Legal/scotus thread

nsacpi said:
I remember the Souter confirmation battle quite well. There was the predictable outcry from everyone on the left. But...there was one prominent liberal Democratic senator who after meeting with Souter said this guy might be all right. Anyone remember who that senator was?
Click to expand...

Schumer?
 
If switching from one left-leaning judge to one right-leaning judge will alter the course of our entire country (and of course the march to facism as the board idiot contends), then the supreme Court is not doing their job right
 
sturg33 said:
If switching from one left-leaning judge to one right-leaning judge will alter the course of our entire country (and of course the march to facism as the board idiot contends), then the supreme Court is not doing their job right
Click to expand...

Of course its not going to. But you will find ideologues on both sides of the spectrum who act as if it is Armageddon.
 
sturg33 said:
If switching from one left-leaning judge to one right-leaning judge will alter the course of our entire country (and of course the march to facism as the board idiot contends), then the supreme Court is not doing their job right
Click to expand...

Well, in this case we're switching from a right-leaning justice to a further right-leaning justice, who may (I repeat, MAY) be more of an apparatchik than a balls-and-strikes caller. Any ideological shift on the court is significant, regardless of whether or not we think the court is doing their job right.

There have been quite a few decisions in recent years that have had tremendous real-world consequences (Citizens United, Heller, the Obamacare decision, Alito's one-man crusade against public-sector unions over the course of several years). Nothing they could do is going to bring down the republic or usher in fascism, but let's not pretend it isn't consequential.
 
I was thinking about it today and I started to wonder if we could let Christians get their morals into the law without nothering the rest of us. Could we pass laws that only applies to Christians. Obviously it cant be forces on people so the idea is to get Christians to sign up to be accountable to that law. For example, adultery. If they think its a sin and should get a person prison time thats fine. They and all their followers can sign up for it. I know, why would anyone sign up for this. Well if you advocate sodomy should be a crime but wont sign up for the bill then what does that say about you.



This way Christians, Muslims, and all the other religious groups can vote away their own rights they dont want instead of voting away everyones rights. Wouldnt it just be so satisfying seeing that anti-gay politician who says homosexuality is a crime get caught soliciting gay sex in a bathroom actually have to face the consequences they try to impose on other people.
 
https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_18_085



HUD suing facebook for allowing ads that target specific groups and that specifically ignore certain groups.



In an unrelated note I wish HUD would ban multigenerational use of HUD. I have managed HUD homes and I saw daughters of residents get pregnant specifically so they couls get on HUD themselves. If you grow up in a HUD home then you should know better than anyone not to have a child. In fact, taking most governmemt assistance should require you to not have more children. I can understand youthful mistakes and I dont support abortion. What I cant support is a high school drop out having 4 kids before they are 21. Same goes for men on assistance getting women pregnant.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
I was thinking about it today and I started to wonder if we could let Christians get their morals into the law without nothering the rest of us. Could we pass laws that only applies to Christians. Obviously it cant be forces on people so the idea is to get Christians to sign up to be accountable to that law. For example, adultery. If they think its a sin and should get a person prison time thats fine. They and all their followers can sign up for it. I know, why would anyone sign up for this. Well if you advocate sodomy should be a crime but wont sign up for the bill then what does that say about you.



This way Christians, Muslims, and all the other religious groups can vote away their own rights they dont want instead of voting away everyones rights. Wouldnt it just be so satisfying seeing that anti-gay politician who says homosexuality is a crime get caught soliciting gay sex in a bathroom actually have to face the consequences they try to impose on other people.
Click to expand...

You can't waive your rights in future situations as no one can ever predict how every situation will play out. If you could then you'd probably have states trying to make things like waiver of a right to a jury trial a requirement to get government assistance.
 
Melanie Schmitz
‏Verified account @MelsLien
14m14 minutes ago

Holy ****

Cornyn reads a rule saying "any senator...who discloses the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the senate"

shall be expelled or dismissed from the senate

Booker looks him dead in the eye and says,

"Bring it."


pic.twitter.com/eOdx2Z1RST
 
was coming to post that. Absolutely love it. The public should know who Kavanaugh is and his stonewalling confirmation hearing isnt going to do that.



Personally I am against him as he seems like a future "no" vote on marijuana when that comes up. We dont need another 40 years of a reefer madness lunatic on the court.
 
cajunrevenge said:
was coming to post that. Absolutely love it. The public should know who Kavanaugh is and his stonewalling confirmation hearing isnt going to do that.



Personally I am against him as he seems like a future "no" vote on marijuana when that comes up. We dont need another 40 years of a reefer madness lunatic on the court.
Click to expand...

Not a federal issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
cajunrevenge said:
was coming to post that. Absolutely love it. The public should know who Kavanaugh is and his stonewalling confirmation hearing isnt going to do that.



Personally I am against him as he seems like a future "no" vote on marijuana when that comes up. We dont need another 40 years of a reefer madness lunatic on the court.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered not letting one issue rule all of your views?

Related, do you consider marijuana to be an addictive substance?
 
Jaw said:
Have you ever considered not letting one issue rule all of your views?

Related, do you consider marijuana to be an addictive substance?
Click to expand...


When the one issue is wether I should be incarcerated amd given a scarlet letter making me a second class citizen, then no, I can not vote or supporr anyone with that position.



And I would call marijuana a habit forming drug similar to alcohol. If you smoke marijuana every day for 6 months you will go through some minor withdrawls for up a few days. If you smoke a couple times a week you wont have any addiction issues. Marijuana is not nearly as bad as addictive as tobacco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top