Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

The US Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For those of you who have been following the recent decisions of the US supreme court, I thought it might be nice to have a topic where people could vent, post questions, or share concerns. I, fo

Based America Glad to see you are finally fixing your laws so they match the constitution. Maybe Biden should have thought twice about being racist to Clarence Thomas in the past.

Tell us more about how the Kulaks deserved it.  And tell us who is currently trying to restrict ownership of guns to minorities today.

Posted Images

24 minutes ago, Anathema said:

People were posting reasonable and respectful points of view which you responded to insulting language and ad hominem, and then declared you didn't need to listen to them.

 

Besides, How can you like Nixon and not like Trump? They both got impeached.

never said I liked Nixon but I respect what he did, such as creating the EPA and the Endangered Species Act and actually trying to treat drug addiction(Before it got turned into the war on drugs anyways)what on earth did Trump accomplish by comparison?

Also I strongly disagree that trying to downplay how bad Trump was is reasonable. Don't really see how me disagreeing with that instantly equates to ad-hominem or insulting language.

Not all opponents are worth debating, like if someone says that climate change is a myth it does not matter how respectfully you phrase that, it's still factually incorrect and therefore not worth engaging with.

When it comes to me watching political debates, i'm not focused on politeness, i'm focusing on the things actually being said. 

Maybe it's better if I don't post in this thread anymore. I go on this site to enjoy myself, not to argue and I think i've said quite enough on this thread.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment

I especially liked Reagan for selling crack in the inner cities to fund terrorism, along with everything else he did to try and end the LGBT menace before they started by no-selling aids as a fairy tale because The Throat Goat told him to. I believe that was the day Ronald Reagan INVENTED bootstraps, and by God almighty did he pull them like medical funding.

 

Sorry what does absolutely any of this childish hullabaloo have to do with TVGuy's initial post? I remember not INSTANTLY nuking this thread when he posted it, because thank god the man is an actually intelligent human being and brought up some fantastic points of thought, and I wanted to see where it went. It was actually non-inflammatory and education based. I come back here now and its just a 2016 election thread all over again. Need I remind you all, that thread used to be a thing and several people got banned. Hint hint. At least one of you is simultaneously fueling the fire and getting baited. PERHAPS ya'll should get back on track.

Link to comment

Personally, I'm thrilled with the Bruen ruling.   Perhaps now we can finally get people to obey DC v. Heller, and undo the systemic racism in American gun law.

Did you know that Governor Reagan, banned open carry in California  in 1967 after a peaceful protest by the black panthers that was protesting police brutality?    The legislature did not like one bit that the Panthers were following police around to prevent them from unlawfully harassing innocent black men and women.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, KozmoFox said:

Sorry what does absolutely any of this childish hullabaloo have to do with TVGuy's initial post? I remember not INSTANTLY nuking this thread when he posted it, because thank god the man is an actually intelligent human being and brought up some fantastic points of thought, and I wanted to see where it went. It was actually non-inflammatory and education based. I come back here now and its just a 2016 election thread all over again. Need I remind you all, that thread used to be a thing and several people got banned. Hint hint. At least one of you is simultaneously fueling the fire and getting baited. PERHAPS ya'll should get back on track.

Thank you... I was actually just stopping by to report this thread and ask if it could be locked as it has gone so far off topic.

What I was hoping for was was an intelligent discussion regarding the decisions issued by this new Supreme court and to allow people to voice their concerns about it.  It seems like we have got pretty far away from the topic at this point.

I just want to say that I, personally, am very concerned about this court and what it may do to the country.  It isn't so much about their decisions aligning or not aligning with my ideology, but the legal reasoning behind these decisions.  There have been plenty of supreme court decisions I have disagreed with in the past, such as Citizens United and Heller, but at least in these cases the court has attempted to apply a consistent method of legal reasoning and I can see how they arrived at their decisions following that reasoning.

What has me so concerned with this court is that they are apparently willing to throw out the previously established methodology for logical, legal reasoning, adopting an entirely new means of legal reasoning that is being called "textual historical" reasoning.  But, besides the fact that US courts have never interpreted the law or the US constitution this way, they aren't even applying this new legal reasoning consistently.

