SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by madhatter »

brownman wrote:Gonna be interesting to see DHS and State Dept determining relationship 'legitimacy' over the next couple months :?
Both have lots of challenges already on their dockets. The SC may kick the can in October on account of not wanting to rule on a temporary ban that accomplishes nearly nothing with respect to the stated cause of National Security. good grief yer a complete homer...can't recognize a losing hand when it staring ya in the face...

Rookie Drumpho administration should have given this much more thought and floated Version 3.0 on Jan 27th.
Gump initially positioned this as a 90 day ban .. 'until we figure out what the heck is going on..' which means until those countries are able to provide verifiable documentation of their citizens who wish to gain entry to the US... :roll:
Now .. 5 months of wasted time and effort from the left, only to be rebuked....typical... a cheap victory and a very short-lived court-shopped victory that of course ultimately yielded yet another loss, to the surprise of none except the few "hopelessly in love w the letter D" sycophants who are seemingly blindsided by reality nearly every day...
Ready .. Fire .. Aim :zzz

:seeya
Image
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
brownman
Postinator
Posts: 7351
Joined: Dec 6th, '07, 17:59
Location: Stockbridge Boulevard

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by brownman »

Stick to gardening :idea:
Doubtful, but maybe you can figure that out.
All your stuff is stones and stix.

:zzz
Forever .. Goat Path
biged
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1265
Joined: Feb 8th, '05, 21:58

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by biged »

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_f1gj.pdf
Another decision against property rights.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by madhatter »

brownman wrote:Stick to gardening :idea:
Doubtful, but maybe you can figure that out.
All your stuff is stones and stix.

:zzz
whatever one trick pony, your entire commentary amounts to a bunch of butthurt " I hate trump and anyone who supports him... I can't believe he won, wah wah wah" you've become nothing but an obnoxious whiner following me from thread to thread w nothing of any value to add...not like you have any actually dissent or beef w policy or at least none that you've been able to put into words. just a bunch of gump, chump, drumph etc combined w thinly veiled personal insults that you seem to be unaware you are making or that you consider the "good hate" and thus not personal or insulting....at least yer getting better w one syllable rhyming words...might be a career in rap music for ya, maybe you can team up w snoopdog...

here's a newsflash for ya, trump is and will continue to be president for the next 4-8 years so suck it up buttercup...

Image
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by Bubba »

madhatter wrote:
brownman wrote:Stick to gardening :idea:
Doubtful, but maybe you can figure that out.
All your stuff is stones and stix.

:zzz
whatever one trick pony, your entire commentary amounts to a bunch of butthurt " I hate trump and anyone who supports him... I can't believe he won, wah wah wah" you've become nothing but an obnoxious whiner following me from thread to thread w nothing of any value to add...not like you have any actually dissent or beef w policy or at least none that you've been able to put into words. just a bunch of gump, chump, drumph etc combined w thinly veiled personal insults that you seem to be unaware you are making or that you consider the "good hate" and thus not personal or insulting....at least yer getting better w one syllable rhyming words...might be a career in rap music for ya, maybe you can team up w snoopdog...

here's a newsflash for ya, trump is and will continue to be president for the next 4-8 years so suck it up buttercup...

Image
How about you both take this sh*t back to the Trump Presidency thread and leave this thread for more interesting discussion.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
brownman
Postinator
Posts: 7351
Joined: Dec 6th, '07, 17:59
Location: Stockbridge Boulevard

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by brownman »

My initial SC post was up the middle.
When someone shoots at me, I fire back.

Enjoy your topic.
Forever .. Goat Path
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by Mister Moose »

brownman wrote: When someone shoots at me, I fire back.
I've heard someone else say that, ....can't quite remember who.... trying to put my finger on it...
Image
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by Bubba »

brownman wrote:My initial SC post was up the middle.
When someone shoots at me, I fire back.

Enjoy your topic.
Not placing blame. Just trying to keep some sort of order in a disorderly environment. A little self restraint on everyone's part goes a long way.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by madhatter »

Bubba wrote:
brownman wrote:My initial SC post was up the middle.
When someone shoots at me, I fire back.

