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 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

FreshFish said:
Serious question....

Why is totalitarianism now so popular with certain factions the left? if their message is as compelling as they claim it is, why are they having so much trouble persuading others to adopt it? and is the lack of popular support sufficient reason to enforce programs that the majority of people oppose?*

Every clause of the First Amendment is under attack these days, and not from the fringes, but from the left's mainstream:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

John Oliver proposes in all seriousness that the government should license which religions are "real" religions and which are phony. The New York Times proposes that the government license which organizations are bona fide representatives of "the press" and which organizations do not warrant First Amendment protections. The entire left is united in its desire to deny certain groups the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Trigger warnings" make a mockery of the concept of freedom of speech.

So what's going on? People get frustrated and want to give the government powers of censorship? Do they really seriously believe that, once the government has those powers, it won't use them to protect its own interests first at the expense of all the people? or have they just not thought it all the way through?


I do realize that certain elitists on the left have the daydream that the totalitarian government they espouse will always be on "their" side....even though it's never worked out that way in practice, ever....but still, we know that elites are capable of incredible acts of willful blindness. The movement on the left today to espouse totalitarian solutions seems stronger these days than I can recall during my adult lifetime.


* I'm not talking about "minority rights" in this context; protecting minority rights is an essential function of the First Amendment. It's more as if people are so intolerant of anyone else merely having a different opinion than they do that they want to force those others just to shut up entirely and stop talking.
Click to expand...

Never has so much nonsense been spewed forth to so many by so few..
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Rover said:
Fishy enjoys being astroglided by John Roberts! Maybe he didn't at first, but now like an addict he keeps going back for more. :D :eek:
Click to expand...

In its own way, Roberts' long game is as dangerous as Scalia's beserker rants. The latter's obvious politicking is easy to root out and a generation from now will only be read for the LOLs the way today we read say Reagan on "socialized medicine." Roberts OTOH may be warping American government with plutocracy so patiently and effectively that it will take decades of a latter day Jacksonian revolution to restore democracy.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Rover said:
Never has so much nonsense been spewed forth to so many by so few..
Click to expand...

Concern trolling only works if people respond. Just put the bot on Ignore and eventually it will shamble back to its sophomore Poli Sci course at Valley Forge Bible College.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kepler said:
In its own way, Roberts' long game is as dangerous as Scalia's beserker rants. The latter's obvious politicking is easy to root out and a generation from now will only be read fr the LOLs the way today we read say Reagan on "socialized medicine." Roberts OTOH may be warping American government with plutocracy so patiently and effectively that it will take decades of a latter day Jacksonian revolution to restore democracy.
Click to expand...

For a Republican appointee, I can live with Roberts. Yes the Citizens United decision is the worst decision of this generation but beyond that the court has upheld/legalized 1) the ACA, 2) independent redistricting, 3) gay marriage, and 4) fair housing. Really it could have been a lot, LOT worse. Somebody needs to bring another case up to challenge citizens united to see if Anthony Kennedy will change his vote.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kepler said:
Concern trolling only works if people respond. Just put the bot on Ignore and eventually it will shamble back to its sophomore Poli Sci course at Valley Forge Bible College.
Click to expand...

Making fun of Fishy is one of the joys of this message board! Remember how sure he was that Roberts was just setting us all up for an eventual overturn of the ACA? Sure would have been funny to see the look on his face when that Burwell decision got handed down. :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

PPACA, Obergfell, and Roe are like the Arab Israeli Wars. The Arabs only have to win once while the Israelis have to win 100% of the time.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
PPACA, Obergfell, and Roe are like the Arab Israeli Wars. The Arabs only have to win once while the Israelis have to win 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. One loss and you're toast.
 
joecct said:
If you're against the 3 I cited, you're the Arabs. If you're defending the 3, you're the Israelis.
Click to expand...

I don't see it.

If Obamacare loses at this point, it'll be on technical grounds, not constitutional ones. It may take 20 years for the next democratic congress to get elected, but that's easily fixed in the grand scheme of things.

Had gay marriage lost, it would still become the law of the land in 30 years, give or take. Just look at interracial marriage and its progression, then speed it up by 10x or so.