In Dobbs, the court justified its ruling based on this textual historical legal reasoning.  But, then in the NY Rifle and Pistol association ruling the court ignored textual historical reasoning, instead applying traditional legal reasoning that recognizes the penumbra of rights established by the constitution, but expanded that penumbra of rights significantly, following the same reasoning that was used in Roe v. Wade, but taking it up to the next level.  In expanding this penumbra of rights, the court restricted states' abilities to pass laws when there is federal precedent.  Then in West Virginia v. EPA the court used yet another path of legal reasoning, a so called federalist approach, to expand state's ability to overrule federal precedent.

This court has been completely inconsistent in the legal reasoning they apply to reach their decisions.  Instead, they are only consistent in that their decisions follow a conservative ideology.  Lower courts are supposed to follow the legal  reasoning established by the Supreme Court, but when the Supreme Court itself doesn't apply consistent legal reasoning, then how are lower courts supposed to act?  And how are any of us supposed to have faith in the legal system when the law is now being interpreted in ways that seem completely arbitrary.

I wouldn't every say the legal system or the courts in this country have ever been perfect, far from it.  But we have always endeavored towards a system with consistent legal reasoning so that, hopefully, no matter who you are the law would apply equally to everyone everywhere.  I know that's never been the way it is, but that was at least what we were trying for.  But now, with this inconsistent legal reasoning the Supreme Court is using, it is like we aren't even trying anymore.  We have given up and decided cases should just be decided based on the ideology of the judge hearing the case, not any kind of logical legal reasoning.

Yes, I know if you are conservative it must feel good to have the court ruling your way all the time.  You are constantly winning in this court.  But, the way that you are winning, I think, should be quite concerning.  I'm afraid of what this may be opening the door to in the future.

Link to comment
On 7/24/2022 at 2:10 AM, LifeIsStrange said:

I see no reason why dems should listen to anyone that does not agree with them when many on the opposing side unironically believe in garbage conspiracy theories(e.g. all LGBTQ folks being "Groomers").

 

Like literally, fuck civility and the free exchange and expression of ideas, these people literally want us dangling from hangman's nooses on Capitol Hill. They are out for our blood. We need to combat them at every turn. 

3 hours ago, Anathema said:

Personally, I'm thrilled with the Bruen ruling.   Perhaps now we can finally get people to obey DC v. Heller, and undo the systemic racism in American gun law.

Did you know that Governor Reagan, banned open carry in California  in 1967 after a peaceful protest by the black panthers that was protesting police brutality?    The legislature did not like one bit that the Panthers were following police around to prevent them from unlawfully harassing innocent black men and women.

Conservatives are all "Cum n' geddit, bug gubmint" until black and trans people start arming themselves to protect against trigger happy rightists with protagonist syndrome, and then they're like "Tread all over these icky minorities, daddy Washington!" 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Ms. Tito said:

Conservatives are all "Cum n' geddit, bug gubmint" until black and trans people start arming themselves to protect against trigger happy rightists with protagonist syndrome, and then they're like "Tread all over these icky minorities, daddy Washington!" 

Tell us more about how the Kulaks deserved it.  And tell us who is currently trying to restrict ownership of guns to minorities today.

Edited by Anathema (see edit history)
Link to comment

In regards to the Supreme Court, I think that, at the very least, term limits, an expansion, and a mandatory retirement age are a must. At most, abolish the Court completely and reform our election system to be more in line with direct Swiss-style democracy.

 

As it stands now, the Court is a horribly flawed institution. 9 members in a two-party system just doesn't work, unless the ninth member is always a third-party.

 

Though, to be candid, the political divide in this country isn't as great as most think. The majority of people are progressive-minded and left-aligned, it's just that conservatism has been the status quo since time immemorial in the US; and that vocal minority is frightened of finally losing their position of power.

Link to comment
On 6/24/2022 at 2:44 PM, TVGuy said:

For those of you who have been following the recent decisions of the US supreme court, I thought it might be nice to have a topic where people could vent, post questions, or share concerns.

I, for one, am fearful that this court could herald nothing short of the collapse of the United States.  This is based on how the court may rule in West Virginia v. EPA.

