Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
Lot o points [155921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I’ll leave this here since I won’t be around in the a.m.
Feb 7, 2019, 10:20 PM
|
|
For those libs worried about a conservative Supreme Court, breathe easy. I think Roberts is going to shape up to be your new Souter.
There was the mysterious Obamacare “tax” explanation in his ruling, after apparently being against the constitutionality of Obamacare while it was in committee....
Now he votes to block a law almost identical to one he agreed with in a dissent 2 years ago (see Whole Woman’s Health vs Hellerstedt). Between the two, and several other cases where he was the swing vote, he certainly seems like he’s not the apolitical creature he was made out to be during the Bush nomination process. His explanations in these contentious cases rarely seem to argue constitutionality as they do reading the current events tea leaves about what the court should be doing in modern culture.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/7/john-roberts-joins-liberal-justices-supreme-court-/
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111601]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73759
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9174]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2/5/02
|
NPR: liberal bias
Feb 8, 2019, 5:08 AM
|
|
Next..
-Doc
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL.
Feb 8, 2019, 7:36 AM
|
|
Just because they use words that are too big for you to understand don't make em liberal.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60043]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22503
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Re: LOL.
Feb 8, 2019, 7:46 AM
|
|
This is your new schtick and its growing old. We are all fine on the reading comprehension scale, so find something else to reply with each and every single time you post a reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19945]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11204
Joined: 9/23/07
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3959
Joined: 6/27/18
|
Nice***
Feb 8, 2019, 5:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111601]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73759
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Nice***
Feb 8, 2019, 7:25 PM
|
|
you cant see it, but I gave you a point.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Tesla ain't.
Feb 8, 2019, 8:14 AM
[ in reply to Re: LOL. ] |
|
You've got it down. You're just angry at the world and forget the BS you post when called out on it.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9174]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 14648
Joined: 2/5/02
|
More unceasing emnity for being RIGHT
Feb 9, 2019, 12:12 PM
|
|
While LEFT proboscis flows from Cata's waterhead.
Speculative optimism re: 'called out on a point.'
-Doc
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I’ll leave this here since I won’t be around in the a.m.
Feb 8, 2019, 1:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: I’ll leave this here since I won’t be around in the a.m. ] |
|
> Balm criticizes Citizens United for being politically corrupt > Fails to realize Citizens United has mostly benefited Liberal politicians > Balm once again proves he's an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97722]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Judges are like this. They can spend a career leaning one
Feb 8, 2019, 6:50 AM
|
|
way,but when they reach the top they change. It's always easier to be Santa Clause when you have all the gifts. Happens a lot. It takes infinitely more effort on their part to stick to the law and be the bad guy.
Some stick to their guns and stay conservative but many take the path of least resistance and change. What you won't see often is a liberal judge turn conservative. The trend is always from hard to easy not easy to hard.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19945]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11204
Joined: 9/23/07
|
That's called staying on the right side of history***
Feb 8, 2019, 8:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97722]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Lol. ok.***
Feb 8, 2019, 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23693]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36824
Joined: 8/19/03
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14238
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Perhaps resposible judges do not view their positions as
Feb 8, 2019, 8:18 AM
[ in reply to Judges are like this. They can spend a career leaning one ] |
|
Either liberal or conservative.
Those categorizations (and most others) are binary political divides that constrain independent thought. Perhaps some judges are thoughtful and their opinions are baed on the evidence and law.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97722]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Maybe not, but when they vote one way for decades
Feb 8, 2019, 9:04 AM
|
|
then are elected to a high court and vote the other way, something changed.
I've seen it in judges I work with, and it's a common thing for lawyers to do. Start and spend a career, or a decade or more, litigating things one way, then they get an appointment to a higher court, then they start ruling, as a judge, totally opposite from their "career" previously. Then they leave the court, go back to law, and open a practice on the other side, opposing their prior peers.
Again, this flows one way, from conservative to liberal. Or defense to plaintiff, if you prefer that analogy. Many lawyers leave law school and choose to do the hard work first, get experience in that area, then flip to the other side (more lucrative btw), using their "experience" on the other side as a resume enhancer. Some choose a high appointment as the opportunity for a pivot, others who do not become judges pick their pivot point otherwise. But MANY lawyers do this. And it's this inability to be consistent that leads people to not trust them, as a profession. It's a classic illustration of principles versus money/power. If you stand on principles, you will be consistent. If you're chasing money and/or power, then you really have none.
As for evidence of law, a "conservative" (not political party) viewpoint will side with the established law, always. That's why liberals don't need to worry about Roe v. Wade being overturned. It would take the same level of judicial activism and liberal (not political party again) interpretation of the law to repeal Roe v. Wade as it took to establish it in the first place. This is actually the reason, as I mentioned, things flow one way.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I would think we would all...
Feb 8, 2019, 9:05 AM
|
|
Want judges who don't make decisions lockstep with party ideology but instead make their decisions based on the sound interpretation of the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97722]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
You would think.....
Feb 8, 2019, 9:13 AM
|
|
Strict constructionists. The living, breathing document types though would beg to differ with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I would think we would all...
Feb 8, 2019, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to I would think we would all... ] |
|
If that is your measure for what judges should be doing, then the 9th circuit needs to be reformed.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Why would liberals be that way and not conservatives?
Feb 8, 2019, 12:30 PM
|
|
Seems like an awfully broad brush there.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
It's part of the judicial philosphy, actually
Feb 8, 2019, 12:33 PM
|
|
Liberals have been arguing that the court is inescapably, and rightfully political for a long time. They believe that certain conservatives who believe the court can be non-political and shouldn't be political are trying to use the court's alleged objectivity as cover for their own politics.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: It's part of the judicial philosphy, actually
Feb 8, 2019, 1:06 PM
|
|
Libertarians and Right wingers believe the courts exist to maintain the Constitution and make sure our laws agree with the Constitution and do not violate it, believing that changing the Constitution or creating new laws should pass through the States or Congress as it is written in the Constitution. This is the correct role of the courts according to the law as it stands.
