William Blake
Registered User
To be fair, you still argue with that pro Hillary bot all the time.
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.
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, you still argue with that pro Hillary bot all the time.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Well Hillary herself is a bot (well a T-1000) so her followers should be bots anyways
Well Hillary herself is a bot (well a T-1000) so her followers should be bots anyways
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
Rover's not a bot. This hasn't been his finest Spring, but he's got an unenviable task: pretending cat food is caviar.
Rover's not a bot. This hasn't been his finest Spring, but he's got an unenviable task: pretending cat food is caviar.
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
I think the substance Rover has to convince us is caviar actually involves the other end of the cat
I think the substance Rover has to convince us is caviar actually involves the other end of the cat
Plus he aint pretending, he has some weird disease where to him cat food actually does taste like caviar
Remember Kliban cats?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
One helluva nice animal frequently mistaken for a meatloaf.
One helluva nice animal frequently mistaken for a meatloaf.
Best if read in Dick Vitalese, with the requisite numbers of "Baby" thrown in for good measure.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...Qy9J/story.html?p1=BGHeader_SmartBar_Breaking
Interesting. Next SCOTUS nomination either breaks Corporate hold on SCOTUS or reinforces it. IMHO this court has been more moderate that I would have expected with the notable exception that corporations had a solid 5-4 majority on almost every case until Scalia croaked.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...Qy9J/story.html?p1=BGHeader_SmartBar_Breaking
Interesting. Next SCOTUS nomination either breaks Corporate hold on SCOTUS or reinforces it. IMHO this court has been more moderate that I would have expected with the notable exception that corporations had a solid 5-4 majority on almost every case until Scalia croaked.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
The Court order today in the latest contraception case is almost certainly being driven by Kennedy. It's really a bizarre order, asking the parties to delineate what alternatives would be acceptable, including one example specifically put forth by the Court.
It will be interesting what the responses are. Because the proposed solution is pretty much identical to the current situation, but instead of telling the government there is a religious objection, they tell the insurer directly. I don't see how that's logically any different since they still have to object and by objecting allow their students/employees access to alternative contraceptive care, but then this case had never been about logical consistency anyway.
The Court order today in the latest contraception case is almost certainly being driven by Kennedy. It's really a bizarre order, asking the parties to delineate what alternatives would be acceptable, including one example specifically put forth by the Court.
It will be interesting what the responses are. Because the proposed solution is pretty much identical to the current situation, but instead of telling the government there is a religious objection, they tell the insurer directly. I don't see how that's logically any different since they still have to object and by objecting allow their students/employees access to alternative contraceptive care, but then this case had never been about logical consistency anyway.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
In what shouldn't be a shock but will be to those who bought into the echo chamber spin earlier, SCOTUS upheld "one person, one vote" and said basing it on total population rather than registered voters is A-ok.
It was a unanimous opinion.
In what shouldn't be a shock but will be to those who bought into the echo chamber spin earlier, SCOTUS upheld "one person, one vote" and said basing it on total population rather than registered voters is A-ok.
It was a unanimous opinion.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
What's the context of this post? Basing what upon one person/one vote? There are a few options running through my head at the moment.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/supreme-court-one-person-one-vote.html
Whether the state could count eligible voters or all people when making voting districts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/supreme-court-one-person-one-vote.html
Whether the state could count eligible voters or all people when making voting districts
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
This was a challenge from a far right group that wanted to say states could only count eligible voters when redistricting, a move that would heavily favor the GOP and rural areas (because having the Senate isn't enough) to the detriment of urban (more criminals and immigrants) and suburban (more kids) areas.
I'll be honest, I have no idea why this one was even granted cert in the first place.
This was a challenge from a far right group that wanted to say states could only count eligible voters when redistricting, a move that would heavily favor the GOP and rural areas (because having the Senate isn't enough) to the detriment of urban (more criminals and immigrants) and suburban (more kids) areas.
I'll be honest, I have no idea why this one was even granted cert in the first place.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.
This was the wingers' answer to our Hail Mary a few years ago to use weighted census projections instead of raw data for seat allotments. The theory being that a lot of people are missed (the homeless, people who are not the sort of guys who have a post box, etc).
Same idea as voter suppression laws: use a scintilla of rationale to try to rig the system to favor your side. Unfortunately, the orcs have been getting away with those, but a sane Court will probably give them the old heave ho (and hopefully reinstitute the full VRA). Mortality has consequences, Nino.
This was the wingers' answer to our Hail Mary a few years ago to use weighted census projections instead of raw data for seat allotments. The theory being that a lot of people are missed (the homeless, people who are not the sort of guys who have a post box, etc).
Same idea as voter suppression laws: use a scintilla of rationale to try to rig the system to favor your side. Unfortunately, the orcs have been getting away with those, but a sane Court will probably give them the old heave ho (and hopefully reinstitute the full VRA). Mortality has consequences, Nino.
- Status