Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No wire hangers and other Supreme Court rulings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No wire hangers and other Supreme Court rulings

    The conservatives will have to bank on a different pony if they want to put the capital G(god) back into government. Roberts sided with the liberals and upheld Roe v Wade by shooting down Louisiana's new abortion ban.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/polit...urt/index.html

    Roe v Wade is the snowball the conservatives desperately need to start an avalanche in the Supreme Court of god related decisions. Without that victory it's sets the notion that 1950 is still history. Angry god will have his vengeance though .........



    I find it funny how completely focused on abortion the southern states seem to be, it's a level of retarded usually reserved for flat earthers and anti vaxxers.











    *Can anyone guess why I used Zeus as the image of god??
    Last edited by Bneterasedmynam; 6/29/2020 2:42pm, . Reason: Forgot my FYI

    #2
    I really want to hear what HungryJoe and others who said that they voted for Trump for the purpose of court-packing have to say about this, because prominent Republicans have been saying that the Supreme Court's failure to ban abortion has strongly demoralized the conservative jurisprudence political movement. Granted I'm under the impression that Joe was mostly concerned about gun rights so he is probably a different type of constituent than someone who would be shocked by abortion rights being upheld.

    According to Politico, ( https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-court-341844 ) Josh Hawley said that "religious conservatives right now are “very depressed,” particularly after Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump pick, wrote the decision providing LGBTQ workers with federal workplace protections."

    Another conservative author, John Zmirak, proclaimed in the title of an article that "The conservative legal movement is dead": https://spectator.us/conservative-legal-movement-dead/

    For the long run, we need to start a new conservative legal movement from the ground up, as Josh Hammer lays out. We need law schools and think tanks that aren’t centered on empty ‘textualism’ or morally neutral ‘originalism’. Instead, they should be deeply grounded in the moral truths of the natural law, and their institutional expressions in Common Law and the religious beliefs of the men who wrote the Constitution and amended it. In other words, future conservative judges should be men who actually want to conserve something — namely the specific moral and legal heritage of a free country like ours. We need dozens more judges like Kentucky’s Justin Walker. And no more Anthony Kennedys or Neil Gorsuches.
    He actually sounds like a scary fanatic, talking about moral truths and natural law, but that's an aside.
    Lone Wolf McQuade Final Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrDe_mYUXg

    Comment


      #3
      Watching libtards pretend they understand conservatives is worth a giggle, but that's all.

      Neck yourselves.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by AprilRains View Post
        Watching libtards pretend they understand conservatives is worth a giggle, but that's all.

        Neck yourselves.
        I'm not a liberal.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
          I really want to hear what HungryJoe and others who said that they voted for Trump for the purpose of court-packing have to say about this, because prominent Republicans have been saying that the Supreme Court's failure to ban abortion has strongly demoralized the conservative jurisprudence political movement. Granted I'm under the impression that Joe was mostly concerned about gun rights so he is probably a different type of constituent than someone who would be shocked by abortion rights being upheld.

          According to Politico, ( https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-court-341844 ) Josh Hawley said that "religious conservatives right now are “very depressed,” particularly after Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump pick, wrote the decision providing LGBTQ workers with federal workplace protections."

          Another conservative author, John Zmirak, proclaimed in the title of an article that "The conservative legal movement is dead": https://spectator.us/conservative-legal-movement-dead/



          He actually sounds like a scary fanatic, talking about moral truths and natural law, but that's an aside.
          My primary concern with SCOTUS was the 2nd Amendment. I personally find abortion abhorrent in most circumstances, but I'm not for banning a legit medical procedure, and, the case in question I'm fine with the end result. I think Justice Alito made some strong legal arguments that have nothing to do with whether or not abortion is right/wrong/sin whatever.

          The SCOTUS has turned down some key 2nd Amendment cases, which disappoints me.

          In principle, I've got nothing against the recent LGTBQ outcome, either. Alito made some cogent LEGAL arguments against the decision, as well.

          The problem is that if the SCOTUS comes up with "fair" decisions on cases, but via perhaps faulty legal reasoning.

          As far as religious conservatives go, I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state. I understand some or even most of our Founding FAthers were religious men (although some of them would not find favor with the current brand of primitive christian types/fundamentalists). However, I do not think they wanted a theocracy established.

