All Things SCOTUS

[NorthDakota]

Democrats are not messing around this time.

I think some are dead serious about it. Nancy already said it isn't going to the floor.

I am not too concerned about it right now.

 

[IrishLax]

This. Biden wants to move the fake infrastructure bill right now and toss out a court packing study commission so he doesn’t have to own that decision. I don’t recall the GOP having a brutal confirmation for a lib justice.

Im feeling really good about the Senate in 2022, so it would force a more moderate pick after that. As for now, we’d get the most qualified black woman in West Virginia.

The "fake" infrastructure bill is incredibly popular and packed almost entirely with smart spending and good policy, but sure.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1382547797501693952?s=20[/TWEET]

It's sad how many people buy the right wing talking point that "infrastructure" somehow means bridges and roads only. You'd think rural broadband, etc. would be popular. I think they're just big mad that Trump's infrastructure bills failed to be passed for his entire term and he did nothing to help the United States modernize.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

LOL this infrastructure bill is really popular. Haha. True beleivers are freaking out.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The "fake" infrastructure bill is incredibly popular and packed almost entirely with smart spending and good policy, but sure.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1382547797501693952?s=20[/TWEET]

It's sad how many people buy the right wing talking point that "infrastructure" somehow means bridges and roads only. You'd think rural broadband, etc. would be popular. I think they're just big mad that Trump's infrastructure bills failed to be passed for his entire term and he did nothing to help the United States modernize.

Id personally like my braodband options to expand but it requires new infrastructure to physically allow competition into my market. Right now I only can get xfinity and I would galdly drop them for anyone else.

 

[Armyirish47]

Id personally like my braodband options to expand but it requires new infrastructure to physically allow competition into my market. Right now I only can get xfinity and I would galdly drop them for anyone else.

This would be huge for my area. We currently can get Hughes Net, which is just lighting money on fire, or AT&T which is like putting money into a paper shredder. The last year has exposed how drastic a need we have.

 

[NorthDakota]

The "fake" infrastructure bill is incredibly popular and packed almost entirely with smart spending and good policy, but sure.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1382547797501693952?s=20[/TWEET]

It's sad how many people buy the right wing talking point that "infrastructure" somehow means bridges and roads only. You'd think rural broadband, etc. would be popular. I think they're just big mad that Trump's infrastructure bills failed to be passed for his entire term and he did nothing to help the United States modernize.

Its popular because no one on earth hates "infrastructure." Other than the goofy libertarian types anyway. The problem isn't "oh Biden might pull it off and Trump couldn't." The problem is being lied to. This isn't an infrastructure bill.

Also lolling at "rural broadband"....do the rednecks not have internet?

I'm not opposed to the government making some investments, but between the "covid relief bill" and this... it looks like a trend is forming of "find a popular concept and then cast an absurdly wide net to capture everything we can think of to fit that concept."

I get taking a few liberties with the idea of infrastructure and rolling my eyes at some of the spending, but this goes well beyond that.

As for corporate tax increases to pay for it, gotta pay for it somehow I guess. But if they used a comprehensible definition of "infrastructure" it wouldn't be nearly so difficult to pay for.

 

[drayer54]

Its popular because no one on earth hates "infrastructure." Other than the goofy libertarian types anyway. The problem isn't "oh Biden might pull it off and Trump couldn't." The problem is being lied to. This isn't an infrastructure bill.

Also lolling at "rural broadband"....do the rednecks not have internet?

I'm not opposed to the government making some investments, but between the "covid relief bill" and this... it looks like a trend is forming of "find a popular concept and then cast an absurdly wide net to capture everything we can think of to fit that concept."

I get taking a few liberties with the idea of infrastructure and rolling my eyes at some of the spending, but this goes well beyond that.

As for corporate tax increases to pay for it, gotta pay for it somehow I guess. But if they used a comprehensible definition of "infrastructure" it wouldn't be nearly so difficult to pay for.

One way to reduce the cost would be to chop the 90% of the bill that is nothing close to infrastructure and use the corporate tax hike to pay for the 10% ish that actually is infrastructure.

I'm getting a headache from the headspinning of people who opposed Trump accomplishing it pretending people oppose these "good ideas" because Biden would accomplish them.

Either way, this is the SCOTUS thread and SCOTUS is NOT infrastructure.

 

[Armyirish47]

Also lolling at "rural broadband"....do the rednecks not have internet?
r.

No, they don't, not at anything approaching an equitable option. When our districts went into lockdown we had to install hot spots on buses and try to deliver mobile internet service so our kids could even have a chance. In my own home the best I can get is 3 MBPS, which gets overwhelmed when my 3 kids and wife are all trying to work. When we have movie night at home we have ot turn off every device. Forget about me getting my military laptop on for any actual work. So we pay about $160 each month for 2 cell phones, and $80 for home internet and that is what we get, and have gotten for over a decade. You can lol all you want but there is a huge portion of America that is getting left behind and historically that meant the government stepping in and providing the infrastructure necessary to help bridge that divide.

I could also mention that our small towns with different demographics get much lower levels of service as well, but I know where that conversation will go on this particular forum.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Its popular because no one on earth hates "infrastructure." Other than the goofy libertarian types anyway. The problem isn't "oh Biden might pull it off and Trump couldn't." The problem is being lied to. This isn't an infrastructure bill.

Also lolling at "rural broadband"....do the rednecks not have internet?

I'm not opposed to the government making some investments, but between the "covid relief bill" and this... it looks like a trend is forming of "find a popular concept and then cast an absurdly wide net to capture everything we can think of to fit that concept."