If you don't follow US politics, or are unaware of what is going on or how things work, here is a basic rundown of whats been happening and where we are at right now:

The US has three branches of government- There is the executive branch, which is the president and agencies under control of the president, the legislative branch which is made up of the house and senate, or collectively known as congress, and the judicial branch, which is our system of courts which, at the top, is the US supreme court.

It is the role of congress to legislate, to come up with possible new laws.  Both the Senate and the House have to pass a possible new law, or bill, to send it to the executive branch, where the president can sign it into law, or veto it.  It is up to the courts to interpret the laws, and to decide if a law is constitutional if it is challenged.  Ultimately, if a case is controversial, it could make its way to the Supreme Court, which has the ultimate authority to interpret the law behind the case, and to apply constitutional tests to any laws.  The Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws that it sees as unconstitutional.

There are nine justices who sit on the Supreme Court and decide cases.  These justices are appointed by the President of the United States when there is an opening on the court.  The appointment is a lifetime appointment.  A justice must choose to step down, or die, in order to create a vacancy.

The legal reasoning for deciding cases is supposed to be consistent, with the court looking at how prior cases were decided and applying the same kind of logical reasoning to newer cases.  Lower courts try to follow the reasoning of the Supreme Court so that justice is, ideally, applied consistently.

For most of recent history, the court has been evenly divided politically.  With four more liberal justices, four conservative justices, and swing justice in between.  However, over the past several years, conservatives have worked to put more conservative justices on the court.  In 2016 the conservative senate refused to follow their constitutional duty to hold a confirmation hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee, blocking Obama from nominating a justice to the supreme court and keeping that position open until Trump could nominate a more conservative justice.  Ultimately, Trump was able to appoint another two justices to the court, meaning that of the nine total justices, three of them were appointed by Trump, which moved the political leaning of the court heavily towards conservatives.

*****

We are now seeing the results of the first cases to decided by this new conservative court, and the results are, at least for me, extremely concerning.

Most recently, the court has overturned the previous Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that established a right to an abortion.  It is now possible in some states for a child to be raped and forced to carry her rapist's baby.  Further, that rapist, in some states, may be entitled to parental rights.

The court also struck down an over 100 year old gun law, limiting the kinds of restrictions states can place on guns.  So far in the US we have had 281 mass shootings this year, which we are only 172 days into.  Almost 100 more mass shootings than there have been days in the year.  But, the court has now severely restricted the ability of states to pass laws to try and limit these shootings.

Another highly concerning recent decision has to do with Miranda rights.  Miranda rights are the name given to the rights an individual has in the US when they are accused of a crime.  Things like the right to an attorney, and the right not to answer questions without legal representation.  However, the Supreme Court has now ruled that you aren't entitled to any kind of recourse if your Miranda rights are violated.  Yes, you still have your Miranda rights, but if they are violated you can't sue, or do anything about it.

In yet another case the court ruled that the state had to provide public money for private religious education.  This is the first time in the history of the United States that public funds must be given to support religious institutions.

Justice Thomas, in the court's opinion that struck down Roe v. Wade, also wrote that there are other cases in the past that the Supreme Court likely decided incorrectly, and should be considered to be overturned.  These decisions include the ones that established the right to same-sex marriage, the right of consenting adults to be able to have whatever kind of intimate relationships they want in private (premarital sex, for example, could be outlawed), the legality of birth control, and the definition of obscenity(porn and omo could be made illegal).

******

At the beginning of my post I expressed specific concern over the case of West Virginia v. the EPA.  In this case, the State of West Virginia is challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate air pollution.   The legal grounds for this challenge is that West Virginia doesn't believe the EPA has the constitutional authority to regulate air pollution. 

Throughout the history of the United States congress has delegated authority to various agencies, many of which are someone independent. For example, the IRS which collects taxes.  This case argues that congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to delegate power to separate agencies.

The court could decide that yes, congress does have this authority, and then nothing would change.  However, the conservative interpretation of the constitution suggests that this isn't the case, or the way conservative justices would likely rule.  They could issue a narrow opinion, that only deals with this specific case, but they could also rule that congress doesn't have the authority to delegate any powers.

