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

SJHovey said:
I tend to think that while he’ll retain conservative leanings, his position as chief and his desire to not preside over a kangaroo court will prevent him from moving too far left of Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Citizens United already destroyed the country. All this Court has to do is hold serve. And as long as it's stacked GOP it will.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
But it hasn't happened yet so you don't get to say it yet.

We'll know before the week is out. I hope to hell you're right, but everything I've seen from Roberts is that he'll give on the stuff the Plutes don't care about. Will they care about gerrymandering and voter suppression? I would think so -- that's how they get their servants elected.
Click to expand...

If we have to wait until history is written, you guys will have to tell me the results on the other side. I agree that we really won't know whether I'm right for decades. I don't think any individual case(s) will be a true measure, although we can each claim it as such.

But I feel comfortable making my victory claim just based upon history. First, too many people judge a court's direction by maybe one case a year, when a fair examination shows the various shifting alliances among the justices.

Second, unlike some here, I don't view a case like the gerrymandering cases, to be a conservative vs. liberal outcome. Let's say the court refuses to set aside partisan gerrymandering. Is that a conservative victory as some here claim? In that individual case it may be because it may have been passed by a conservative state legislature to protect conservative seats. But is it really? Partisan gerrymandering isn't limited to conservatives. That's what has always frustrated me about politics. People are so short-sighted. They think they can gain an advantage by partisan gerrymandering, or by adding 4 Supreme Court seats, but who says your party will always be in power, even with gerrymandered districts?

Partisan gerrymandering sucks, and it should definitely be outlawed, but if it isn't I certainly don't deem it any sort of victory for conservatives.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
How about we wait til Friday.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly happy to discuss it more on Friday, but again, if the direction of this court, as currently made up, is going to be judged by the census case or gerrymandering cases, I personally think you'll be applying an unfairly narrow analysis. Just my opinion.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

SJHovey said:
I'm certainly happy to discuss it more on Friday, but again, if the direction of this court, as currently made up, is going to be judged by the census case or gerrymandering cases, I personally think you'll be applying an unfairly narrow analysis. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Landmark decisions define a Court. There aren't many -- 1 or 2 per term. A "Court" with continuity is about 10 years because of shifting membership. So about 15 decisions define a Court.

This isn't like one plate appearance in a career of 10,000. It's like 2 seasons of a 20 year career. It's fair to make judgments based on that sample size.

As for gerrymandering not disproportionately benefiting the GOP: when combined with the Census scam it's lethal. Not to mention the inherent "gerrymander" that is the Senate, which will benefit rural voters, and thus conservatives, for a century.

As with rotten boroughs, the only people who don't see the unfairness are those who benefit. These are undemocratic practices and I hope we'll see a raft of constitutional amendments, similar to the Progressive Era, to remedy them.

In the end we'll all benefit because more democracy is better. I say that even though I don't regard the majority of the people as capable of tying their shoes. But as long as minority rights are protected the day to day threats to people come typically from the rich few, not the poor many, if only because the rich few are well informed and well organized while the poor many can never get their sh-t together. Right now the GOP is the vanguard of the rich few. They are not your friend. I know you're an ally for whatever ideological reason but the stronger they get the more you suffer. If not now then tomorrow. Anywhere the rich grow too strong everyone else suffers.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
Landmark decisions define a Court. There aren't many -- 1 or 2 per term. A "Court" with continuity is about 10 years because of shifting membership. So about 15 decisions define a Court.

This isn't like one plate appearance in a career of 10,000. It's like 2 seasons of a 20 year career. It's fair to make judgments based on that sample size.

As for gerrymandering not directly benefiting the GOP, when combined with the Census scam it's lethal. Not to mention the inherent "gerrymander" that is the Senate, which will benefit rural voters, and thus conservatives, for a century.

Like rotten boroughs the only people who don't see the unfairness are those who benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Is the census problem permanent, even if the court allows the question during this census? Wasn't Clinton in office at this time before the last census? Isn't it entirely possible a D will be in office before the next census?