I get taking a few liberties with the idea of infrastructure and rolling my eyes at some of the spending, but this goes well beyond that.

As for corporate tax increases to pay for it, gotta pay for it somehow I guess. But if they used a comprehensible definition of "infrastructure" it wouldn't be nearly so difficult to pay for.

I live in th emost desirable fastest growing city in SC and my internet is fucking terrible and its a monlply controlled by xfinity.

 

[drayer54]

I could also mention that our small towns with different demographics get much lower levels of service as well, but I know where that conversation will go on this particular forum.

I would argue the push to a remote school and work in 2020 is case enough to ensure solid internet everywhere. Many states are doing this already.

Since this is the SCOTUS thread, I'll add that SCOTUS is NOT infrastructure.

 

[RDU Irish]

So four more justices are needed to get rural broadband? If we are pricing it at $2T for four justices maybe we should reduce to 7 and save $1T.

 

[ulukinatme]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Gee2TheAitch/status/1382884325071421444[/TWEET]

 

[Irish YJ]

Like I've said, I've stayed out of this quagmire for a long time. Blame it on the "what are you drinking thread"... (I know, not valid)

The level of hypocrisy here is off the charts. I got my popcorn.

The crazy chick that went off on Kav's background that was silent on "fill in the blank" was pretty priceless.

The strategy is pretty clear. Pack the court, and increase the progressive vote.

 

[drayer54]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/Gee2TheAitch/status/1382884325071421444[/TWEET]

Wonder what changed?

 

[Irish#1]

Let the carriers pay for expanding coverage.

 

[GowerND11]

Case from a local high school (my parents both went there, biggest rival of the school I coach at) is going to the Supreme Court, You may have heard about the free speech case going to the SC about the cheerleader being punished by her school for what she said on Snap Chat. Should be an easy one for her to win, and a giant waste of tax payer money by the district.

 

[drayer54]

The Second Amendment is finally on the schedule!

Over a decade after it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The justices’ announcement that they will take up a challenge to a New York law that requires anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason for doing so sets the stage for a major ruling on gun rights in the court’s 2021-22 term.

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[NorthDakota]

The Second Amendment is finally on the schedule!

*Smiles in Alito and Thomas*

I came across a great series of interviews PBS did on SCOTUS nomination called "Supreme Revenge."

I watched an interview with Josh Holmes (McConnell's old chief of staff). He talks a lot about the days and months following Scalia's death with Garland.

Tom Daschle (Former Dem Senate Majority leader) from South Dakota. He gives a lot of thoughts on Bork's nomination and how things have changed since then for better or worse.

Ted Olson (high profile attorney) talks about Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and particularly Kavanaugh.

 

[drayer54]

*Smiles in Alito and Thomas*

I came across a great series of interviews PBS did on SCOTUS nomination called "Supreme Revenge."

I watched an interview with Josh Holmes (McConnell's old chief of staff). He talks a lot about the days and months following Scalia's death with Garland.

Tom Daschle (Former Dem Senate Majority leader) from South Dakota. He gives a lot of thoughts on Bork's nomination and how things have changed since then for better or worse.

Ted Olson (high profile attorney) talks about Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and particularly Kavanaugh.

Good show. Just watched it. Somehow I like Mitch even more now. Also interesting to see Democrats obstruction over the years.

 

[NorthDakota]

9-0 SCOTUS decision going against the NCAA.

 

[Rogue219]

When Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh join forces to poster dunk on you, check your life choices.

 

[drayer54]

22 of the 35 opinions (or 63%) have been unanimous so far this SCOTUS Term. Really odd behavior for a hopelessly partisan bench in dramatic need of reform.

 

[ulukinatme]

22 of the 35 opinions (or 63%) have been unanimous so far this SCOTUS Term. Really odd behavior for a hopelessly partisan bench in dramatic need of reform.

As much as people like to make each appointee out as a President's pick, no branch of government is less political than the Supreme Court at the end of the day. I'm not pretending that politics don't enter into their discussion, not by any means, but I think more often than not the court tends to err on the side of the American people and not follow party. The recent unified opinions seem to underline that.

 

[drayer54]

The hopelessly partisan body appears to be divided along gender lines today. Boys won.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1408428216906358788?s=20[/TWEET]

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1409509591235375105[/TWEET]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1409510571175780352[/TWEET]


WEED FOR EVERYONE!!!!! LETS DOOOOOOOO THIS.

 

[drayer54]

Clarence Thomas gets it right on just about everything.

 

[NorthDakota]

Clarence Thomas gets it right on just about everything.

Thomas owns. Love his commerce clause opinions in particular. The man is based.

 

[Irish#1]

WEED FOR EVERYONE!!!!! LETS DOOOOOOOO THIS.

It's coming.

 

[Bluto]

Thomas owns. Love his commerce clause opinions in particular. The man is based.

“I don’t care how educated you are, how good you are at what you do—you’ll never have the same contacts or opportunities, you’ll never be seen as equal to whites.”

Clarence Thomas.

 

[NorthDakota]

“I don’t care how educated you are, how good you are at what you do—you’ll never have the same contacts or opportunities, you’ll never be seen as equal to whites.”

Clarence Thomas.

Perhaps some context might be necessary. Because Clarence Thomas has literally proven that entirely wrong.

His documentary is inspiring. He is probably be the most inspiring and interesting Justice of any living Americans lifetime. A giant in every sense of the word.