All Things SCOTUS

PraetorianND

New member
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
190
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/peF-ae2AINU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think the term you’re looking for is “an unrelenting stream of immigration.”

But he hasn’t always felt this way -

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Icul1NlUhCM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
If I am a wanna-be authoritarian/tyrant, I would first want to ascribe all the causes of a populace's discontents and anger on particular opponents. Then I would immunize that population against sources that may highlight the laws I break. That way I could increase my power within a system that checks and balances and have supporters disparage the sources applying those laws.

I post the DHS IG's report on the wall-building later. But what does he know? That system is set up by Congress as a check on uses of power and for whistle-blowing.

#FourMoreYears
 
Last edited:

PraetorianND

New member
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
190
If I am a wanna-be authoritarian/tyrant, I would first want to ascribe all the causes of a populace's discontents and anger on particular opponents.

And who do you think is doing that, and to whom? Open your eyes.

Give me one large organization/power base that doesn't blame Trump for all the world's ills aside from military and police (who are also vilified on a daily basis).

Hates Trump -
1. Hollywood
2. Banks
3. Large Corporations
4. Academia
5. International Organizations
6. News Media
7. Sports Leagues

Perhaps the tyranny is actually not from the executive branch downward, but from these entities outward and upward. Give me ONE fortune 500 company that supports Trump. Nearly EVERY large newspapers’ editorial board publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last election. And who do you think wields the power in this country?

Have you EVER seen a positive or even neutral news article about Trump from any news outlet outside of Fox?

You thinking that Trump is the tyrant is laughable given that he was both impeached, and investigated for a net of 5 years.

I don't think you understand what a tyrant is. He's been on defense his entire presidency from attack after attack from all of these organizations. They are the tyrants...

In the modern English-language's usage of the word, a tyrant (derived from Ancient Greek τύραννος, tyrannos) is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their positions by resorting to oppressive means.[1][2] The original Greek term meant an absolute sovereign who came to power without constitutional right,[3] yet the word had a neutral connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods.[4] However, Greek philosopher Plato saw tyrannos as a negative word, and on account of the decisive influence of philosophy on politics, its negative connotations only increased, continuing into the Hellenistic period.

I would argue that these entities and the DNC have done this.
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
If I am a wanna-be authoritarian/tyrant, I would first want to ascribe all the causes of a populace's discontents and anger on particular opponents. Then I would immunize that population against sources that may highlight the laws I break. That way I could increase my power within a system that checks and balances and have supporters disparage the sources applying those laws.

I post the DHS IG's report on the wall-building later. But what does he know? That system is set up by Congress as a check on uses of power and for whistle-blowing.

#FourMoreYears

Congrats. You're the new leftist IE pinata, replacing GoIrish41 who's on the therapist's couch.

For shits and giggles, take a quick browse and try to determine which party is looking to seize control through government. Maybe even take a shot without anyone's help first:

Childcare
Education
Free speech
Automobiles
Banking/ financial services
Mortgages/ home ownership
HEALTHCARE
Retirement
Gun ownership

Trump wants to build a wall to help enforce our border security, which is our federal law and he can do, and you want paint him as Hitler. Fascinating. And obtuse.
 

PraetorianND

New member
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
190
Trump is trying to open the country and he's a tyrant. Meanwhile, Democrat governors are doing this -

Mandatory Requirements for All Gatherings


All persons planning to host or participate in a private gathering, as defined above, must comply with the following requirements. Local health jurisdictions may be more restrictive than this guidance. Refer to your local guidance for what is allowed in your area.

1. Attendance

Gatherings that include more than 3 households are prohibited. This includes everyone present, including hosts and guests. Remember, the smaller the number of people, the safer.
Keep the households that you interact with stable over time. By spending time with the same people, risk of transmission is reduced. Participating in multiple gatherings with different households or groups is strongly discouraged.
The host should collect names of all attendees and contact information in case contact tracing is needed later.

