• 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

Hot take, and I’m far from a constitutional scholar: Roberts will go down very favorably in history as a fair but right leaning CJ. Thomas will be considered a giant asshole.
 
Milhouse said:
how so?
Click to expand...

Yeah I don’t see it. He’s leaving doors open to some degree with “absent special circumstances” but he reversed his own position from four years ago with the stare decisis take today. He’s not going to move the line on abortion further back from where it sits today undue burden wise.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Hot take, and I’m far from a constitutional scholar: Roberts will go down very favorably in history as a fair but right leaning CJ. Thomas will be considered a giant asshole.
Click to expand...

Thomas will definitely go down as one of the most obscure. Dude constantly dissents by saying “I don’t agree with this position because I reject the position from 1847 this decision starts with and believe we can only consult 1789 source material”
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Thomas will definitely go down as one of the most obscure. Dude constantly dissents by saying “I don’t agree with this position because I reject the position from 1847 this decision starts with and believe we can only consult 1789 source material”
Click to expand...

I know a very bright and articulate lady, who worked for me as a teenager, who clerked for him and is now on the Court of Appeals. I have always wanted to ask her what she thought, but didn’t want to do that to her. I know her family thinks well of him, as would I if he hired my daughter.
 
Thomas is apparently one of the nicest people in person, but his judicial opinions are absolutely the most asshole-ish.
 
Junebug have you finished the sexual discrimination decision yet? What are your thoughts on the Allied case as well?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Thomas will definitely go down as one of the most obscure. Dude constantly dissents by saying “I don’t agree with this position because I reject the position from 1847 this decision starts with and believe we can only consult 1789 source material”
Click to expand...

Unless the 1789 source material is detrimental to his argument.

Thomas: separation of church and state shows hostility toward the church. Wtf
 
wakelaw13 said:
Hot take, and I’m far from a constitutional scholar: Roberts will go down very favorably in history as a fair but right leaning CJ. Thomas will be considered a giant asshole.
Click to expand...

Citizens United and his war on voting rights says Roberts is remembered as the piece of shit that he is.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Citizens United and his war on voting rights says Roberts is remembered as the piece of shit that he is.
Click to expand...

Those were terrible, but the next big decision could put him near the top of the pantheon of callous justices in US history. If he joins the radical right and votes to end ACA, he will go down in history as the person who took healthcare from over 20,000,000 Americans and killed a bunch of them.

If he rules with the radical right, it might put KY in play for the Senate. Close to 1,000,000 people are covered by KY Connect. If you take away their insurance, Moscow Mitch could be in trouble.
 
I am obviously rooting for survival of Obamacare. But, the stereotypical trump voter benefits from it a lot more than I do. They need it a lot more than I do. So if their cult leader who I despise and his corrupt justice department are successful in their support of ending the ACA, and Jim Bob loses coverage, I’ll feel sorry for him and his family, but I’ll also take just a little enjoyment reminding him he got what he voted for.
 
That wasn't about "joy". I was simply discussing the ramifications of that decision.
 
The result in Citizens United was terrible but the legal analysis was spot on and it’s the “right” outcome.

SCOTUS’ job is to rule on the legal issues. If you want to get rid of Citizens United then look to Congress.
 
Not if you believe in a century of stare decisis.. That's what you call ... Activism.
 
Last edited:
DeaconCav06 said:
The result in Citizens United was terrible but the legal analysis was spot on and it’s the “right” outcome.

SCOTUS’ job is to rule on the legal issues. If you want to get rid of Citizens United then look to Congress.
Click to expand...

I support fully and exclusively federally funded elections. However, after CU and with the explosion of social media, etc., it may be virtually impossible to enforce campaign finance reform. Unless the government can kick Facebook, etc., off the internet if they don't comply with the laws.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
The result in Citizens United was terrible but the legal analysis was spot on and it’s the “right” outcome.

SCOTUS’ job is to rule on the legal issues. If you want to get rid of Citizens United then look to Congress.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It was the right decision on first amendment grounds, in my humble opinion. Unfortunately, looking to the recipients of campaign contributions to police/limit campaign contributions is highly unlikely.

Campaign finance reform and ending gerrymandering would instantly make this country better.
 
I think the 1980 and 94 presidential campaigns we publicly financed by checking boxes on their tax returns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top