All Things SCOTUS

[Bluto]

Which parts?

His talking about the court being “liberal for decades”.

If you look back on it the court began to trend toward being very “conservative” as it relates to the general understanding of that term meaning the favoring of corporate/wealthy interests since Nixon.

That has reached almost comically bad levels in the last decade or so as embodied by rulings like citizens united.

Kind of ironic that the guy who helped form the Federalist Society also ruled in favor of upholding ROE v Wade and other “socially liberal” rulings at the time.

 

[NorthDakota]

His talking about the court being “liberal for decades”.

If you look back on it the court began to trend toward being very “conservative” as it relates to the general understanding of that term meaning the favoring of corporate/wealthy interests since Nixon.

That has reached almost comically bad levels in the last decade or so as embodied by rulings like citizens united.

Kind of ironic that the guy who helped form the Federalist Society also ruled in favor of upholding ROE v Wade and other “socially liberal” rulings at the time.

The court had been liberal for decades. It's not really close. Citizens United doesn't change that. That's not a liberal or conservative decision.

The court now is more conservative. And America should be grateful for that.

 

[Bluto]

The court had been liberal for decades. It's not really close. Citizens United doesn't change that. That's not a liberal or conservative decision.

The court now is more conservative. And America should be grateful for that.

Ok sure. If the John Birch Society is your baseline for “conservative”.

I would argue that the court was largely Rockefeller Republican since the late 70’s or there about until the recent Trump appointees and it has now descended into pretty extreme right wing nuttiness.

Anyhow, during the Reagan administration alone there were 8 justices who served that were appointed by arch liberals Reagan, Nixon and Ford.

From a wiki article

“Overall, in the 54 years since Nixon first took office, there have been 20 confirmed appointments to the court, counting chiefs and associate justices. Republican presidents have had 15 of them, Democratic presidents just five.”

 

[Bluto]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

Libtard Barry Goldwater.

Seems applicable given Alito’s somewhat recent “one side is going to win” comments and the general insanity that is the current GOP and in the House in particular.

 

[drayer54]

Ok sure. If the John Birch Society is your baseline for “conservative”.

I would argue that the court was largely Rockefeller Republican since the late 70’s or there about until the recent Trump appointees and it has now descended into right wing nuttiness.

Anyhow, during the Reagan administration alone there were 8 justices who served that were appointed by arch liberals Reagan, Nixon and Ford.

From a wiki article

“Overall, in the 54 years since Nixon first took office, there have been 20 confirmed appointments to the court, counting chiefs and associate justices. Republican presidents have had 15 of them, Democratic presidents just five.”

Right wing nuttiness? We’re floating ~75% unanimous decisions this term and it’s nutty? Interpreting the law for what is and not what people want it to be is far from nuttiness.

 

[Blazers46]

From a wiki article

“Overall, in the 54 years since Nixon first took office, there have been 20 confirmed appointments to the court, counting chiefs and associate justices. Republican presidents have had 15 of them, Democratic presidents just five.”

I agree, losing sucks… born it down!! It’s like when my brother keeps losing at fantasy football every year. He changes the rules.

 

[NorthDakota]

Ok sure. If the John Birch Society is your baseline for “conservative”.

I would argue that the court was largely Rockefeller Republican since the late 70’s or there about until the recent Trump appointees and it has now descended into pretty extreme right wing nuttiness.

Anyhow, during the Reagan administration alone there were 8 justices who served that were appointed by arch liberals Reagan, Nixon and Ford.

From a wiki article

“Overall, in the 54 years since Nixon first took office, there have been 20 confirmed appointments to the court, counting chiefs and associate justices. Republican presidents have had 15 of them, Democratic presidents just five.”

What "pretty extreme right wing nuttiness" are you referring to?

You seem to be conflating the appointer's political party with the nominee's judicial philosophy. George Bush appointed both David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Let that sink in.

 

[Irish#1]

Article on how Notre Dame's influence on the SC is growing.

The conservative law school growing its influence with the Supreme Court

Boosted by the appointment of former professor Amy Coney Barrett to the high court, the University of Notre Dame Law School has increasingly close ties with conservative justices.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[NorthDakota]

Article on how Notre Dame's influence on the SC is growing.

The conservative law school growing its influence with the Supreme Court

Boosted by the appointment of former professor Amy Coney Barrett to the high court, the University of Notre Dame Law School has increasingly close ties with conservative justices.

www.nbcnews.com

Huge W

 

[drayer54]

Huge W

Apparently ND is literally fasicsm

 

[GATTACA!]

Supreme Court declines Biden's appeal in Texas emergency abortion case

The Supreme Court decided Monday that a court order finding Texas hospitals cannot federally be required to provide pregnancy terminations when they violate a state abortion ban will stay for now.

apnews.com

 

[drayer54]

Supreme Court declines Biden's appeal in Texas emergency abortion case

The Supreme Court decided Monday that a court order finding Texas hospitals cannot federally be required to provide pregnancy terminations when they violate a state abortion ban will stay for now.

apnews.com

There were no publicly noted dissents. Move to Minnesota where Tim Walz will protect your right to kill up until delivery.

 

[NorthDakota]

There were no publicly noted dissents. Move to Minnesota where Tim Walz will protect your right to kill up until delivery.

Looks like Texas did a nice job here.

 

[GATTACA!]

Looks like Texas did a nice job here.

