quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
More likely when they've reached the pinnacle of their profession, and are appointed for life, they feel no need to conform their decisions to the politics of the people who put them in that position.

There's not supposed to give a damn about the "politics" of any person. They're supposed to interpret the law and Constitution (which may be your point?)

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
Maybe if a court this conservative disagrees with you than you are wrong?

Please provide some evidence to back up this assertion that the Robert's Supreme Court is conservative.

I'll wait....

Oh, noes,

Now, here's a crisis....some tech donations went to conservative think tanks.

We could use a hell of a lot more of said crisis, IMO.

Seriously., none of those links has numbers, so this is completely context-free. Are we talking dozens of dollars, or millions? 15% of Google's donations or 0.15%? 30% of Heritage's annual receipts or 0.03%? If I had to guess, the articles were written more because of donor jealousy by someone in an organization who didn't get tech cash, than someone honestly concerned that the Heritage Foundation got enough cash from Google/tech to turn itself inside out. But, please, provide some links with numbers to make a sensible case of some core-principal-bending cash flows. Otherwise....nah, not buying it.

By the way, which is it? Do we want big tech to donate to some conservative causes, or are we going to quail and shudder when they do, under the notion that the recipients - conservative right up till the donation happens - are somehow made liberal by accepting donations, just so that the notion that tech-only-donates-to-liberals isn't savaged too much by reality?

As I read the DACA thing, it was about pettifoggery on the process followed not being according to Hoyle. We do want judges who follow the laws, and - unless we want a precedent where every change of Administration gets to do the ol' switcheroo using whatever process they like? - to me it looks like they did. It'd have been great to have been able to say, "DACA was created illegally but dismantled by the book, so it can't come back." But no, the dismantling was not by the book, and that's what it went sideways. Much as I'd like DACA gone, I'd like it gone for good.

The decision did not create a precedent protecting DACA - it's as illegal now as it always has been. The task for the Administration is to up their process game and do it again.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Going back as far as 1857, with one exception, the Court's major public policy decisions have been constitutionally invalid and had disastrous outcomes.

The author is understandably emotional due to the recent decisions, but if he really can only think of one major public policy decision in 14 decades that has been Constitutional and didn't cause disaster, he's about 7 spark plugs short of a working V8.

It's not good writing technique to start off an essay with obviously incorrect assertions.

Roe Vs. Wade. Wholly unconstitutional, and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. Next question....

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
More likely when they've reached the pinnacle of their profession, and are appointed for life, they feel no need to conform their decisions to the politics of the people who put them in that position.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
Yep. Agenda and power. Maybe they are being controlled by someone or someones.

Is it that, or is it they feel omnipotent and morally superior to all of us insignificant little people, and they tailor their decisions around their own belief system regardless what the founders and the constitution intended? My money's on the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Going back as far as 1857, with one exception, the Court's major public policy decisions have been constitutionally invalid and had disastrous outcomes.

The author is understandably emotional due to the recent decisions, but if he really can only think of one major public policy decision in 14 decades that has been Constitutional and didn't cause disaster, he's about 7 spark plugs short of a working V8.

It's not good writing technique to start off an essay with obviously incorrect assertions.

Roe Vs. Wade. Wholly unconstitutional, and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. Next question....

Sorry, you have the logic wrong.

The rocket surgeon was not saying that only one was wrong - we all know of several offhand that were wrong (although some may differ on which) - but what he asserted was 'only one was RIGHT'.

My point is that there have been more than one right. And, if you think a bit, you yourself might come up with a couple of those. (By the way, if you find 2 correct, Constitutional major policy decisions since 1857, there goes the assertion.)

Here's a quick list off hand. Only one of these was 'right'?

How about Columbia v.Heller? (goodbye DC gun-nonsense)
Miranda? (notification of right not to self incriminate)
US V. Nixon? (President not above the law)
Gideon v. Wainwright (criminal defendant right to counsel)
Bush v. Gore (2000 election)
..
..
..

Rocket-surgeon says all of the above (plus any others you may like) except one were wrong. I'm saying, not so fast.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
You've seen something very similar coming out of Tallahassee over the past ten years in that the legislature is so weak and corrupt they instead push more and more onto referendum for the majority (or mob) to decide rather than to govern as they were elected to do. It's like a a virus spreading throughout all of government completely removing all evidence of courage and ethics.

yes the constitutional ballot method has been abused, more and more, started with the ban on smoking in restaurants movement, and most recently anti gunners trying to get the constitution of FL changed to ban semi auto firearm ownership.