If the later ruling does come to pass, than any agency established by congress would be powerless.  As these various agencies are essential how the government is able to do any work, it would essentially be the collapse of the US as a country.  The IRS would be powerless to collect taxes, the Justice department would have no authority, so no federal law enforcement of any kind. No CDC, no national health agencies, no department of education, no medicare, no social security.  This would even git rid of the federal reserve, which issues our currency, so the US dollar would be no more.

I know this is off-topic subforum but I imagine you after the nut clarity typing all of this.

Anyway:

For one part, I get the Dobbs v. Jackson doctrinary thing, also, this is the problem of the common law system and don't having a especific law code like European System.

I hope a worldwide pro-choice in a future, not for stopping poverty, but for having womens making their own choice or having or not and to stop bad parenting. I actually had a classmate who treat to kill himself just because is mother constantly repeat she wish to never have it in first place. (He was also pro-choice by the way), it sucks to see this s**t happening.

Link to comment

We have never seen the far right this emboldened everywhere around the world since Trump came along, and the supreme courts actions is just an extension of that really.

If you think that's a good thing then well good luck it never seemed to end well in the past! Maybe it'll be a softer gentler kind of fascism this time lol.

If you're white, straight and male and go to church and don't have any weird fetishes etc you'll be fine, anyone else potentially screwed.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Lisk said:

But according to the Antifa thread nazis (and, by extention, fascists - anyone who can tell the difference without Google gets a cookie, by the way) are pretty cool guys - unlike those evil GOPniks. How come?

What in the world does this have to do with the Supreme Court?  You posted this less than 24 hours after @KozmoFox issued a warning that this thread needs to get back on track and remain respectful.  So you either intentionally ignored that warning, didn't even bother to read the thread you were replying to, or decided that the warning didn't apply to you because you are somehow special.

Link to comment
On 7/25/2022 at 1:38 PM, LifeIsStrange said:

"Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. They are chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where migrants were temporarily housed, separated by sex and age.

At the height of the controversy over Trump’s zero-tolerance policy at the border, photos that circulated online of children in the enclosures generated great anger. But those photos — by The Associated Press — were taken in 2014 and depicted some of the thousands of unaccompanied children held by President Barack Obama."

Did you even read that link before you posted it?

Link to comment

stay-down-warning.gif

We're gonna try this one more time. We're gonna play like a game of forum roulette. It will be fun.

Here's the rules to the game: You have one more chance, as a collective, to stay on topic instead of picking fights I've already told you to stop having. Next time I lock the thread. The roulette part of the game is whomever makes me lock it is getting temp banned. Stay on topic please. Next reds vs the blues post I see nukes that person, and don't be coy or passive aggressive, not only am I not an idiot, I also refuse to rules lawyer on this matter. I know when you're being a vagueposting little gremlin, and it still counts.

Also, please stop reporting eachother en masse. Half of you are doing it, half my reports are about this thread, I don't need them anymore, I know it exists, and on top of the pile of extra notifications, the fact that I'm the middle person that can SEE you all reporting eachother just makes ya'll look silly.

 

On a positive note, I love the actual information brought to this thread. As an AFAB from another country I do not necessarily understand the proceedings that lead to what is happening over the border. Friends do their best to explain it, but honest to god this is one of the most informative threads the site has had, and the topic is an incredibly important one to discuss and I feel transcends the typical boundaries of the usual "political conversation," thus my hesitation to outright lock this topic. I WANT this to be talked about, don't make it hard.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, KozmoFox said:

On a positive note, I love the actual information brought to this thread. As an AFAB from another country I do not necessarily understand the proceedings that lead to what is happening over the border. Friends do their best to explain it, but honest to god this is one of the most informative threads the site has had, and the topic is an incredibly important one to discuss and I feel transcends the typical boundaries of the usual "political conversation," thus my hesitation to outright lock this topic. I WANT this to be talked about, don't make it hard.

I couldn't agree more, it is an important issue.

I only read some of the first posts and especially the first explanation from @TVGuy was very helpful since I'm not from the US and don't have a deeper understanding of the US law system. However I also think that I'm not really qualified (not sure if thats the fitting word to be honest) to say anything on that matter as an "outsider" so to speak.

