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 the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Interestingly, the Arizona Attorney General and Maricopa County Attorney have initiated a court battle against medical marijuana, which was passed in Arizona several years ago on a ballot proposition. Their argument is that it's illegal on the federal level, which preempts the local approval of medical marijuana. Can't help but see the irony of this in juxtaposition to the recent and on-going fight over SB1070 here in Arizona.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
Interestingly, the Arizona Attorney General and Maricopa County Attorney have initiated a court battle against medical marijuana, which was passed in Arizona several years ago on a ballot proposition. Their argument is that it's illegal on the federal level, which preempts the local approval of medical marijuana. Can't help but see the irony of this in juxtaposition to the recent and on-going fight over SB1070 here in Arizona.
Click to expand...

Like I've been saying... the Republicrats are no different from the Democans.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
Interestingly, the Arizona Attorney General and Maricopa County Attorney have initiated a court battle against medical marijuana, which was passed in Arizona several years ago on a ballot proposition. Their argument is that it's illegal on the federal level, which preempts the local approval of medical marijuana. Can't help but see the irony of this in juxtaposition to the recent and on-going fight over SB1070 here in Arizona.
Click to expand...

I understand the logic of their position, and even in states where its nominally legal the Feds could probably come in an arrest everyone if they chose to. But the difference is that immigration has always been strictly a federal power. Medical regulation is far less a pure federal matter, and criminal law is clearly left to the states more often than not (unlike the states, the Federal Constitution does not grant the U.S. Government a general policing power). The laws allow states to act more independently in such cases. More to the point, as one of the Rehnquist commerce clause cases told us, the Feds can't compel the states to do their policing for them. They may be right that states cannot make marijuana independently legal, but there's absolutely nothing that can compel them to make it a state crime, either, outside of the loss of some federal funds (which may now be up for debate, given the Affordable Healthcare Act rulings regarding the medicaid expansion).

All told, I'm not sure what they hope to gain by it, other than appeasment of the "there's no such thing as being too tough on crime" crowd. I don't think medicinal marijuana is all that big of an issue.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

unofan said:
I understand the logic of their position, and even in states where its nominally legal the Feds could probably come in an arrest everyone if they chose to. But the difference is that immigration has always been strictly a federal power. Medical regulation is far less a pure federal matter, and criminal law is clearly left to the states more often than not (unlike the states, the Federal Constitution does not grant the U.S. Government a general policing power). The laws allow states to act more independently in such cases. More to the point, as one of the Rehnquist commerce clause cases told us, the Feds can't compel the states to do their policing for them. They may be right that states cannot make marijuana independently legal, but there's absolutely nothing that can compel them to make it a state crime, either, outside of the loss of some federal funds (which may now be up for debate, given the Affordable Healthcare Act rulings regarding the medicaid expansion).

All told, I'm not sure what they hope to gain by it, other than appeasment of the "there's no such thing as being too tough on crime" crowd. I don't think medicinal marijuana is all that big of an issue.
Click to expand...
Medical Marijuana is super-annoying in Colorado. I wish the people who owned dispensaries didn't think they were so darn clever. There's one in the building I work in. They had to install air filters, because the dispensary was stinking up the building. And isn't it just as cute and clever as can be that they are in suite 420? [gag] I do wonder if people see things like that, though, and it actually hurts the passage of MMJ laws in other states. The DEA just put a new regional head here, and she basically made a point of saying that she doesn't approve of the state thumbing their nose at the feds, and made a point, since she is HQ'd in Denver, of saying that she would find a home in a municipality that doesn't allow MMJ.

Funny thing is, I'm all for MMJ, I just forgot how incredibly irritating stoners are.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Ah, it's October, the air gets crisp in the morning, leaves change colors, and the SCOTUS will soon be back in session.

Another big case on the docket right off the bat: Fisher v. University of Texas.

There's a lengthy, four-point analysis of the stakes here:

On Oct. 10, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of granting racial preferences to African-American and Hispanic college applicants over whites and Asian-Americans. The defendant is the University of Texas at Austin. The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, a white woman, was denied admission in 2008 and filed suit (along with another plaintiff who has since dropped out) alleging that the university discriminated against her on the basis of race.

Given the court's approval of racial-preference programs in higher education in 1978 (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and as recently as 2003 (Grutter v. Bollinger), its decision to revisit the matter with Fisher v. University of Texas suggests an inclination to rule against affirmative action this time.

....

The 14th Amendment guarantees to "any person," not just minorities, "the equal protection of the laws." The Supreme Court explained in Shaw v. Reno (1993) that its "central purpose is to prevent" states from "discriminating between individuals on the basis of race"—thus creating, as it stated in Richmond v. Croson (1989), "a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement."

...


The Supreme Court recognized in Richmond v. Croson that affirmative-action racial classifications "may in fact promote notions of racial inferiority." For example, when racial preferences are granted to some, prospective employers inevitably suspect that minority graduates may have obtained diplomas only due to racial preferences. The many minority graduates who did it on their own are thereby unfairly stigmatized.