2. Gather Outdoors

Gatherings that occur outdoors are significantly safer than indoor gatherings. All gatherings must be held outside. Attendees may go inside to use restrooms as long as the restrooms are frequently sanitized.
Gatherings may occur in outdoor spaces that are covered by umbrellas, canopies, awnings, roofs, and other shade structures provided that at least three sides of the space (or 75%) are open to the outdoors.
A gathering of no more than three households is permitted in a public park or other outdoor space, even if unrelated gatherings of other groups up to three households are also occurring in the same park or other outdoor space. If multiple such gatherings are occurring, mixing between group gatherings is not allowed. Additionally, multiple gatherings of three households cannot be jointly organized or coordinated to occur in the same public park or other outdoor space at the same time – this would constitute a gathering exceeding the permitted size.

3. Don't Attend Gatherings If You Feel Sick or You Are in a High-Risk Group

Anyone with any COVID-19-like symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, chills, night sweats, sore throat, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, tiredness, muscle or body aches, headaches, confusion, or loss of sense of taste/smell), must stay home and not come into contact with anyone outside their household.
Anyone who develops COVID-19 within 48 hours after attending a gathering should notify the other attendees as soon as possible regarding the potential exposure.
People at higher risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 (such as older adults and people with chronic medical conditions) are strongly urged not to attend any gatherings.

4. Practice Physical Distancing and Hand Hygiene at Gatherings

For any gatherings permitted under this guidance, the space must be large enough so that everyone at a gathering can maintain at least a 6-foot physical distance from others (not including their own household) at all times.
Seating must provide at least 6 feet of distance (in all directions—front-to-back and side-to-side) between different households.
Everyone at a gathering should frequently wash their hands with soap and water, or use hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available. A place to wash hands or hand sanitizer must be available for participants to use.
Shared items should not be used during a gathering. As much as possible, any food or beverages at outdoor gatherings must be in single-serve disposable containers. If providing single-serve containers is not possible, food and beverages must be served by a person who washes or sanitizes their hands frequently, and wears a face covering. Self-serve items from communal containers should not be used.

5. Wear a Face Covering to Keep COVID-19 from Spreading

When gathering, face coverings must be worn in accordance with the CDPH Guidance on the Use of Face Coverings (PDF), unless an exemption is applicable.
People at gatherings may remove their face coverings briefly to eat or drink as long as they stay at least 6 feet away from everyone outside their own household, and put their face covering back on as soon as they are done with the activity.
Face coverings can also be removed to meet urgent medical needs (for example, to use an asthma inhaler, take medication, or if feeling light-headed).

6. Keep it short

Gatherings should be two hours or less. The longer the duration, the risk of transmission increases.

7. Rules for Singing, Chanting, and Shouting at Outdoor Gatherings

Singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission because these activities increase the release of respiratory droplets and fine aerosols into the air. Because of this, singing, chanting, and shouting are strongly discouraged, but if they occur, the following rules and recommendations apply:
All people who are singing or chanting should wear a face covering at all times while singing or chanting, including anyone who is leading a song or chant. Because these activities pose a very high risk of COVID-19 transmission, face coverings are essential to reduce the spread of respiratory droplets and fine aerosols;
People who are singing, shouting, chanting, or exercising are strongly encouraged to maintain physical distancing beyond 6 feet to further reduce risk.
People who are singing or chanting are strongly encouraged to do so quietly (at or below the volume of a normal speaking voice).
Instrumental music is allowed as long as the musicians maintain at least 6-foot physical distancing. Musicians must be from one of the three households. Playing of wind instruments (any instrument played by the mouth, such as a trumpet or clarinet) is strongly discouraged.

We live in clown world.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Congrats. You're the new leftist IE pinata, replacing GoIrish41 who's on the therapist's couch.

For shits and giggles, take a quick browse and try to determine which party is looking to seize control through government. Maybe even take a shot without anyone's help first:

Childcare
Education
Free speech
Automobiles
Banking/ financial services
Mortgages/ home ownership
HEALTHCARE
Retirement
Gun ownership

Trump wants to build a wall to help enforce our border security, which is our federal law and he can do, and you want paint him as Hitler. Fascinating. And obtuse.

Obama was the deporter in chief. Just about every major Dem today was pro-wall/border until Trump ran on building a wall. Now it's open borders and xenophobia. MSM screwed up a few times using pictures from Obama's tenure when trashing Trump about family separation.

