• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
You should be so lucky. I have a principled jurisprudence, and I think conservative activism is equally as dangerous as liberal activism. A lot of Trump's judges want to fight fire with fire to own the libs.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are such snowflakes. If they don’t have all the power they think they’re the victims.
 
Junebug said:
Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell, etc., etc., etc., are not figments of anyone’s imagination. I get the right’s instinct to legislate from the bench to balance out what the left has done, but I think such an approach is ultimately harmful to the Court. Conservatives need to keep taking the high road and not give in to the disease that has infected the left to own the libs.
Click to expand...

You’re making my point.

How dare women get control over their own bodies!!!! It’s not what white male politicians in the 1780s wanted!!!!!

Ahhhhh!!!!! Teh gheys!!!!!! They want the same rights as me!!!!!! The world is ending!!!!! It’s not what the white guys in the 1780s wanted!!!! Even the closeted ones!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn’t even occur to you that abortion rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution because by the time the broader populous had any interest in the rights of women, it was pretty much impossible to add amendments to the Constitution. The conservative “high road” basically ends in 1971.
 
Last edited:
The SC is hearing Trump's decision to end DACA. This case should be played in ads over and over and over in states with large Hispanic communities. Trump's Hispanic racism needs to be a central issue in those states.
 
FINALLY a good decision from this group. They have allowed a suit from the Sandy Hook families against Remmington Arms to go forward. Let's put the bastards out of business.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Some good ideas, but it will never happen. The whole purpose of the GOP packing the SC was to ram partisan and ideological decisions through, no matter the cost to the Court's "reputation" or prestige. Besides, what are liberals really going to do about it? No doubt they'll publicly criticize and complain, but that doesn't matter to conservatives, as their complaints will simply be music to their ears. In the long run overturning progressive rulings or making new controversial 5-4 rulings supporting right-wing cultural and political and economic causes will ruin any respect or confidence vast numbers of people have in the Court, but Republicans probably won't care about that either as long as they're getting their way. The GOP has spent decades planning for this, and there's no way they'll let little things like "respect" and "prestige" get in their way. And there's damned little that Democrats can do about it. I know that some have suggested packing the SC, but unless the Democrats somehow get a huge Senate and House majority and the Presidency at the same time, that's very unlikely to happen, and even then there would be massive, and possibly violent, resistance from Republicans. Maybe passing term limits for federal judges, including the SC, would have more support, but even that is a long shot, imo. The Dems only realistic hope is to beat Trump next year, win back a Senate majority, and start putting progressive on the SC to try and balance things out.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
So, in other words, only a liberal Court has legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Do you think Gorsuch was a legit appointment? Or do you think it was a bullshit move by McConnell that skewed the balance of the court for a generation?
 
Ah, the Biden rule, a totally real rule that exists and has been adhered to since inception.
 
Junebug said:
Any appointment made by application of the Schumer/Biden rule is going to be contentious.

In any event, despite the breathless liberal reporting, Gorsuch did not cause the court to lurch right. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, and Kavanaugh was a Kennedy clerk. McConnell just kept the Court from lurching left.
Click to expand...
Partisan hack
 
Liquid Karma said:
Do you think Gorsuch was a legit appointment? Or do you think it was a bullshit move by McConnell that skewed the balance of the court for a generation?
Click to expand...

He thinks it was totally legit and asking again is only going to be frustrating.
 
Junebug said:
Any appointment made by application of the Schumer/Biden rule is going to be contentious.

In any event, despite the breathless liberal reporting, Gorsuch did not cause the court to lurch right. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, and Kavanaugh was a Kennedy clerk. McConnell just kept the Court from lurching left.
Click to expand...

Merrick Garland, leftist crusader.
 
Junebug said:
The only difference in Schumer/Biden and McConnell is that McConnell actually had the occasion to apply the rule. There is zero doubt in my mind that, had the rolls been reversed, the Democrats would’ve done the same thing.
Click to expand...

You understand how stupid that sounds, right?
 
Junebug said:
Any appointment made by application of the Schumer/Biden rule is going to be contentious.

In any event, despite the breathless liberal reporting, Gorsuch did not cause the court to lurch right. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, and Kavanaugh was a Kennedy clerk. McConnell just kept the Court from lurching left.
Click to expand...

Meh, it would have “lurched left” because elections have consequences. In any event it would have only been a year or two leftward lurch because Kennedy retired soon thereafter and RGB would be able to retire in peace in stead of hanging on for dear life. And lastly, it would not have been a leftward lurch anyway, Garland is a centrist and to equate his leftiness as equal to Scalia’s or Gorsuch’s rightiness is bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top