Liberals believe that the courts exist to change the Constitution retroactively, and to use the courts to create legal policy that bucks the Constitution which cannot be repealed by Congress. This is wrong and leads to "judicial activism", a phenomena we see in more liberal dominated courts such as the 9th Circuit, where rulings are made from modern political sentiments instead of historical and Constitutional precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Well, I think you're giving them short shrift, somewhat
Feb 8, 2019, 1:55 PM
|
|
I agree with you about the role of the courts, but I'm not sure liberals really see the policies that want the court to make as being at odds with the Constitution. It's just that they want the Constitution to be interpreted in way that comports with what they think is right.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Well, I think you're giving them short shrift, somewhat
Feb 8, 2019, 4:33 PM
|
|
Thats true.
I guess a better way of saying it would be:
The Right looks at the Constitution to shape their view on what is right. Usually, the Right wing view is rooted in some sort of economic measures/stat/fact or based on a moral argument derived from religion or Natural Law.
The Left takes their view of what is right and tries to shape the Constitution around their view. Usually, the Leftist view is rooted in emotion as well as Keynesianism and Marxism.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: It's part of the judicial philosphy, actually
Feb 8, 2019, 2:07 PM
[ in reply to It's part of the judicial philosphy, actually ] |
|
But one argument I've heard from the right for years is the complaint of legislating from the bench. However, lately, it seems that's why the right is celebrating conservative judges because they expect and want them to do just that.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Some do, for sure
Feb 8, 2019, 2:22 PM
|
|
It's part of the corruption of the right by people who feel the right should be more like the left.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
This shouldn't have to be a liberal v. conservative thing.
Feb 8, 2019, 9:04 AM
[ in reply to Judges are like this. They can spend a career leaning one ] |
|
The Louisiana law was a made-up attempt to restrict abortion while putting unnecessary restrictions on doctors. Perhaps Roberts just saw it as bad practice of the law.
I would think there are better ways to combat abortion without setting shaky precedents against medical professionals. Maybe that's how Roberts saw it.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97722]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64863
Joined: 7/13/02
|
It isn't, at least by the political definition of those
Feb 8, 2019, 9:12 AM
|
|
words that no one can seem to get around. The law is the law, even if you don't like it, say conservatives. A good President would follow the rule of law on immigration and deport millions, fine businesses billions, and there would be no immigration crisis. Trump tried that and was attacked viciously in the media. All Trump did was try and enforce existing immigration law, the same way Bill Clinton did previously, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. He shouldn't have caved on that. Force Congress to do their job. Enforce the law. If there's a problem, point your finger to Congress. Their job is to make it, and/or to reform it.
Anyway, there's nothing to worry about with Roe v. Wade. This all flows one way. You can only halt the flow, you can't reverse it.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49046]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38814
Joined: 12/31/97
|
I legit missed all those headlines about all the fines
Feb 8, 2019, 11:40 AM
|
|
Trump was trying to impose on businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Not everything is, certainly
Feb 8, 2019, 11:02 AM
[ in reply to This shouldn't have to be a liberal v. conservative thing. ] |
|
The court isn't intended to be political on every question, and probably shouldn't be political on almost any question. The problem is that the liberal justices don't see things that way, and many conservative citizens probably don't either.
As far as the unimportance of admitting privileges for abortion doctors, it seems to me that's at least as partisan an argument as that abortion doctors should have admitting privileges. I would not want any relatively complex, invasive procedure being done on me by somebody who couldn't work at a hospital anywhere near where the procedure occurred. Some might argue that the people who don't like this law just want as much access to abortion as possible, and don't care about ensuring the safety of the procedure. We've seen what can happen when the government values access to abortion over regulation of it.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I don't really care about liberal vs conservative....
Feb 8, 2019, 2:53 PM
[ in reply to This shouldn't have to be a liberal v. conservative thing. ] |
|
just started the discussion that way because there was so much hand-wringing in the population at large about the perils of a conservative supreme court.
I'm just concerned about the way Roberts appears to stick his finger in the wind for some of these major decisions. As I mentioned, but no one has really addressed, he was in favor (in a dissent) of almost the very same law just two years ago. Nothing has changed substantially between now and then other than he was for it when it had no chance of being upheld, and suddenly against it (offering no written opinion) when he is the swing vote. I respect the right of someone to change their mind, this makes no sense.
It feels like he is morphing into (or may already be) very much a populist Justice.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Na, he's not a Souter
Feb 8, 2019, 11:00 AM
|
|
He just doesn't like inserting the court into controversial cases. I think he generally believes that the legislature should take charge, and that the court is diminished when it makes sweeping changes.
I could be wrong, but in this case, even though he dissented from the earlier case, the force of precedent might've changed how Roberts voted this time around. Also, remember that this wasn't a judgment on the question, just a judgment on the stay (I believe).
Anywhere, here's a case for not granting the stay. Note that it's mostly based on not treating the earlier case as precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/supreme-court-should-deny-stay-request-in-louisiana-abortion-case/. Also note that it doesn't say that granting the stay means the court will overturn the law.
Here's Whelan on the decision:
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/observations-on-the-supreme-courts-order-blocking-louisianas-abortion-law-part-1/
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Sorry, missed this in my reply above.
Feb 8, 2019, 2:54 PM
|
|
Gotta run but I'll reply later. kthnxbye
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
|
|