's out of control. There were several cases where the cops had a drug dog sniff a wad of cash and they confiscated the cash without any other charges other than something like a speeding ticket. No drugs found, no paraphernalia. Just cash. That's just two of the cases he reviewed.

I've always hated the use of drug dogs because there is no way for them to be reliable. They're easily trained and can give false positives.
Second, I don't like asset seizures. I think it's an unconstitutional money grab by the cops.
 
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...

Civil judgments awarded by a finder of fact are already reviewed on appeal under a standard of review that is well set out in law.

But go ahead and keep trying to argue with the lawyers on the board that you've found Pandora's box.
 
unofan said:
Civil judgments awarded by a finder of fact are already reviewed on appeal under a standard of review that is well set out in law.

But go ahead and keep trying to argue with the lawyers on the board that you've found Pandora's box.
Click to expand...
<img src="https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FriendlyGranularAfricanjacana-size_restricted.gif"></img>
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Sounds like the SCOTUS won’t intervene in the bumpstock ban.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

unofan said:
Civil judgments awarded by a finder of fact are already reviewed on appeal under a standard of review that is well set out in law.

But go ahead and keep trying to argue with the lawyers on the board that you've found Pandora's box.
Click to expand...

no arguing with lawyers?
does that apply to lawyers arguing with other lawyers? :)
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

This won't be horrible at all.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a set of high-profile cases involving gay rights and the rights of transgender people in the workplace.

The justices announced Monday that they will consider whether existing federal law banning employment-related sex discrimination also prohibits discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or because they are transgender.

The Supreme Court said it will hear a pair of cases in which federal appeals courts split over whether gay and lesbian employees are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The justices also accepted another case involving a transgender funeral home employee, saying they will consider whether transgender status is protected in itself or whether it falls within existing law against “sex stereotyping.”
Click to expand...

It's not a question of whether they will be regressive but how regressive. I can imagine Kavanaugh gleefully pounding his beer on the bench while fulminating against "those queers."

Perhaps they'll revive Dred Scott and rule that transgenders aren't human beings.
 
Kepler said:
This won't be horrible at all.



It's not a question of whether they will be regressive but how regressive. I can imagine Kavanaugh gleefully pounding his beer on the bench while fulminating against "those queers."

Perhaps they'll revive Dred Scott and rule that transgenders aren't human beings.
Click to expand...

It's not as bad as it looks. It's not a constitutional question. It's simply statutory interpretation. So when the Ds control the government next, they can fix any bad ruling by an act of Congress.
 
unofan said:
It's not as bad as it looks. It's not a constitutional question. It's simply statutory interpretation. So when the Ds control the government next, they can fix any bad ruling by an act of Congress.
Click to expand...

There are also states that have broader protections than the federal statute.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
This won't be horrible at all.



It's not a question of whether they will be regressive but how regressive. I can imagine Kavanaugh gleefully pounding his beer on the bench while fulminating against "those queers."

Perhaps they'll revive Dred Scott and rule that transgenders aren't human beings.
Click to expand...

This case is going to say a lot about John Roberts. Hopefully he'll be on the right side of history.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Rover said:
This case is going to say a lot about John Roberts. Hopefully he'll be on the right side of history.
Click to expand...

He has certainly tried to salvage his Court's reputation when the case isn't directly in the service of the Plutes. This would seem to be another of those cases. Is there really anybody, even the Thumpers, who does not know that in fifty years everybody, even conservatives, will look at homophobia the way we look at racism?

I'm curious about how joecct and other social conservatives think about that. Do you think gay rights is an anomaly which will recede or do you think it will continue to be normalized? I'm not asking what you wish should happen, but what you predict will happen socially. For example, there are plenty of social trends I see as unstoppable which I don't approve of (consumerism, loss of privacy, dumbing down, etc).
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
He has certainly tried to salvage his Court's reputation when the case isn't directly in the service of the Plutes. This would seem to be another of those cases. Is there really anybody, even the Thumpers, who does not know that in fifty years everybody, even conservatives, will look at homophobia the way we look at racism?
Click to expand...

Why would the Thumpers care? They want to be racist now.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
He has certainly tried to salvage his Court's reputation when the case isn't directly in the service of the Plutes. This would seem to be another of those cases. Is there really anybody, even the Thumpers, who does not know that in fifty years everybody, even conservatives, will look at homophobia the way we look at racism?

I'm curious about how joecct and other social conservatives think about that. Do you think gay rights is an anomaly which will recede or do you think it will continue to be normalized? I'm not asking what you wish should happen, but what you predict will happen socially. For example, there are plenty of social trends I see as unstoppable which I don't approve of (consumerism, loss of privacy, dumbing down, etc).
Click to expand...

How do we look at racism? Seems a large part of the country is down with it.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

bronconick said:
Why would the Thumpers care? They want to be racist now.
Click to expand...

I guess any self-respecting Thumper assumes the Eschaton before fifty years have elapsed. Just like every Thumper since John of Patmos.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

rufus said:
How do we look at racism? Seems a large part of the country is down with it.
Click to expand...

Restrict the scope to actual humans. The bottom 50% exist to consume and produce new consumers. Their "opinions" are mechanical replications of the culture and of no interest or importance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top