U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,704
Mrs. Clarence Thomas is a hardcore Trump supporter who trades in extreme partisanship and shameless conspiracy theories, so it is not surprising that Team Thomas would be honored to participate and give the oath to Barrett. Finally, an addition to Thomas' anti-LGBTQ bloc! Hopefully Barrett won't be offended like that prude Anita Hill when he wants to tell her all about how he found a pubic hair in his coke.
 
Last edited:

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,743
Quick question.

Does does getting rid of the legislatively created ACA and non-discrimination statutes that tell businesses, hospitals, and other entities that serve the general public they can't discriminate on the basis of LGBTQ status "judicial restraint"? That word is becoming meaningless, especially when people who use it only use when it comes to the more "controversial" civil rights cases but don't pay attention when the same judges who are lauded for judicial restraint by those with selective reading don't practice such things in other kinds of cases....watch when there are laws passed by a Dem Congress....let's see how restrained Barrett is. I refuse to call her ACB because she quite frankly isn't badass or cool enough to have a nickname. Also, I'm from New Orleans, and she validates every fear I have of the New Orleans Catholic School education system. All of my friends back home say the same thing.
Declaring a statute void is part of judicial review. It’s only activism if there is nothing in law or constitution that would actually justify it. There is a legislative remedy for the ACA case- making the penalty more than zero. Very simple and easy. So the Supreme Court isn’t going to strike down the whole law when they know democrats will make the penalty thousands of dollars.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,929
Thank you for the simplistic answer but people will still call it judicial activism even when the author(a) of such decisions find backing for such decisions in the Constitution. Every Court decision has found backing in the Constitution as well as the dissents.
 

once_upon

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,424
I got an email today from NE Deb Fischer thanking me for my letter of concern over Amy Coney Barrett''s confirmation. That i would be pleased that Ms Fischer took quick action to confirm a very qualified judge to the SCOTUS. Once again it proves neither she or her staff read my concerns.

I'm so ticked that I sent another email, that read in part:

I was so "pleased" to get your "thoughful" response to your vote on SCOTUS. If you couldn't discern there is a great deal of sarcasm in my statement.

Neither you or your office staff read my emails as your responses never address my concerns.

Unfortunately I live in Nebraska where neither my Senator or House Representatives are anymore that Trump yes men.


Wanna bet on the response I get? In part I'm sure it will be "we know Nebraskans like yourself approve of our support to the values held by your neighbors in Nebraska"
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,794
Just because it's not being covered on the national news doesn't mean nothing is happening.

I'm not saying there is no advocacy or activism. I'm saying MSM coverage helps put pressure on the opposition (usually Republicans). Democrats still fight, introduce bills and sign reform laws, I'm not aware of Republicans still being for change. They seem to have settled back into their routine of pretending America doesn't have a problem with racism.


In other news: in his opinion on opposing extending the deadline in Wisconsin, Kavanaugh cited Vermont as a state that had not made changes to their election rules. They did and now the Vermong Secretary of State has asked that the opinion be corrected. Awkward. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/vermont-kavanaugh-voting/index.html
 

Polaris

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,216
Biden is going to win the election. Its not close enough for courts change it.

Is everything going to be sunshine and roses then? Hardly. But Trump will leave office and Biden will be sworn in January 20, 2021.

I shall, again, leave the fretting to others.

I don't think Trump will take a loss lying down. I think he'll do whatever he can to sow doubt about the voting process and try to shove it to the courts. The last 4 years have shown that Trump and his enablers are underestimated, if anything.
 

VALuvsMKwan

Wandering Goy
Messages
7,298
I'm not saying there is no advocacy or activism. I'm saying MSM coverage helps put pressure on the opposition (usually Republicans). Democrats still fight, introduce bills and sign reform laws, I'm not aware of Republicans still being for change. They seem to have settled back into their routine of pretending America doesn't have a problem with racism.


In other news: in his opinion on opposing extending the deadline in Wisconsin, Kavanaugh cited Vermont as a state that had not made changes to their election rules. They did and now the Vermong Secretary of State has asked that the opinion be corrected. Awkward. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/vermont-kavanaugh-voting/index.html
But did you know he likes beer?
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,704
Yet the sky is falling because Barrett appeared with the President. Oh my!
I realize this stuff has become business as usual since 2016, but it's not that she appeared with the President. It's because she appeared with the President at the White House so he could use it for political purposes and she went along with it. There is a reason the other justices weren't there and I'm betting it's because they at least have basic respect for boundaries and an awareness of conflicts of interest and appearances.

The constant insistence to blur these lines is what has brought us things like lobbyists writing legislation, etc. Always pushing the boundaries and level of acceptability further and further. People who don't support this want to see Barrett or any other justice take the oath at the SC not at the White House followed with an appearance in political ads the week before a major election.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,444
There is a meme on FB saying to wear pearls on Nov. 3 to honor RBG. Pass it on.....

I don't go anywhere, but if I do Tuesday, I made a note to wear my (fake) pearl earrings anyway.
 

AnnM

Well-Known Member
Messages
632
There is a meme on FB saying to wear pearls on Nov. 3 to honor RBG. Pass it on.....

I don't go anywhere, but if I do Tuesday, I made a note to wear my (fake) pearl earrings anyway.

The wearing of pearls was actually first started as a show of support for Kamala Harris by Black sororities, particularly Alpha Kappa Alpha, which she's a member of. The sentiment somehow morphed into a way to honor RBG, but I think it's important to acknowledge to roots of the movement. I hope you will still wear your pearls!

 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,636
New from SCOTUS: there are limits to qualified immunity, and they also vacated a 5th Circuit decision that held a BLM organizer could be sued by a cop who got injured at that protest. Thomas dissented from both decisions, what a shock.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,929
Whatever the justices say is constitutional and final not because they’re right but they’re right because they’re final. Every justice no matter where they stand politically think they are finding constitutionality or not. It goes both ways. They think about the constitution and constitutional law and case law and history on a level most people don’t.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
57,907
Thank the Goddess. Even the Trumpests who thought everything Obama had to go have come to realize they did not want to lose health care. Now, hopefully Biden and the Congress can put partisanship on this one thing aside and make it better

Not as long as Mitch is in charge of the Senate will anything go through Congress strengthening the ACA.

However there is a great deal Biden can and will do from the executive branch to strengthen the administration of the ACA which Trump has done everything to undermine.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,929
I also think timing is important too. In a middle of a true *********, where people really need health coverage right now, dismantling ACA could be disastrous. I'm not saying the Justices have thought about that in their decisions, but it's just the timing is playing out in a way. Of course, it could all be dismantled as we don't know what the opinion will be until summer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information