What's new
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 VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I am curious: do you really think those guys were primarily motivated by anti-religiosity? I think it's very clear that the former was eliminating any potentially threatening alternate power center, and the latter two were exterminating all of Westernized culture in general. The were "anti-religious" in the sense that a bulldozer is "anti-wainscotting": it's just one of the things that gets plowed under.
You don't really think that Communism was anti-religion in nature and they carried this out with a gusto? I've personally known Christians who tried/try to exist in Communist Russia or China and everything I've ever heard is that people with religious beliefs were systematically hunted down. Sure they were also against other things also, like capitalism, decadent western culture (can't totally blame them there) and other things, but that doesn't change their strong inherent bent against people of faith. Guess I figured the whole opiate of the masses and all was part of their thinking. As Marx said "It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

You don't really think that Communism was anti-religion in nature and they carried this out with a gusto? I've personally known Christians who tried/try to exist in Communist Russia or China and everything I've ever heard is that people with religious beliefs were systematically hunted down. Sure they were also against other things also, like capitalism, decadent western culture (can't totally blame them there) and other things, but that doesn't change their strong inherent bent against people of faith. Guess I figured the whole opiate of the masses and all was part of their thinking. As Marx said "It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness."

My understanding is that in mainstream communist theory religion is regarded as just another type of "false consciousness" that helps keep the power structure in place (crudely: if you think your reward for hanging on in quiet desperation is an eternity in the next world, you won't life a finger to fight your oppressors in this one). See also: patriotism, militarism, noblesse oblige, consumerism, Romanticism (this is where he gets in his knee to Hegel's groin), any historiography that is not overtly materialist, etc...

Therefore, church officials and, to a lesser extent, believers, are at best a hindrance and, when active, an enemy of the ideological vanguard of "true class consciousness" of communism. So when you string up the bankers you also string up the bishops.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Fill disclosure: My Godson, and his future bride, are members of the Corps of Cadets, Class of 2016

Ever since the signing of the US Constitution in 1787, the issue of states’ rights versus those of the federal government have been debated. In 1859, Luther Swift Dixon, Norwich class of 1847, became Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and took on the hotly contested Fugitive Slave Act and the right of states to overrule the federal government.

A native of Milton, Vt., Luther Swift Dixon attended Norwich from 1845 to 1847 and entered the Vermont Bar in 1850. He moved to Portage, Wisc., and in 1859, at the age of 33, he became the state’s youngest Chief Justice. At that time, as each new state was added to the Union, the federal government decided whether it would be a Free State or a Slave State. The US Congress passed The Compromise of 1850 to provide rules regarding the designation of each state. One of the most divisive sections of this legislation was known as the “Fugitive Slave Law”, which required northern states to return runaway slaves to their owners under penalty of law. It was this law that led to Dixon’s historic ruling as it pertained to state vs. federal rights.

Many of the northern states did not agree with the conditions of the Fugitive Slave Law, and in 1854 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional. In 1859 the US Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Chief Justice Dixon and his colleagues argued over whether or not to file the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Dixon feared that if a state could overrule the federal government, it could render the U.S. Congress ineffective. Though unpopular with his constituents, Dixon concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court had the power to reverse the state court and voted to file the mandate. However no action was taken because the Wisconsin Supreme Court stood divided. To this day, the mandate has not been filed.

It is important to note that Dixon ruled in favor of federal authority in spite of his personal opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act. According to the Wisconsin Bar, “Dixon took pains to state that he personally believed the Act was unconstitutional.”

In his book, The Story of a Great Court, Justice J.B. Winslow writes of Justice Dixon’s decision, “A great question was presented to him for examination; the clamor of the partisan moved him not; neither the echoes of the battle which had just closed nor the premonitory murmurs of the contest which was soon to rage, disturbed the serenity of his judgement. Duty called him to investigate the subject for himself. This he proceeded to do, and in a luminous opinion he demonstrated that the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review and reverse judgements of the state courts in cases where the validity of a law of the United States was attacked and the law held void.”