Link to comment

To me, it seems like this supreme court just decides whatever they personally want to see, and uses whatever legal reasoning they can find after the fact to justify their decision, instead of using legal reasoning with a consistent interpretation as the basis to find the most just decision. It's working the wrong way around.

Not that it is a good institution when it's working the right way, but it least it wasn't destroying human rights so that's something.

Link to comment
On 7/25/2022 at 4:47 PM, Anathema said:

Personally, I'm thrilled with the Bruen ruling.   Perhaps now we can finally get people to obey DC v. Heller, and undo the systemic racism in American gun law.

Did you know that Governor Reagan, banned open carry in California  in 1967 after a peaceful protest by the black panthers that was protesting police brutality?    The legislature did not like one bit that the Panthers were following police around to prevent them from unlawfully harassing innocent black men and women.

It was definitely the only major ruling I liked.  Blue state governors are trying to disarm their people when there's crazed right wingers who would love to put a bullet in my partner's head for being trans, who also often live in states that aren't fighting for their right to surrender their weapons.

Also helps us deal with the results of DeShaney v Winnebago that lets cops pull an Uvalde and be giant wusses in the face of the slightest modicum of danger.

2 hours ago, TheGreatNobody said:

To me, it seems like this supreme court just decides whatever they personally want to see, and uses whatever legal reasoning they can find after the fact to justify their decision, instead of using legal reasoning with a consistent interpretation as the basis to find the most just decision

Bingo.  It's just a super-legislature.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Theonlysaneperson said:

I think it's awesome. Fewer killed babies. Big W for America. Hope others follow suit.

 

They will if the people who support abortion keep killing their kids and the people who don't keep having more. Basic maths here, folks!

Congratulations!  You win the award for the single most ignorant thing I've read on the internet this past week.  It was a tough competition, but your absolute and total inability to even begin to try to understand the legal issues or concerns here, or why an abortion might be medically necessary, puts you over the top.  You are the winner.

First, this thread wasn't specifically about abortion, but about how the US Supreme Court is using alternating legal reasoning to reach conclusions that align ideologically with conservative values, but creates inconsistent legal interpretations.  If you read back on this thread, you will see that has been discussed in detail, and, further, was the original point of this discussion. 

Secondly, on the topic of abortion, you seem completely blind to reality.  Very few people are pro-abortion because they want to kill babies.  But, most people in the US (according to polls at least) recognize there are horrible circumstances in which abortions may be the least terrible choice. 

For example, the recent case that made headlines where a 10 year old girl was raped- Are you really going to argue she should be forced to carry her rapists baby?  Technically, she broke the law in her state by traveling to get an abortion.  If she is identified, she could be prosecuted as a criminal at 10 years old because she was raped by her uncle.  To me, that is wrong.  It is a horrible situation, but labeling her a criminal doesn't improve anything.

There is also the matter of risk to a mother's life.  Now, you may say that these abortion bans to provide an exception for the life of the mother.  But, they don't provide exceptions for the health of the mother.  Only if the mother is certain to die.  If her chance of dying is only 50/50, the abortion is still illegal.  So, imagine a single mother who already has children who are dependent on her.  She is facing a potential high-risk pregnancy.  Again, it is a terrible situation, but I can see how in such a situation where she might risk terminating the pregnancy rather than turning her current children into orphans.

Also, abortion is health care.  Take for example ectopic pregnancies.  In no cases is an ectopic pregnancy every viable.  However, with abortion bans in many states, that ectopic pregnancy can not legally be terminated until it threatens the mother's life.  What would be a relatively minor and safe procedure can now not legally be done, the mother must wait until she is dying to legally deal with it, or possibly break the law to travel to where the procedure can be done.

There are also gray areas, like miscarriages.  If it can be shown the mother did something that may have contributed to her risk for miscarriage, she could possibly be criminally prosecuted if she looses the baby.

Wide reaching abortion bans also have an effect on the kind of reproductive treatment that is available.  If doctors can not train to do abortions in these states, the states will not have doctors who are knowledgeable about how to do an abortion when the mother's life is in danger, how to handle a case where the baby dies in utero, or how to clear the uterus after a miscarriage.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...