Yeah, I know the whole Senate/rural issue is a hot button item for you, but even with that in place, haven't we had D President's and both houses of Congress controlled by the D's, in the very recent past?
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Ok, so they declined to take the final step and kill agency deference.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road Gorsuch is the justice, perhaps with Roberts, that conservatives will biatch about the most. I don't picture him going full Souter, but I don't think he'll necessarily be the dependable Alito type vote the diehards were hoping for.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

SJHovey said:
Ok, so they declined to take the final step and kill agency deference.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road Gorsuch is the justice, perhaps with Roberts, that conservatives will biatch about the most. I don't picture him going full Souter, but I don't think he'll necessarily be the dependable Alito type vote the diehards were hoping for.
Click to expand...

That's the hope. Gorsuch is the closest in the Furious Five to an actual justice. Roberts, while not entirely toxic, was hired to do a job for the GOP, not be a justice.

However, with Scalia we saw just how far even an intelligent and principled justice can embarrass himself with partisan casuistry. Torquemada was an educated man.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
That's the hope. Gorsuch is the closest in the Furious Five to an actual justice. Roberts, while not entirely toxic, was hired to do a job for the GOP, not be a justice.

However, with Scalia we saw just how far even an intelligent and principled justice can embarrass himself with partisan casuistry. Torquemada was an educated man.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

SJHovey said:
Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
Click to expand...

CO is weird. It's also one of the few remaining states where if you touch the 2A third rail you die.

But I don't think states matter. There are non-geographical conveyor belts that produce units with identical mindsets. Look at Kavanaugh -- he would have been at home with Billo at Chaminade in Mineola or any other Pseudo-Jesuit righty Catholic apologetics camp. Heck, he could be joecct! :)

Geography doesn't mean squat anymore. There are a handful of people Makes, each cranking out a handful of Models. Within the Makes, Models fight for resources. Between the Makes the fight is for market share. Maybe it's always been like that but the Makes used to align with geography but now they align with cultural tribe. Maybe that's the inevitable tendency of communications and globalism. Once everybody from the same town had more in common with each other than with the town over the hill. Then it was states. Then it was countries. And soon knucks in Mississippi will have more in common with NeoNazis in Norway than their next door liberal neighbor.
 
Last edited:
SJHovey said:
Wasn't Gorsuch a Kennedy disciple, though? I've always thought Colorado is a strange state. It's got that western feel and edge to it, but it's like it's populated by surfer dudes from Orange County.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch was a Scalia disciple. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

1st of the day, Alito with the drunk driving blood test case. Cops can almost always do it without a warrant. 5-4. As with most criminal procedural cases these days, Breyer sides with the conservatives and Gorsuch with the remaining liberals.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

unofan said:
As with most criminal procedural cases these days, Breyer sides with the conservatives and Gorsuch with the remaining liberals.
Click to expand...

What's up with that? Are they arguing about police powers, privacy, public interest, what?
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Next up, from Roberts, are the gerrymandering cases. Such claims are political questions beyond the courts.

AKA, gerrymandering is constitutional and it's up to voters to stop it.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

unofan said:
Next up, from Roberts, are the gerrymandering cases. Such claims are political questions beyond the courts.

AKA, gerrymandering is constitutional and it's up to voters to stop it.
Click to expand...

Shock. 5-4?

Does this mean all those court cases that nullified the gerrymandered maps get sh-tcanned?
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

unofan said:
Next up, from Roberts, are the gerrymandering cases. Such claims are political questions beyond the courts.

AKA, gerrymandering is constitutional and it's up to voters to stop it.
Click to expand...

He was on the Court when they decided Corporations were people, right?

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

Gerrymandering was 5-4 along ideological lines. Kagan wrote the dissent.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

unofan said:
Scalia and now Gorsuch have been more skeptical.
Click to expand...

Gubmint overreach?

Was Scalia the one who wrote the blistering opinion on cops using infrared to look inside homes for pot growing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top