          In fact, religious people who want to remake the government in God's image are kinda mistaken at a very core level.

          Falling for Judo since 1980

          "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

          "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

          "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post

            I'm not a liberal.
            No, you're a libtard. Learn to read.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post
              I really want to hear
              You lie. You don't want to hear shit. You like to tell people what they think, or what you think they should think.

              ​​​​​

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by AprilRains View Post

                No, you're a libtard. Learn to read.
                Whatever you say cuckservative.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by BKR View Post

                  My primary concern with SCOTUS was the 2nd Amendment. I personally find abortion abhorrent in most circumstances, but I'm not for banning a legit medical procedure, and, the case in question I'm fine with the end result. I think Justice Alito made some strong legal arguments that have nothing to do with whether or not abortion is right/wrong/sin whatever.

                  The SCOTUS has turned down some key 2nd Amendment cases, which disappoints me.

                  In principle, I've got nothing against the recent LGTBQ outcome, either. Alito made some cogent LEGAL arguments against the decision, as well.

                  The problem is that if the SCOTUS comes up with "fair" decisions on cases, but via perhaps faulty legal reasoning.

                  As far as religious conservatives go, I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state. I understand some or even most of our Founding FAthers were religious men (although some of them would not find favor with the current brand of primitive christian types/fundamentalists). However, I do not think they wanted a theocracy established.

                  In fact, religious people who want to remake the government in God's image are kinda mistaken at a very core level.
                  What second amendment cases are you referring to??

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Is this about sides or is this the court system working as it is intended ? as in non partisan decision making? what is the issue here?
                    King without a crown

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by PDA View Post
                      Is this about sides or is this the court system working as it is intended ? as in non partisan decision making? what is the issue here?
                      So the issue is that packing the court with judges who are expected to rule along party lines has been a thing in the United States. Since the House and the Senate try to not pass controversial legislation that they will later be held accountable for by voters, they have abdicated their responsibilities to the executive and to the supreme court. There was the perception among conservatives that the supreme court was legislating from the bench by making liberal rulings most of the time, and hence a political movement to pack the court with percieved conservative justices. Hence, the reaction when the supreme court upheld certain abortion rights and gay rights. With all that being said, now it seems that progressives are now likewise talking more openly than ever about packing the court for the same reason, to get favorable supreme court rulings.

                      Since both sides have problematic positions on various wedge issues, either way feels unsafe.
                      Lone Wolf McQuade Final Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrDe_mYUXg

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by AprilRains View Post

                        You lie. You don't want to hear shit. You like to tell people what they think, or what you think they should think.

                        ​​​​​
                        When was the last time you posted at least one paragraph going into what you think and why you think it?
                        Lone Wolf McQuade Final Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrDe_mYUXg

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post

                          What second amendment cases are you referring to??
                          The NYC once that got mooted, for sure.
                          Falling for Judo since 1980

                          "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                          "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                          "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by PDA View Post
                            Is this about sides or is this the court system working as it is intended ? as in non partisan decision making? what is the issue here?
                            There are different legal philosophies (if that's the correct description) on how to interpret the Constitution related to cases.

                            The extremes are:
                            1.) The Constitution is a "living document", and interpretation should change with the times.
                            2.) The Constitution is... fixed, and the courts should try fathom "original intent".

                            There are shades in between, as well.

                            Falling for Judo since 1980

                            "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                            "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                            "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Wounded Ronin View Post

                              So the issue is that packing the court with judges who are expected to rule along party lines has been a thing in the United States. Since the House and the Senate try to not pass controversial legislation that they will later be held accountable for by voters, they have abdicated their responsibilities to the executive and to the supreme court. There was the perception among conservatives that the supreme court was legislating from the bench by making liberal rulings most of the time, and hence a political movement to pack the court with percieved conservative justices. Hence, the reaction when the supreme court upheld certain abortion rights and gay rights. With all that being said, now it seems that progressives are now likewise talking more openly than ever about packing the court for the same reason, to get favorable supreme court rulings.

                              Since both sides have problematic positions on various wedge issues, either way feels unsafe.
                              The Democrats literally threatened the SCOTUS, dude. Remember that?

                              Roosevelt tried to pack the SCOTUS as well.

                              There ARE real differences in how to interpret cases before the SCOTUS.
                              Falling for Judo since 1980

                              "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                              "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                              "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X