Enjoy your topic.
Not placing blame. Just trying to keep some sort of order in a disorderly environment. A little self restraint on everyone's part goes a long way.
when you post ridicuolous drivel like this yer position is up something, but it's not the middle...
5 months of wasted time and effort to achieve a cheap victory lap from a podium rooted in quicksand.
Trump issues a completely legal EO, the left judge shops TWICE in order to stall, delay and obstruct a legal action...once it goes before the SC it is immediately re-instated in a 9-0 decision ( until it can be heard in it;s entirety next session) and somehow brownie imagines that it's the R's who wasted 5 mos on it???

brownman, you've let trump derangement syndrome destroy your brain...it's fully encompassed you to the point where you are no longer capable of seeing things through anything but an " I hate trump and trump voters" lens...sad so sad, you actually seemed like a decent guy before you became ill...

back to the SCOTUS decision on the "travel ban"... it was plainly obvious that barring extreme political legislative activism from the bench that this EO was gonna fly...I know some of you can't help but hold out hope that "your side" will sidestep the constitution whenever the law doesn't suit you, but it's a dangerous practice that needs to be quelled...

we need judges at all levels, but particularly the SCOTUS, to make the administration of justice blind to anything but the concrete facts of the matter...ambiguity needs to be legislated out not adjudicated...that's the only way to insure the integrity of the courts...

I have a big problem with open ended laws where whoever is in power has broad latitude as to how it applies...again I want a stop sign to mean stop and nothing but stop...regardless of who is in power and who encounters said stop sign...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by madhatter »

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 34290.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Clues to Gorsuch's Ideology Seen in Pairings With Thomas
WASHINGTON (AP) -- To see where Justice Neil Gorsuch might fit on the Supreme Court, watch the company he keeps.

Gorsuch has already paired up four times with Justice Clarence Thomas - the court's most conservative member - in separate opinions that dissent from or take issue with the court's majority rulings.


While the sample size is small, the results show Gorsuch's commitment to follow the strict text of the law and a willingness to join Thomas in pushing the envelope further than the court's other conservatives.

Gorsuch was picked by President Donald Trump to be a reliable conservative in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia. But the question after his confirmation hearings was how far to the right he would be.

The early trend of Gorsuch and Thomas acting together has pleased those who hoped Gorsuch would continue Scalia's legacy and be another intellectual beacon for conservatives.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, tweeted Friday: "So far, his voting alignment closest to Thomas -excellent!"

The latest instance came Friday when Gorsuch issued his first written dissent in a minor case about a federal employee challenging his dismissal from the U.S. Census Bureau. The dispute was over where Anthony Perry could appeal a case that alleges violations of both federal civil service rules and laws prohibiting discrimination.

The court sided with Perry, ruling 7-2 that he could file his lawsuit in a federal district court instead of first waiting for a federal appeals court to consider part of his case. In dissent, Gorsuch faulted the majority for failing to apply the law as written.

"Anthony Perry asks us to tweak a congressional statute - just a little - so that it might (he says) work a bit more efficiently," Gorsuch said, joined by Thomas. "No doubt his invitation is well meaning. But it's one we should decline all the same."

Later, he added: "If a statute needs repair, there's a constitutionally prescribed way to do it," Gorsuch said. "It's called legislation."

A day earlier, Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion when the Supreme Court unanimously limited the government's ability to strip U.S. citizenship from immigrants who lie during the naturalization process. Joined by Thomas, Gorsuch said the majority ruling was correct, but he argued that following "the plain text and structure of the statute" was enough. He said the court went too far in announcing two new tests that would apply to future cases.

In a separate case decided Thursday, the court by a 7-2 vote refused to overturn the murder conviction of a Boston man whose lawyer failed to object when the trial judge closed the courtroom during jury selection. The court said that the error did not appear to affect the outcome of the case, even though it violated the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

Gorsuch agreed with the outcome of the case, but he signed on to a concurring opinion from Thomas that encouraged the court to reconsider whether the right to a public trial even extends to jury selection.

And last month, Gorsuch and Thomas disagreed when the court turned away an appeal from Louisiana Republicans seeking to ease limits on so-called soft money by political parties in federal elections.

