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 Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Bob has been reminded of that on this site many times, but he concluded otherwise long ago and is firmly and happily in the warm embrace of his bias.
Bob has been reminded of that on this site many times, but he concluded otherwise long ago and is firmly and happily in the warm embrace of his bias.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Alito is in some respects more conservative than even Thomas and Scalia, and certainly more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor.
Roberts is probably left of those three, but he's on par with Rehnquist and again, depending on the case, right of him.
Being less conservative than expected does not mean they're actually moving left.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Especially when he's also said there's no plan B. All his chips are in the center.
Especially when he's also said there's no plan B. All his chips are in the center.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
It's not his chips, it's our chips. And it's not so much Obama telling the Court there's no back up plan, it's the states themselves who are freaking out, particularly the red ones.
unofan can explain this better, but it's not as if Obama pulled the "no backup plan" rhetorical strategy out of his butt. It's one of the considerations the Court itself is considering, with the anti-Obamacare justices arguing that there's no way Congress will allow Armageddon to occur and the rest of the Court saying, "Really? Have you seen this Congress?"
You're portraying this as Obama daring the Court, but that's not correct -- it's Obama citing the Court's own concern back at them.
It's not his chips, it's our chips. And it's not so much Obama telling the Court there's no back up plan, it's the states themselves who are freaking out, particularly the red ones.
unofan can explain this better, but it's not as if Obama pulled the "no backup plan" rhetorical strategy out of his butt. It's one of the considerations the Court itself is considering, with the anti-Obamacare justices arguing that there's no way Congress will allow Armageddon to occur and the rest of the Court saying, "Really? Have you seen this Congress?"
You're portraying this as Obama daring the Court, but that's not correct -- it's Obama citing the Court's own concern back at them.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
They're also considering whether or not they have blackmail.
They're also considering whether or not they have blackmail.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Agreed, although I think he's more left wing than Rehnquist who IMHO would not have upheld the ACA nor struck down anti-gay rights legislation. Renquist was an old knuck' from the 70's, determined to undo everything enacted since the New Deal. Roberts is a corporate conservative with seemingly little interest in advancing the cause of social conservatism. Some liberalism, such as Kennedy's war on juvenile justice and perhaps even gay rights are out of his hands of course.
Regarding the ACA, Obama has it right because the Court can make up whatever law it likes. Consider the possibilities:
1) Court upholds ACA.
2) Court sides with plaintiffs, but since exchanges would have to be set up on 3 months time, decides to make their order effective for the 2017 sign up period, thus putting off the inpact until after the next election.
3) Court sides with plaintiffs, but takes a more expansive view of what constitutes a "state" exchange. Recall that there are 34 states affected, but only 13 states (plus DC) have a stand alone exchange. 3 states have a hybrid exchange, where they rely on the feds for some back end duties while they enroll people themselves. There's an additional 7 states that have a different form of partnership.
4) Court invalidates all state subsidies and orders people who've received them to pay back the Treasury.
So, there's no contingency plan for any of this aside from "Congress can pass a one sentence fix to the law". Who knows what they're going to come up with?
Agreed, although I think he's more left wing than Rehnquist who IMHO would not have upheld the ACA nor struck down anti-gay rights legislation. Renquist was an old knuck' from the 70's, determined to undo everything enacted since the New Deal. Roberts is a corporate conservative with seemingly little interest in advancing the cause of social conservatism. Some liberalism, such as Kennedy's war on juvenile justice and perhaps even gay rights are out of his hands of course.
Regarding the ACA, Obama has it right because the Court can make up whatever law it likes. Consider the possibilities:
1) Court upholds ACA.
2) Court sides with plaintiffs, but since exchanges would have to be set up on 3 months time, decides to make their order effective for the 2017 sign up period, thus putting off the inpact until after the next election.
3) Court sides with plaintiffs, but takes a more expansive view of what constitutes a "state" exchange. Recall that there are 34 states affected, but only 13 states (plus DC) have a stand alone exchange. 3 states have a hybrid exchange, where they rely on the feds for some back end duties while they enroll people themselves. There's an additional 7 states that have a different form of partnership.
4) Court invalidates all state subsidies and orders people who've received them to pay back the Treasury.
So, there's no contingency plan for any of this aside from "Congress can pass a one sentence fix to the law". Who knows what they're going to come up with?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
The whole text:
So how is locking up arms infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?
Moreso that the need of this is to have a well regulated millitia.
The whole text:
So how is locking up arms infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?
Moreso that the need of this is to have a well regulated millitia.
theprofromdover
The Original Dope Detector
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I thought he was happy in the warm embrace of Jan Brewer!
I thought he was happy in the warm embrace of Jan Brewer!
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
In some areas it's simply silly to say this Court is conservative. Other areas not so much. But, that doesn't fit he narrative people try to spin.
As compared to all the other unbiased people around here.
In some areas it's simply silly to say this Court is conservative. Other areas not so much. But, that doesn't fit he narrative people try to spin.Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
If you hadn't noticed, Jan retired, so you really should find someone else to complain about and to be your new bogeyman or bogeywoman. Doug Ducey is the governor of Arizona now.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
If you're confiscating the guns because of failure to lock them up, it certainly is infringement.
As for militia, every man in this country is considered part of the reserve militia, hence why selective service is considered constitutional. As for the definition of well regulated, Alexander Hamilton gives some insight: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
If you're confiscating the guns because of failure to lock them up, it certainly is infringement.
As for militia, every man in this country is considered part of the reserve militia, hence why selective service is considered constitutional. As for the definition of well regulated, Alexander Hamilton gives some insight: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
theprofromdover
The Original Dope Detector
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Are you hot for him too?
Are you hot for him too?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Which is an insight before the US Consitution was the law of the land- and as I read it, a need of some kind of Militia, to make sure that we have some kind of counterballance to the professional army. After that was written the second amendmant was written, obviously a compromise of a unlimited Milita that Hamilton sees, and one that is more, well, regulated.
Keeping good track of your arms that you have is easy to interpret as being well regulated. Especially in the light the the Supreme Court didn't even hear the case- the interpretation of the lower courts is correct.
Which is an insight before the US Consitution was the law of the land- and as I read it, a need of some kind of Militia, to make sure that we have some kind of counterballance to the professional army. After that was written the second amendmant was written, obviously a compromise of a unlimited Milita that Hamilton sees, and one that is more, well, regulated.
Keeping good track of your arms that you have is easy to interpret as being well regulated. Especially in the light the the Supreme Court didn't even hear the case- the interpretation of the lower courts is correct.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
No question that we all embrace our biases, you are right about that.
Except me.
As compared to all the other unbiased people around here.
No question that we all embrace our biases, you are right about that.
Except me.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
You've been hanging around unofan too much!
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I would imagine if you're a righty, looking at a 5-4 SCOTUS majority, you're probably wondering why abortion, affirmative action, the EPA, gay rights, the ACA and a lot of other things are still legal. After all, you were told for decades that the only thing holding back a neo-conservative kingdom on Earth was a liberal court.
I would imagine if you're a righty, looking at a 5-4 SCOTUS majority, you're probably wondering why abortion, affirmative action, the EPA, gay rights, the ACA and a lot of other things are still legal. After all, you were told for decades that the only thing holding back a neo-conservative kingdom on Earth was a liberal court.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Uh, no. Citizens United looms large.
Uh, no. Citizens United looms large.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
You mean a 5-4 majority that often goes against conservative interests? Yah.
- Status