It needs to be removed as an option, direct to voter contact on legislative issues and changing constitutions is a mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
So the Supreme Court with a Republican appointed majority and a Chief Justice appointed by Trump is "out of control"? Maybe if a court this conservative disagrees with you than you are wrong? Nah, it must be another deep state conspiracy that once again tricked Trump into appointing these people.

Roberts is a Bush appointee, not Trump, he appears to blow with the wind from time to time, he clearly relishes being the deciding vote between the two warring party appointees left and right.

The best immediate remedy for Justice Roberts is to appoint another Originalist Justice and make him irrelevant. Unless RBG kicks the bucket very soon (unlikely), that will require a second term for President Trump.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
As I read the DACA thing, it was about pettifoggery on the process followed not being according to Hoyle. We do want judges who follow the laws, and - unless we want a precedent where every change of Administration gets to do the ol' switcheroo using whatever process they like? - to me it looks like they did. It'd have been great to have been able to say, "DACA was created illegally but dismantled by the book, so it can't come back." But no, the dismantling was not by the book, and that's what it went sideways. Much as I'd like DACA gone, I'd like it gone for good.

The decision did not create a precedent protecting DACA - it's as illegal now as it always has been. The task for the Administration is to up their process game and do it again.

It creates incentive for outgoing administrations to make patently unlawful orders that incoming administrations must uphold until some asinine bureaucratic process is followed. That's just dumb - in my opinion.

As Justice Thomas said:

quote:

Perhaps even more unfortunately, the majority’s holding creates perverse incentives, particularly for outgoing administrations. Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court. In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
Maybe if a court this conservative disagrees with you than you are wrong?

Please provide some evidence to back up this assertion that the Robert's Supreme Court is conservative.

I'll wait....

My view of court behavior is the right still hold classic judicial review. Under this model advancing a political agenda is not really thought about. That's why Republican appointees often break with right of center thought. The left justices never break with the lefts agenda because they don't follow traditional review. They are there to advance an agenda. Today's court has to much power because that power was willingly given up by Congress. Getting life time appointees to do their dirty work that might get them kick out. The court is happy. Congress is happy so they can do what they do best. Line their pockets and present the appearance that they are working for the American people.

Yes, that is my point. To get appointed, they by tilt their opinions and statements to match whoever the president is at the time. Once on the SCOTUS, they can vote/write how they actually think, which may be not be how they presented themselves previously. We've seen this before.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
More likely when they've reached the pinnacle of their profession, and are appointed for life, they feel no need to conform their decisions to the politics of the people who put them in that position.

There's not supposed to give a damn about the "politics" of any person. They're supposed to interpret the law and Constitution (which may be your point?)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,

Think about the LBGT civil rights decision from a different perspective:

The majority opinion is that the ban on discrimination based on sex applies to anything you would allow a man to do and not allow a woman to do and vice versa. If a man can have a relationship with a woman, you must allow a woman to have a relationship with a woman or you are discriminating against her because she's a woman. If a man wants to wear women's clothes and "identify" as a woman, you have to let him because you allow women to wear women's clothes.

The plain meaning of the text that says you cannot discriminate based on sex taken to the extreme, even through we know the "originalist" position is that Congress did not intend to include LBGT civil rights in the legislation when it was written. So the true conservative position should be to kick it back to Congress and let them legislate these protections.

But think about taking this reasoning to the extreme. If you identify as another race, even if you are not, you are entitled to all the protections for that race, because men who are not biologically women can get the protections for women, SOLEY based on how they "identify", not based on what they ARE. Therefore there is no objective standard for what defines a person's sex, race, etc. only their self identification.

Identifying as a different race will be rejected as absurd by leftist judges in lower courts, but I see no logical difference between self-identification for one's sex vs. one's race, and conservative judges may rule that self-identified race is just as good as self-identified sex or orientation. This will result in appeals and create a conflict between various circuits that will again have to be resolved by SCOTUS.

This sounds sort of like a trojan horse to me. A ruling so based on subjectivity that it has the potential to make all designations of biological characteristics subjective, potentially turning the entire concept upside down and dismantling the entire system of sex and race based "social justice".

Perhaps this is the plan, perhaps they just swayed to the left and had to find an excuse for it. But I will wait and see the first person to self-identify as another race and expect the same treatment as that race in hiring, promotion, etc. and see how the lower courts decide it. The precedent is that biology and genetics don't matter, and I'm sure at least one judge will be bound to uphold the precedent in this manner.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,