All those conveniently forgetting the above, like Legacy, have a sickness lol...
 

PraetorianND

New member
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
190
Obama was the deporter in chief. Just about every major Dem today was pro-wall/border until Trump ran on building a wall. Now it's open borders and xenophobia. MSM screwed up a few times using pictures from Obama's tenure when trashing Trump about family separation.

All those conveniently forgetting the above, like Legacy, have a sickness lol...

Obama also waged a shit load of war, rampaging all across the Middle East. No biggie though.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Congrats. You're the new leftist IE pinata, replacing GoIrish41 who's on the therapist's couch.

For shits and giggles, take a quick browse and try to determine which party is looking to seize control through government. Maybe even take a shot without anyone's help first:

Childcare
Education
Free speech
Automobiles
Banking/ financial services
Mortgages/ home ownership
HEALTHCARE
Retirement
Gun ownership

Trump wants to build a wall to help enforce our border security, which is our federal law and he can do, and you want paint him as Hitler. Fascinating. And obtuse.

Arahop is the new GI41.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,075
Obama was the deporter in chief. Just about every major Dem today was pro-wall/border until Trump ran on building a wall. Now it's open borders and xenophobia. MSM screwed up a few times using pictures from Obama's tenure when trashing Trump about family separation.

All those conveniently forgetting the above, like Legacy, have a sickness lol...

Obama also waged a shit load of war, rampaging all across the Middle East. No biggie though.

Obama was a trained slick politician. Trump isn't.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I do not know if Coney Barrett was asked about affirmative action, but certainly Fr Hesburgh made his opinion known, leading to the recommendations of the Civil Rights Commission he headed.

From a letter to Pres Jimmy Carter when the case of The Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke. came before SCOTUS :
In most instances, the establishment of fair goals for minority admissions and a reasonable adjustment in stcindards of admission to achieve these qoah are oreferable to quotdS. Thus, I suggest the following principles be part of the Administration's position:

l. A 111.1jor educ..itional need in establishiny admissions policies
is to achieve a diversity within the student body and wide
opportunity for leadership training, so thdt a broader based
lc..irniny cnvironn~nt will be available to all students and
fdcul ty;

2. Giving consideration to an applicant's race is relevant to
this diversity, as are such matters as grades, test scores,
economic <Jnd soci<Jl back9round, and lc<Jdership experience;

3. The purpose of affinnative action programs for university
admissions is not to discriminate against lllcljority applicants,
but to achieve the diversity of student body necessary to
increase the quality and equality of teaching and learning
for all students and to provide a diverse group of future
leaders for this country;

4. Preferential admission programs, therefore, not only have a
rational relationship to a legitimate governmental objective,
but serve what the courts have called "a compelling state
interestM (as recognized in Bakke by the Supreme Court of
Ca 1 i forn i a);

5. If a school's educational goals, in reference to diversity
and to training for leadership, are to be reached, affirmative
action programs must vary from school to school and from
program to program, based upon circumstances, the heritage,
and the aspirations of each school;

6. It seems to me to follow thdt the method for accompl'1shin9 particular goals should be left in the broad discretion
of each school's authorities--they are in the best
position to judge the most effective means for serving their
school's vision and in this way serving "the compelling
state interest";

7. Quota systems should be used only when a school determines
that a quota method best fits its educational needs; thus
quota systems should remain as a less desirable option
available for admissions, but should probably be discussed.
In fact, I believe that goals arc almost always a better
option than quotas, provided that goals are seriously
established and frequently monitored by the institution
its el C;

8. The record seems to support the contention that the
University of California's decision to use a quota
system was a proper exercise of it~ discretion in fulfilling its educational needs. There is nothing in the
record to support the California Supreme Court's
conclusion that alternative methods could have been
used to serve the "compelling state interest" in
that case. If there is some suspicion that alternatives were avdilable, the case should be remanded
to consider further evidence.

The above is a short sulTllldry of the position set out in the brief of Columbia University,
Harvard University, Stanford University and The University of Pennsylvania as friends
of the court. The University of Notre Dame supported that brief; and I urge the
administration to adopt its rationale.

