The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Last ones are two 4-4 affirmances by an equally divided court on the immigration question and an Indian Reservation employment case.

That means the deferred-action policy remains blocked by a preliminary injunction and it goes back to the trial judge in Texas to proceed. Expect that to get taken up again swiftly once there's a ninth justice.

Media inspired hyperbole aside, politically this works for Dems. For traditionally low turnout Hispanics, the choice is clear. Either vote and you get some form of immigration reform, or don't and watch Trump and a politically aligned SCOTUS deport you and everybody you know.

 

[unofan]

Are these significant cases? It's nice to see the Good Guys have these opinions.

The abortion one is about the Texas law that would essentially limit abortion to a half dozen clinics throughout the state under the guise of protecting women's health.

Assuming it plays out like it should if Breyer writes the opinion, we'll have finally found Kennedy's unicorn. He's constantly said states can't go too far in limiting access to abortion, but he has never voted to strike one down as actually going too far.

The gun rights one is less significant. It's whether certain convictions for domestic abuse under state laws satisfy the requirements for prohibiting gun ownership under federal law. Hence it's more of a criminal procedure case that happens to involve guns.

 

[unofan]

Media inspired hyperbole aside, politically this works for Dems. For traditionally low turnout Hispanics, the choice is clear. Either vote and you get some form of immigration reform, or don't and watch Trump and a politically aligned SCOTUS deport you and everybody you know.

Of course if you can vote, you're a citizen and can't be deported. So it's not "you and everybody else," just everybody else.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Of course if you can vote, you're a citizen and can't be deported. So it's not "you and everybody else," just everybody else.

So it comes down to whether you like your mother-in-law.

Could be close.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Of course if you can vote, you're a citizen and can't be deported. So it's not "you and everybody else," just everybody else.

I'm aware of that Uno. Its more of how it'll be phrased in the upcoming campaign.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Of course if you can vote, you're a citizen and can't be deported. So it's not "you and everybody else," just everybody else.

Not really. The People's Republic of Takoma Park, MD allows illegal (excuse me, undocumented) immigrants to vote in municipal elections. I'm sure that is just one instance.

 

[unofan]

Not really. The People's Republic of Takoma Park, MD allows illegal (excuse me, undocumented) immigrants to vote in municipal elections. I'm sure that is just one instance.

And many localities have public improvement districts that corporate landowners get to vote in, too.

What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

And many localities have public improvement districts that corporate landowners get to vote in, too.

What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

It's the Brown Peril.

 

[joecct]

And many localities have public improvement districts that corporate landowners get to vote in, too.

What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

None down here, I'm pleased to say.

But I was pointing out that voting does not convey citizenship. The contra is true, of course.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

One year later, and it's astonishing the number of theocons who are still shrieking about persecution over this decision.

Gay marriage ruling, "Like a shot of heroin into the leftist vein"

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I have a coworker that has made some comments about gays along the lines of being grossed out and being morally wrong. I asked him what would he do if one of his sons came out as gay. He never has an answer. He's also toned it down a bit. I also asked him to let me know when the gay marriage decision impacts him. So far nothing.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The thing about bigots is they always have reasons. People who hated the Irish (drunkenness), Italians (criminals), blacks (genetic inferiors), Jews (international financial traitors), Catholics (Papist traitors), and now gays (disease, immorality) had their reasons. That's how bigotry works -- bigots always think, "I'm not a bigot, I'm just clear-sighted and brave while the rest of you are hiding your head in the sands. History will vindicate me" That is a fundamental part of how bigotry works. Bigots obviously need some way of convincing themselves they aren't being unjust. Nobody is deliberately unjust.

Anybody can be a bigot. It isn't about them, it's about their parents and pastors. Bigots are actually no different from anybody else -- almost all of us are unwilling to give up our ingrained fear and disgust. We who aren't bigoted happen to have been lucky to have family and peers who didn't sow their hatred in us when we were too young to resist. We are no better, we are just more fortunate.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

One year later, and it's astonishing the number of theocons who are still shrieking about persecution over this decision.

Gay marriage ruling, "Like a shot of heroin into the leftist vein"

The comments section is scary. Not surprising, but scary. I stopped after about the first 20 after having not read one single comment resembling a WWJD thought process.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The thing about bigots is they always have reasons. People who hated the ... "I'm not a bigot, I'm just clear-sighted and brave while the rest of you are hiding your head in the sands." ...

Press that against some of your comments about people and states below the Mason-Dixon line.

Not sayin', jus' sayin'.

 

[walrus]

We who aren't bigoted happen to have been lucky to have family and peers who didn't sow their hatred in us when we were too young to resist. We are no better, we are just more fortunate.

You hate everyone south of the mason dixon. Too funny.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Why are people that aren't the target so up in arms about Kepler's comments? Are you saying there are no bigots? Or is it hitting too close to home?

 

[walrus]

Why are people that aren't the target so up in arms about Kepler's comments? Are you saying there are no bigots? Or is it hitting too close to home?

That's what we were pointing out, it was hitting close to home.

 

[unofan]

The comments section is scary. Not surprising, but scary. I stopped after about the first 20 after having not read one single comment resembling a WWJD thought process.

It's World Net Daily, which is actually below Freepers on the food chain since they tend to throw conspiracies in with their right wing beliefs.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

3 cases left for today, and will be released starting in 20 minutes.

Tea leaves say Kagan writes the domestic abuse gun rights decision, Breyer writes the Texas abortion case, and the Chief saves McDonnell from the clink, but those are just guesses based on who hasn't written yet from their respective monthly sittings.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Gun rights case first, by Kagan. Vote is 5-3 affirming 1st circuit. State charge at issue is enough to ban gun ownership under the federal law.

Edit: 6-2, not 5-3. Thomas and Sotomayor dissent.