...

Justice John Roberts's ... in the closing of his 2007 opinion in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: the "way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FreshFish said:
Ah, it's October, the air gets crisp in the morning, leaves change colors, and the SCOTUS will soon be back in session.
Click to expand...

Psst. SCOTUS has been in session for a week now.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Knuckledragger logic on this issue always amuses me. I suspect a lot of people feel the way I do, which is Affirmative Action had its time and place but perhaps that time has passed especially since a lot of these programs have been replaced certainly in academia with a focus on people in low income situations regardless of race. The problem with conservative Republicanism is it wants to argue that there was never a need, even during the 1960's when the country had to move heaven and earth just to guarantee people the ability to exercise their right to vote. That's frankly a ridiculous notion and its small wonder minorities vote against the GOP overwhelmingly.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

5mn_major said:
funny how these days i see the source <strike>online.wsj.com</strike> nytimes.com and am automatically prepared to disregard the message.

Its sad really.
Click to expand...

fyp

2007: NYTimes editorial: Republican Senate majority should not abolish filibuster; it is essential to minority rights.
2011: NYTimes editorial: Democratic Senate majority should abolish filibuster; minority rights are secondary to conducting nation's business.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FreshFish said:
fyp

2007: NYTimes editorial: Republican Senate majority should not abolish filibuster; it is essential to minority rights.
2011: NYTimes editorial: Democratic Senate majority should abolish filibuster; minority rights are secondary to conducting nation's business.
Click to expand...

Any day you want to compare Murdoch media outlets with 'mainstream' media...you just let me know.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
I can only imagine how you would define "mainstream media".
Click to expand...

If the outlet is is considered by conservatives to be either hopelessly biased or evil and 2/3 of society doesn't see it that way...you're on the right track.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

5mn_Major said:
If the outlet is is considered by conservatives to be either hopelessly biased or evil and 2/3 of society doesn't see it that way...you're on the right track.
Click to expand...
So you're considering Pravda as mainstream media for this exercise?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
I can only imagine how you would define "mainstream media".
Click to expand...

If the outlet supports his point of view, it's "mainstream"; if the outlet disagrees with his point of view, it is "partisan." Typical for most folks. :)

The NYTImes is great for science, arts, etc. Something happened to them in their political coverage though when the senior generation turned over control to the next generation; they became more of a panderer than a reporter...probably they see that as the best way to maximize revenues; get all the like-thinking people together and be their spokesperson in order to sell more papers and to say to advertisers we can give you tightly-focused readership. They can probably get more ad revenue saying we're the paper of choice for [characterization of typical Times upper east side "guilty conscience" progressive who enjoys condescending to others..the Times reinforces their illusions that they are smarter and somehow "better" than everyone else]

The Wall St. Journal is still primarily a business paper; accurate information is still the most important commodity it offers. They support free markets because free markets are most conducive to economic growth and economic growth generally is most conducive to business activity and a rising stock market (current market excepted due to unparallelled, extraordinary Fed actions flooding the markets with excess cash despite a sluggish economy)

The Economist is very interesting reading because they are an old-school free market / individual liberty approach and give an outsiders' view of the US. I like them the most, probably.

The NY Post is a tabloid, and unashamedly so. It's a guilty pleasure for people who would sneer at People magazine.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
If the outlet supports his point of view, it's "mainstream"; if the outlet disagrees with his point of view, it is "partisan." Typical for most folks. :)

The NYTImes is great for science, arts, etc. Something happened to them in their political coverage though when the senior generation turned over control to the next generation; they became more of a panderer than a reporter...probably they see that as the best way to maximize revenues; get all the like-thinking people together and be their spokesperson in order to sell more papers and to say to advertisers we can give you tightly-focused readership. They can probably get more ad revenue saying we're the paper of choice for [characterization of typical Times upper east side "guilty conscience" progressive who enjoys condescending to others..the Times reinforces their illusions that they are smarter and somehow "better" than everyone else]

The Wall St. Journal is still primarily a business paper; accurate information is still the most important commodity it offers. They support free markets because free markets are most conducive to economic growth and economic growth generally is most conducive to business activity and a rising stock market (current market excepted due to unparallelled, extraordinary Fed actions flooding the markets with excess cash despite a sluggish economy)

The Economist is very interesting reading because they are an old-school free market / individual liberty approach and give an outsiders' view of the US. I like them the most, probably.

The NY Post is a tabloid, and unashamedly so. It's a guilty pleasure for people who would sneer at People magazine.
Click to expand...

The NY Times suffers from the same problem the WSJ does and any other paper, which is reporters are lazy and stupid. I don't find them any more accurate than the average paper.

I do like the Economist although they pine for an era that never actually existed. What I mean by that is they want to see Reagan in any GOP candidate or Thatcher in any Tory even if its long apparant that the current pol du jour has nothing to do with those people either from a historical or a mythical perspective. Their global coverage is top notch however and unmatched by anybody in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top