From a speech Hesburgh made:
The increased percentages of black
enrollments in professional schools, law, medicine, and business, are
spectacular, given past history. Again, education is the key to fUture
progress because better education means better jobs, more income,
better housing in better neighborhoods with better schools and so the
spiral moves upward.

It would be ironic if a law professor at Notre Dame was the deciding vote on the Harvard and Yale cases as well as ND's that Hesburgh was so emphatic about.
 
Last edited:

PraetorianND

New member
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
190
You don’t know if she was asked about this issue so you post a wall of irrelevant text that a hypothetical future situation which nobody has any idea about may or may not occur? Doesn’t sound ironic at all to me. Sounds like random musings from the mind of Legacy.

Her first name is Amy, not Coney
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,625
Reaction score
2,731
I will be curious to see if ACB gets some Dem votes, in a remotely sane world it should be 90+. Seems suicidal for a Senator in a non-wingnut state to vote nay on this nomination. Doug Jones pretty much has to vote for her right? I would think MI, VA, NM and MN wouldn't be far behind.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
I will be curious to see if ACB gets some Dem votes, in a remotely sane world it should be 90+. Seems suicidal for a Senator in a non-wingnut state to vote nay on this nomination. Doug Jones pretty much has to vote for her right? I would think MI, VA, NM and MN wouldn't be far behind.

Doug Jones is cooked and he knows it. He will probably vote no so that he can get a cushy gig as a lobbyist. Same thing happened to Heitkamp during Kavanaugh's hearing...down big in the polls. Might as well vote with the party since they are the ones who will get you a job after this.

Peters may vote yes since it looks like his race has tightened up. Not sure how many other vulnerable Dems are up for reelection this year.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="ht" dir="ltr">LOLOLOLOL <a href="https://t.co/oJ7QJP7dTo">pic.twitter.com/oJ7QJP7dTo</a></p>— Crypto Expat (@expat_crypto) <a href="https://twitter.com/expat_crypto/status/1316232363345666048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="ht" dir="ltr">LOLOLOLOL <a href="https://t.co/oJ7QJP7dTo">pic.twitter.com/oJ7QJP7dTo</a></p>— Crypto Expat (@expat_crypto) <a href="https://twitter.com/expat_crypto/status/1316232363345666048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Libs can't help themselves. The only way they'll keep the gay community in their corner is by inventing new things the gays should be offended by.

For the record, preference does not inherently represent some conscious choice like Hirono said. I prefer Coke to Pepsi. I dont think I made some weird choice to like Coke more, I happen to like the taste.

Again, Hirono is the single dumbest senator we have. She'd lose a spelling bee to Forrest Gump.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Libs can't help themselves. The only way they'll keep the gay community in their corner is by inventing new things the gays should be offended by.

For the record, preference does not inherently represent some conscious choice like Hirono said. I prefer Coke to Pepsi. I dont think I made some weird choice to like Coke more, I happen to like the taste.

Again, Hirono is the single dumbest senator we have. She'd lose a spelling bee to Forrest Gump.

I swear they have think tanks coming up with new victim classes every week, and new things to be offended and outraged about every day.

Clown show. Obviously by that vid, all the Dems are not reading their weekly updated book of offensive terminology.

Bag of hammers.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,075
Libs can't help themselves. The only way they'll keep the gay community in their corner is by inventing new things the gays should be offended by.

For the record, preference does not inherently represent some conscious choice like Hirono said. I prefer Coke to Pepsi. I dont think I made some weird choice to like Coke more, I happen to like the taste.

Again, Hirono is the single dumbest senator we have. She'd lose a spelling bee to Forrest Gump.

The answer to all of the questions we have about you!

Last day of hearings, right? Haven't had a chance to catch up. How'd our girl do? To all that may find my reference to ACB as "our girl", I apologize.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
The answer to all of the questions we have about you!

Last day of hearings, right? Haven't had a chance to catch up. How'd our girl do? To all that may find my reference to ACB as "our girl", I apologize.