Abortion rights are constantly being chipped away and lessened in solid red states given the current SCOTUS makeup, so i don't see how you can say a single loss somehow ends Roe when there have been dozens of losses the last 30 years.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
If Obamacare loses at this point, it'll be [because it is economically unworkable], not constitutional ones.
Click to expand...

FYP, and you are right in this version, we are already starting to see the early signs.

Ironically, Justice Roberts actually predicted it would fail because it was unworkable....

The guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms do not, however, address the issue of healthy individuals who choose not to purchase insurance to cover potential healthcare needs. In fact, the reforms sharply exacerbate that problem, by providing an incentive for individuals to delay purchasing health insurance until they become sick, relying on the promise of guaranteed and affordable coverage. The reforms also threaten to impose massive new costs on insurers, who are required to accept unhealthy individuals but prohibited from charging them rates necessary to pay for their coverage. This will lead insurers to significantly increase premiums on everyone. [emphases added]
Click to expand...

Fairly accurate predictions so far, given the data we've seen since....

After Roberts eviscerates the Commerce Clause argument, he then opens a back door to let the law stand on an alternate interpretation, which, by the way, has the effect of making the law even more unworkable:

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance…The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...


How do you really feel about the law, Justice Roberts?

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Click to expand...

Rather prescient....
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
The argument for same sex incest.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/10/23/why-cant-two-gay-brothers-marry-n2070299
Click to expand...

As reported in the Irish Times, Independent Senator David Norris, himself gay, “has said that gay cousins should be allowed to marry each other following the same-sex marriage referendum.”

“It would not take a feather out of me if two cousins married each other,’’ Mr. Norris said. “What is the problem with that?’’

So, no sooner does the Irish Legislature officially announce the legalizing of same-sex “marriage” than an Irish Senator calls for gay cousins to be allowed to marry.

Yes, “Mr. Norris said the regulations covering cousins marrying were introduced to protect the genetic pool, but that this would remain relatively untroubled by same-sex marriage.”
Click to expand...

South Dakota has already one upped him, and did so long ago. Straight cousins can marry in South Dakota. A woman I knew in college was the product of such a union. Also, it's my understanding that cousins have enough genetic diversity, under the assumption that neither cousin has DNA from a brother-sister coupling, that their offspring have no more or less vulnerability to genetic disorders than the average person.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

St. Clown said:
South Dakota has already one upped him, and did so long ago. Straight cousins can marry in South Dakota. A woman I knew in college was the product of such a union. Also, it's my understanding that cousins have enough genetic diversity, under the assumption that neither cousin has DNA from a brother-sister coupling, that their offspring have no more or less vulnerability to genetic disorders than the average person.
Click to expand...

Yet another reason Nodaks never breed with them, even though opportunities abound.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

St. Clown said:
South Dakota has already one upped him, and did so long ago. Straight cousins can marry in South Dakota. A woman I knew in college was the product of such a union. Also, it's my understanding that cousins have enough genetic diversity, under the assumption that neither cousin has DNA from a brother-sister coupling, that their offspring have no more or less vulnerability to genetic disorders than the average person.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, cousins have slightly elevated chances. From Wiki:
In a review of 48 studies on the children parented by cousins, the rate of birth defects was twice that of non-related couples: 4% for cousin couples as opposed to 2% for the general population. Thus most, 96%, of the babies born to cousins were healthy.[108]
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

St. Clown said:
South Dakota has already one upped him, and did so long ago. Straight cousins can marry in South Dakota. A woman I knew in college was the product of such a union. Also, it's my understanding that cousins have enough genetic diversity, under the assumption that neither cousin has DNA from a brother-sister coupling, that their offspring have no more or less vulnerability to genetic disorders than the average person.
Click to expand...

Apparently it's legal in CA as well. My wife's aunt is married to her first cousin (second marriage for both, well beyond child bearing age).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

burd said:
Yet another reason Nodaks never breed with them, even though opportunities abound.
Click to expand...

And here I thought it was because NoDaks were actually from another dimension ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top