A dramatic rise in pregnant women dying in Texas after abortion ban

Exclusive analysis finds the rate of maternal deaths in Texas increased 56% from 2019 to 2022, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period.

www.nbcnews.com

Well done Texas

 

[NorthDakota]

A dramatic rise in pregnant women dying in Texas after abortion ban

Exclusive analysis finds the rate of maternal deaths in Texas increased 56% from 2019 to 2022, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period.

www.nbcnews.com

Well done Texas

The law expressly provides for abortions to save the life of the mother.

 

[GATTACA!]

The law expressly provides for abortions to save the life of the mother.

Which is so vague that providers are refusing to perform abortions out of fear. Leading to the increase in pregnant women dying.

Go Texas!

 

[NorthDakota]

Which is so vague that providers are refusing to perform abortions out of fear. Leading to the increase in pregnant women dying.

Go Texas!

That's odd. The law provides for an abortion to save the life or health of the mother.

One can argue that "health" is vague but certainly not life.

 

[GATTACA!]

That's odd. The law provides for an abortion to save the life or health of the mother.

One can argue that "health" is vague but certainly not life.

Huh? They’re both as vague as you can possibly make them. There are a countless number of things that can be life threatening for a pregnant woman. Without outlining anything you’re causing doctors to use extreme caution and it’s getting pregnant ladies killed.

Are you arguing with the statistics? Is it just a coincidence?

 

[NorthDakota]

Huh? They’re both as vague as you can possibly make them. There are a countless number of things that can be life threatening for a pregnant woman. Without outlining anything you’re causing doctors to use extreme caution and it’s getting pregnant ladies killed.

Are you arguing with the statistics? Is it just a coincidence?

Arguing with statistics? Nope. Not at this time anyway. I couldn't tell you if it's a coincidence.

 

[drayer54]

Which is so vague that providers are refusing to perform abortions out of fear. Leading to the increase in pregnant women dying.

Go Texas!

They can fix the liability language. Good on them for not being an abortion haven.

 

[GATTACA!]

They can fix the liability language.

Wanna make a bet? Lol

 

[Irish#1]

The SC doesn't always vote conservatively?

Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Biden plan to crack down on 'ghost gun' kits

The Biden administration wants to regulate gun parts easily available online in the same way as guns purchased from specialist stores.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[NorthDakota]

Today's oral argument regarding states on banning puberty blockers for transing the kids was very promising.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

Today's oral argument regarding states on banning puberty blockers for transing the kids was very promising.

So much for Republicans being for deregulation and keeping the government out medical decisions. Guess you make exceptions for people you don't like..

 

[NorthDakota]

So much for Republicans being for deregulation and keeping the government out medical decisions. Guess you make exceptions for people you don't like..

Weird way of saying you want kids to not go through puberty

 

[ColoradoIrish]

Weird way of saying you want kids to not go through puberty

Weird way of saying you want government making medical decisions for you.

And kids are still going thru puberty. Just like cis kids that go on puberty blockers, trans kids go thru puberty as well. If there's a way to help kids not be suicidal and by themselves time before irreversible changes take place to their body why would you be against it? There's proof that these laws cause more harm than good. And plenty of evidence that puberty blockers are safe without long term negative effects

 

[NorthDakota]

Weird way of saying you want government making medical decisions for you.

And kids are still going thru puberty. Just like cis kids that go on puberty blockers, trans kids go thru puberty as well. If there's a way to help kids not be suicidal and by themselves time before irreversible changes take place to their body why would you be against it? There's proof that these laws cause more harm than good. And plenty of evidence that puberty blockers are safe without long term negative effects

What is a cis kid? What irreversible changes are you referencing? What evidence are you referring to?

 

[ColoradoIrish]

What is a cis kid? What irreversible changes are you referencing? What evidence are you referring to?

Cis kid is a non trans kid. Or is cis a slur to you? I wouldn't want to offend you. Irreversible changes like voice lowering. I've already posted evidence either go back thru my posts or like everyone else says on here, go and Google it.

 

[NorthDakota]

Cis kid is a non trans kid. Or is cis a slur to you? I wouldn't want to offend you. Irreversible changes like voice lowering. I've already posted evidence either go back thru my posts or like everyone else says on here, go and Google it.

So a kid is a cis kid? It just seems an odd label.

Voice lowering? God forbid.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

So a kid is a cis kid? It just seems an odd label.

Voice lowering? God forbid.

It's a way to differentiate in a conversation about trans people so we know what we're talking about. But agree it's a fucking weird label. I get that using voice lowering as an example seems strange but it truly messes with people struggling with this shit. What about kids who have early onset male pattern baldness caused by testosterone? Or girls hips? My whole point that I've tried making before is that these things seem minimal to anyone whose hasn't struggled with any of this. I don't expect people to understand it at all, but I don't think it's unreasonable for people to just say "I don't get it and it sucks that you're struggling with it."

Completely unrealistic hypothetical situation, but let's say the premise of freaky Friday or the hot chick happened and you woke up in a body that wasn't yours. Just like in the movies, you would know something wasn't right and you would try to correct it.That's what myself and other trans people go through. Sure we can go through life and try to our best to be happy, but we know something isn't right and we just want to correct it so we can go about our lives and worry about normal shit like everyone else.

Puberty blockers allow kids a little time to figure that shit out before their bodies permanently change. Some don't transition and realize they're not trans, others do transition. It's not the same journey for each person. I don't get why allowing time to figure that out is a big deal. Why should the government have a say at all in what we do in our private lives or to our own bodies? It's a medical thing and the decision on how to treat it should be between doctors and families and no one else. It's not like kids can just consent to it without approval from their parents