I caught about half of it. She's (like I imagine most nominees are) very smart. I always think even more highly of smart people when they can explain things to people with limited/no background in their area of knowledge. She does that very well.

I thought she did a good job owning everyone. A few times they'd try trapping her but that wasn't effective and generally she'd just make them look foolish (I'm looking at you Klobuchar).

It was fun to see the despair and panic in the libs about how she approaches issues. They are terrified she is more "conservative" than Scalia.

I really wish they'd get rid of about 80% of that process. Ask a few questions about her career, stuff she's written, the occasional relevant personal question. But asking pointed hypothetical questions/going on a bizarre rant about old legislation should result in forfeiting your time. Duplicate questions shouldn't be tolerated either. It gets real old listening to almost every senator in the room be guilty of all of these things.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I do not know if Coney Barrett was asked about affirmative action, but certainly Fr Hesburgh made his opinion known, leading to the recommendations of the Civil Rights Commission he headed.

From a letter to Pres Jimmy Carter when the case of The Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke. came before SCOTUS :


From a speech Hesburgh made:


It would be ironic if a law professor at Notre Dame was the deciding vote on the Harvard and Yale cases as well as ND's that Hesburgh was so emphatic about.

Legacy how's your homework coming along little buddy? Making any progress on identifying which party is trying to take more control?
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
I caught about half of it. She's (like I imagine most nominees are) very smart. I always think even more highly of smart people when they can explain things to people with limited/no background in their area of knowledge. She does that very well.

I thought she did a good job owning everyone. A few times they'd try trapping her but that wasn't effective and generally she'd just make them look foolish (I'm looking at you Klobuchar).

It was fun to see the despair and panic in the libs about how she approaches issues. They are terrified she is more "conservative" than Scalia.

I really wish they'd get rid of about 80% of that process. Ask a few questions about her career, stuff she's written, the occasional relevant personal question. But asking pointed hypothetical questions/going on a bizarre rant about old legislation should result in forfeiting your time. Duplicate questions shouldn't be tolerated either. It gets real old listening to almost every senator in the room be guilty of all of these things.

Trying to look at RBG’s history of judgements & it looks like she never voted against her political leanings vs Scalia who did go against his personal leanings at least twice (both 1st Amendment cases where he sided w/ the right to burn flags despite being personally against it & where he sided w/ Hustler magazine for an offensive cartoon that he personally objected).

Justices Roberts & Gorsuch have both dissented in cases that would be considered “wins” for conservatives as well. In fact, Roberts was the deciding vote on ACA. For those concerned w/ Roe vs Wade being overturned you can rest easy. Even w/ ACB being confirmed, there would only be 3 votes in support of overturning it. No way Roberts, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would vote to overturn.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
Trying to look at RBG’s history of judgements & it looks like she never voted against her political leanings vs Scalia who did go against his personal leanings at least twice (both 1st Amendment cases where he sided w/ the right to burn flags despite being personally against it & where he sided w/ Hustler magazine for an offensive cartoon that he personally objected).

Justices Roberts & Gorsuch have both dissented in cases that would be considered “wins” for conservatives as well. In fact, Roberts was the deciding vote on ACA. For those concerned w/ Roe vs Wade being overturned you can rest easy. Even w/ ACB being confirmed, there would only be 3 votes in support of overturning it. No way Roberts, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would vote to overturn.

I believe scholarship has been done on the topic and the conservative justices are like 4x as likely to join the liberal justices as the liberal justices are to join the conservative ones. Thats not to say that liberal justices are inherently activists in judges robes, but does obliterate the idiotic assertion that republican nominated justices are somehow evil biased bigots.
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
The left is in absolute melt down mode that Feinstein had some kind words for Lindsay Graham and a hug at the end of the session. Basically calling for her head. Alas, this is American politics. The same would happen with conservatives if the tables were flipped.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,948
Reaction score
11,230
The left is in absolute melt down mode that Feinstein had some kind words for Lindsay Graham and a hug at the end of the session. Basically calling for her head. Alas, this is American politics. The same would happen with conservatives if the tables were flipped.

I’m not so sure the last part is true however,... the over the top, emotionally driven rage seems to only come in blue.
 
Top