Judge Dixon died December 6, 1891. In 1911, the Wisconsin State Bar Association dedicated a 40 foot granite monument to Dixon. The inscription says, “His name is synonym of Justice, Integrity, Truth and Honor. These were the virtues which illuminated his character, radiant as the sunlight, shining as the stars.”
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Untangling church from state in Missouri.

The Satanic Temple, which has filed both State and Federal lawsuits against Missouri abortion restrictions -- restrictions that the organization feels, violate their deeply-held beliefs in bodily autonomy and scientifically-reasoned personal choice -- had their first hearing yesterday, September 28th, in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Cole County. The hearing, in consideration of the State’s Motion To Dismiss, has not yet resulted in a decision, though the facile -- even ludicrous -- nature of the defense’s arguments, leaves us all but entirely certain that the suit will move forward into trial.

As the abortion restrictions The Satanic Temple are challenging are not at all unique to Missouri, and are, in fact, part of a nationwide religious-conservative effort to undermine reproductive rights, the outcome of this case is certain to have serious lasting ramifications upon the ongoing abortion debate.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

So somehow restricting abortion in any fashion is now a religious issue? That's one of the more twisted representations of the situation I think I've ever seen.

Those folks better be careful or their pushing their wacko agenda may not provide the results they think it will.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

So somehow restricting abortion in any fashion is now a religious issue? That's one of the more twisted representations of the situation I think I've ever seen.

Those folks better be careful or their pushing their wacko agenda may not provide the results they think it will.

I don't think you understand who "The Satanic Temple" is.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/tr...t-of-a-new-religious-movement-or-both-6716970
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

So somehow restricting abortion in any fashion is now a religious issue? That's one of the more twisted representations of the situation I think I've ever seen.

Those folks better be careful or their pushing their wacko agenda may not provide the results they think it will.
It's a religious issue for you to restrict it entirely.

So.... **** you?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...s-shouting-match-with-planned-parenthood-exec

Jim Jordan in an excellent example of talking down to and interrupting a woman trying to get her to give an answer he wants.

She was neither barefoot, nor pregnant, nor in the kitchen. By Republican standards, that makes her a whore who deserves what she gets.

You would think these morons would at least practice at home with their wives. Jordan: "So this is the part where I just shout argle bargle to intimidate you because I can't find a rational defense of my idiotic statements." Mrs. Jordan: "Perhaps you should call in sick today, honey."

But I guess it's likely these muscle-headed cretins all have Stepford wives at home. Who else would put up with them?

The great thing is we won't need to pay for ads to motivate women next year. Every time one of these inbred yokels opens his maw, the gender gap widens. Every woman knows what it's like to bear the brunt of these animals -- it's going to resonate intimately, it should even sicken conservative women of conscience.

Also, at the risk of setting the women's rights movement back 50 years, Cecile Richards is a dish. Good for her for standing up to this fool.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

She was neither barefoot, nor pregnant, nor in the kitchen. By Republican standards, that makes her a whore who deserves what she gets.

You would think these morons would at least practice at home with their wives. Jordan: "So this is the part where I just shout argle bargle to intimidate you because I can't find a rational defense of my idiotic statements." Mrs. Jordan: "Perhaps you should call in sick today, honey."

But I guess it's likely these muscle-headed cretins all have Stepford wives at home. Who else would put up with them?

The great thing is we won't need to pay for ads to motivate women next year. Every time one of these inbred yokels opens his maw, the gender gap widens. Every woman knows what it's like to bear the brunt of these animals -- it's going to resonate intimately, it should even sicken conservative women of conscience.

Also, at the risk of setting the women's rights movement back 50 years, Cecile Richards is a dish. Good for her for standing up to this fool.
The republican from Wisconsin will abuse his time.

https://youtu.be/dHnwJYmE3KY

High quality fake GOP charts
https://youtu.be/iGlLLzw5_KM
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

He kept saying Medicaid covered services at clinics. Doesn't he mean Medicare?

Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. Most of PP's funding comes from Title X grants and Medicaid reimbursement.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. Most of PP's funding comes from Title X grants and Medicaid reimbursement.

Of course. Thanks.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin


This is why dumb Members need smart staffers. One of the interesting effects of the TP wave is not so much that the freshman Reps who were elected were dumb (we had plenty of dumb Members prior to TP), but that their staffs were comically stupid and unprepared. There were chiefs of staffs who were barely out of college (typically, they are 10+ year veterans on the Hill with years of dealing with parliamentary maneuvers), and leg assistants who either graduated from Pigs Knuckle Arkansas Bible Academy or... nowhere. There's at least one Member whose senior policy advisor is his dentist.

Just like the best trades are the ones a GM never makes, all Members -- even the brighter ones -- come up with a lot of really stupid ideas which senior staff then talks them out of. The TPers didn't have that protection, so all their derp just pours out onto the floor. Combine that with the typical profile of a TP enthusiast ("quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand") and the Congressional Record turns into America's leading humor periodical.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The Vatican is saying the Pope speaking with Davis is not the same as the Pope supporting or validating her.

So this morning I got into a tiff with Dr. Mrs. over this. She's appalled that I see any merit in Davis' position. In her opinion, Davis should either issue the licenses or quit the job. I think there is room for Davis refusing to issue the licenses but not quitting, and then letting the law take its course.

Here's how I tried to explain myself. I welcome comment:

In my opinion, it's valid in some instances of personal conscience for a public official to do a sit down strike and force the state apparatus to carry them out, rather than resigning.

For the state, the law trumps personal opinion and conscience.

For the individual, conscience can trump the law. In taking an oath to uphold the law we are saying "even if I disagree with the law I'm going to go against my opinion and enforce the law because without that civil society would not work." But that still leaves rare matters of deep conscience. If those conflict with the law we can choose either to (1) violate our conscience and uphold the law, (2) violate the law and uphold our conscience, or (3) quit to resolve the conflict. In each case, we willingly incur consequences -- civil penalties in (2) and (3), the dark night of the soul in (1).
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Your sit down protests for elected officials only works if there's a function to recall or impeach that official. Without those methods of removing the official, the public will be stuck with an official that could conceivably refuse to do his/her job for two years or longer with impunity.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Your sit down protests for elected officials only works if there's a function to recall or impeach that official. Without those methods of removing the official, the public will be stuck with an official that could conceivably refuse to do his/her job for two years or longer with impunity.

I think that argues for adoption of a provision to remove her, not a modification of her behavior. It's not her fault that the state didn't plan for this contingency.

I kinda like the idea of a human being opposing a matter of personal conscience to the state and forcing the state to haul her out of there feet first. Davis is a good test case because here is a person whose cause is morally repellent, and that's the thing about rights -- they have to hold for the villains as much as for the heroes.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...Behind-Tianamen/20090603-tank-cole-1000px.jpg
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Your sit down protests for elected officials only works if there's a function to recall or impeach that official. Without those methods of removing the official, the public will be stuck with an official that could conceivably refuse to do his/her job for two years or longer with impunity.

Bingo, if she is allowed to not follow the law without any real punishment (she hasnt lost her job) that is tacit approval of her act and completely invalidates the law. She can believe what she wants but her duty and the law supersede that in the work place.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I think that argues for adoption of a provision to remove her, not a modification of her behavior. It's not her fault that the state didn't plan for this contingency.

I kinda like the idea of a human being opposing a matter of personal conscience to the state and forcing the state to haul her out of there feet first. Davis is a good test case because here is a person whose cause is morally repellent, and that's the thing about rights -- they have to hold for the villains as much as for the heroes.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...Behind-Tianamen/20090603-tank-cole-1000px.jpg

This part is especially true. And why the ACLU defended Nazis in Skokie. Rather, Nazis' right to free speech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top