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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

burd said:
I'm glad you included the word "incurious." It is a significant flaw, IMO.
Click to expand...

I was going to make the same comment. It really is one of my biggest criticisms of him.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The only things Trump is curious about are:

1. Money
2. Big, beautiful boobs and buildings :D
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The only things Trump is curious about are:

1. Money
2. Big, beautiful boobs and buildings :D
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump wonders out loud to his closest friends, "I'm curious; why are so many men fixated on big beautiful boobs? Why would a man prefer Kate Upton to triple-hot Rachel Maddow?"
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

burd said:
Do you think Trump wonders out loud to his closest friends, "I'm curious; why are so many men fixated on big beautiful boobs? Why would a man prefer Kate Upton to triple-hot Rachel Maddow?"
Click to expand...

When it comes to big, beautiful boobs, philosophical questions definitely aren't what Trump is curious about. It's more along the lines of what a given pair of said boobs would look like out of that dress.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The only things Trump is curious about are:

1. Money
2. Big, beautiful boobs and buildings :D
Click to expand...

You dont think he likes YUUUUUUGE boobs as opposed to big? ;)

And I bet he likes other parts since he is often heard saying Gina :p
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

What about tracts of land? I hate to assocuate such an iconic line with tTrumpster but still.... :D
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Did I miss something? After Trump replaces Scalia aren't we going to have the exact same Court as the one that upheld the ACA and affirmed gay marriage, albeit with a less experienced and effective jurist leading the right side of the Court. Jeebus, people are acting like Roland Friesler will be taking the bench in January and the People's Court will be starting its term.
Click to expand...

I think you did indeed "miss something."

Some jurists believe in the constitutional separation of powers. Their underlying philosophy is that "some issues are best decided by the legislature after vigorous public debate and political compromise that results in the passage of laws. Even if we think those laws might have flaws, we still need to respect the process." [SUP]1[/SUP]

Other jurists implicitly believe that the public cannot be trusted. Their underlying philosophy is that "we have to do what we think is right, even if theoretically we overstep our constitutional boundaries 'somewhat', because this issue is just 'too important' to be left to the public."

It is in a sense Adam Smith vs Plato. There really is a fundamental incompatibility here that cannot be bridged, IMHO.



[SUP]1[/SUP] This seems to me to have been the essence of Roberts' ruling on PPACA. He first overturned it on constitutional grounds, i.e., it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Then he turned around and reinstated it under Congress' power to tax. You could tell he thought it was a terrible law..."We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders." and "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." [emphasis added]
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

So, it looks like the Hobby Lobby group has their next case in the pipeline. I have some difficulty believing they will get too far in light of the fact that they haven't even been charged or accused of violating any law yet.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
When it comes to big, beautiful boobs, philosophical questions definitely aren't what Trump is curious about. It's more along the lines of what a given pair of said boobs would look like out of that dress.
Click to expand...

and that makes him different than any other heterosexual male how?
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
So, it looks like the Hobby Lobby group has their next case in the pipeline. I have some difficulty believing they will get too far in light of the fact that they haven't even been charged or accused of violating any law yet.
Click to expand...

Say a company wants to make baseball gloves only for right-handed infielders.
Could they be sued by a left-handed first basema...person?
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Sicatoka said:
Say a company wants to make baseball gloves only for right-handed infielders.
Could they be sued by a left-handed first basema...person?
Click to expand...

<strike>Can a person walk into a vegan grocery store, demand hamburger, and then sue because their right to eat meat is being violated?</strike>

Sorry, I forgot that sarcasm doesn't work here.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FreshFish said:
Can a person walk into a vegan grocery store, demand hamburger, and then sue because their right to eat meat is being violated?
Click to expand...

That's why I picked what I picked.

The vegan grocery store can claim to be a "fruit and vegetable stand" <-- clearly no meat. Scurry along oh seeker of sirloin.

But a baseball glove manufacturer that discriminates against the à gauche, heathen, filthy lefties?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
No, at least not successfully.
Click to expand...

But a wedding planner can be sued if they won't do weddings for black people.

That's the thing about a civil right vs say being a vegetarian.

As much as you try to belittle it, sexual preference is now up there with race and creed, and the sexual identity train has left the station.

You guys are going to look just as petty and hateful to your grandchildren as the segregationists in 20 years. To many (most?) of us, you already do.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
You guys are going to look just as petty and hateful to your grandchildren as the segregationists in 20 years. To many (most?) of us, you already do.
Click to expand...

They really do. It's really creepy and gross.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
As much as you try to belittle it, sexual preference is now up there with race and creed, and the sexual identity train has left the station.
Click to expand...

That's why I ask about the baseball glove: handedness, you're born that way.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
But a wedding planner can be sued if they won't do weddings for black people.

That's the thing about a civil right vs say being a vegetarian.

As much as you try to belittle it, sexual preference is now up there with race and creed, and the sexual identity train has left the station.

You guys are going to look just as petty and hateful to your grandchildren as the segregationists in 20 years. To many (most?) of us, you already do.
Click to expand...
Why do you suggest I'm belittling it or even that I support this position? I've made it pretty clear in numerous posts that I have no problem with same sex marriage or the legal protections granted. I posted the link just because Hobby Lobby was discussed at length here and this is pretty clearly another attempt by the same group to extend that ruling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top