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, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".
 
Swansong said:
I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".
Click to expand...



This is the dream of the Federalist Society, and of conservatives writ large.

Appeal-to-Tradition.jpg



If you are a historically oppressor group, you want things to go back to the way things were before. The conservative mind simply elevates "the way things were before" to its own self-evident virtue.
 
Swansong said:
I find it curious and horrifying that Alito's rational seems to be a wholly invented test that unenumerated rights need a "deep basis in history" in order to be "rights".
Click to expand...

Sets the stage for a clean sweep of court-granted rights since the 1870s that haven't been cemented with a Constitutional amendment. So like I said, Obergefell and Loving are next.
 
Read arguments on both sides and it makes much more sense that this was leaked by conservatives. They have their talking points ready today (it's all about the leak). And, they have much more to gain by releasing it early. NOW, Justices on the conservative side will feel even more pressure. And, if they do "sand off the rough edges" of Alito's opinion they will be able again to run around saying the Democrats were playing chicken little.

This is a win win for their side.
 
rufus said:
By then, they won't be able to do anything. Their vote won't matter anymore. Only who the Repubs decide who won the election.
Click to expand...

Voting is not fighting fire with fire. The House is not representative of the vote. The Senate is clearly not reprentative of the vote. Many state legislatures are not representative of the vote. Already twice in this century the presidency has not been representative of the vote. If anyone actually thinks voting is what I am talking about they are missing the boat.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Sets the stage for a clean sweep of court-granted rights since the 1870s that haven't been cemented with a Constitutional amendment. So like I said, Obergefell and Loving are next.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand the philosophy behind "court-granted" rights

the whole point is to determine if it was a right to begin with. Correct? And when they decided that the 14th granted that right, that's it. It did.
 
aparch said:
https://twitter.com/willy_lowry/stat...17935155679237

Elizabeth Warren looks so distraught she could choke out Susan Collins with one hand.

And do the same to Lisa Murkowski in the other hand simultaneously.

While never breaking eye contact with Joe Manchin.
Click to expand...

That's cause her life on the hill is hard. For those others who only really care about money, it's not so hard to cast those detached votes and cash their checks.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
I still don't understand the philosophy behind "court-granted" rights

the whole point is to determine if it was a right to begin with. Correct? And when they decided that the 14th granted that right, that's it. It did.
Click to expand...

The right has confused "rights of people" with "ability to oppress people".

Do you have a right to an abortion? Nope. Do you have a right to ban abortions? Yes!
 
unofan said:
Somebody stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Congress would still have power to act under Article I.
Click to expand...

Hasn't it been Sic the moron who's been saying for years that this day would never come, because both sides like the political fight it affords them too much? I know that's Hovey's view too.

Yeah, shows what he knows. Almost as dumb as Drew.
 
Last edited:
Swansong said:
The right has confused "rights of people" with "ability to oppress people".

Do you have a right to an abortion? Nope. Do you have a right to ban abortions? Yes!
Click to expand...

Right?! It's just the dumbest possible logic and it works so well on Cletus and his broodsows.
 
rufus said:
The Federal government certainly has the power to decide the issue. All Congress has to do is pass a law.
Click to expand...

You are correct; Congress would need to act. However, they have not. And if they did, SCOTUS would have to press the law against A10.

In light of Congress' inaction, a prior SCOTUS made a decision. This SCOTUS is questioning that decision/action.


Again, this will all fall back to the several States under A10.

Roe isn't going away; it's becoming State law.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I still don't understand the philosophy behind "court-granted" rights

the whole point is to determine if it was a right to begin with. Correct? And when they decided that the 14th granted that right, that's it. It did.
Click to expand...

If the Roberts court decides that the Burger court was wrong in the way it originally interpreted the law when it decided Roe, then it can write a new opinion that sets a new precedent. So the self-proclaimed "strict constructionists" could issue a new majority opinion based on the 10th Amendment and basically tell states to do whatever they please with abortion regulations because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about abortion.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
If the Roberts court decides that the Burger court was wrong in the way it originally interpreted the law when it decided Roe, then it can write a new opinion that sets a new precedent. So the self-proclaimed "strict constructionists" could issue a new majority opinion based on the 10th Amendment and basically tell states to do whatever they please with abortion regulations because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about abortion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was my roundabout way of saying they're full of sh-it and always have been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top