A three-judge court in Washington, D.C., had earlier upheld the restrictions. Gorsuch and Thomas were the only justices who wanted the high court to set the case for argument and consider striking down the limits.

Thomas, appointed to the court in 1991, takes pride in his many dissents - often alone - insisting that the justices follow the original meaning of the Constitution even when that means overturning established case law. His absolutist stance has earned praise from conservative supporters. But critics point out that he rarely writes major opinions for the court because his views rarely align with the majority.

Like Gorsuch, Thomas did not wait long in writing his first dissent soon after joining the high court. It came in a 1992 case where a prisoner said his abusive treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The court ruled 7-2 that the prisoner could sue prison officials after he was punched and kicked by guards. But in dissent, Thomas said the Constitution's framers "simply did not conceive of the Eighth Amendment as protecting inmates from harsh treatment." He was joined by Scalia.
follow the strict text of the law
I like that, that's what I want to see...more legislation in congress where the differences are hashed out til an agreement is reached vs the "it's a tax but no it's not a tax depending on when that suits ones needs" legislation and subsequent ruling we got w the ACA...

the only way any kind of bipartisanship can occur is when the court is completely apolitical and predictable in it's rulings...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by Bubba »

madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:
brownman wrote:My initial SC post was up the middle.
When someone shoots at me, I fire back.

Enjoy your topic.
Not placing blame. Just trying to keep some sort of order in a disorderly environment. A little self restraint on everyone's part goes a long way.
when you post ridicuolous drivel like this yer position is up something, but it's not the middle...
5 months of wasted time and effort to achieve a cheap victory lap from a podium rooted in quicksand.
Trump issues a completely legal EO, the left judge shops TWICE in order to stall, delay and obstruct a legal action...once it goes before the SC it is immediately re-instated in a 9-0 decision ( until it can be heard in it;s entirety next session) and somehow brownie imagines that it's the R's who wasted 5 mos on it???

brownman, you've let trump derangement syndrome destroy your brain...it's fully encompassed you to the point where you are no longer capable of seeing things through anything but an " I hate trump and trump voters" lens...sad so sad, you actually seemed like a decent guy before you became ill...

back to the SCOTUS decision on the "travel ban"... it was plainly obvious that barring extreme political legislative activism from the bench that this EO was gonna fly...I know some of you can't help but hold out hope that "your side" will sidestep the constitution whenever the law doesn't suit you, but it's a dangerous practice that needs to be quelled...

we need judges at all levels, but particularly the SCOTUS, to make the administration of justice blind to anything but the concrete facts of the matter...ambiguity needs to be legislated out not adjudicated...that's the only way to insure the integrity of the courts...

I have a big problem with open ended laws where whoever is in power has broad latitude as to how it applies...again I want a stop sign to mean stop and nothing but stop...regardless of who is in power and who encounters said stop sign...
I'm having trouble understanding why some Trump supporters feel this is vindication for the legality of the Executive Order(s). So far, the only parts of the Orders allowed to go into effect are those impacting refugees and potential visitors with no connection to the US. All others - those with relatives, business, students, etc. will be allowed to continue coming. What the Court said is that the injunctions were overly broad so they narrowed them down. Three justices out of the nine said they would've allowed a stay of all injunctions. In the meantime, by the time the Court hears the government appeals in the fall, the 90 days will have passed and the Court could simply determine that the issue is moot.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by Mister Moose »

Bubba wrote: I'm having trouble understanding why some Trump supporters feel this is vindication for the legality of the Executive Order(s). So far, the only parts of the Orders allowed to go into effect are those impacting refugees and potential visitors with no connection to the US. All others - those with relatives, business, students, etc. will be allowed to continue coming. What the Court said is that the injunctions were overly broad so they narrowed them down. Three justices out of the nine said they would've allowed a stay of all injunctions. In the meantime, by the time the Court hears the government appeals in the fall, the 90 days will have passed and the Court could simply determine that the issue is moot.
Because 90 days isn't going to be 90 days.
Image
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: SCOTUS Cases & Decisions

Post by madhatter »

Bubba wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Bubba wrote:
brownman wrote:My initial SC post was up the middle.
When someone shoots at me, I fire back.

Enjoy your topic.
Not placing blame. Just trying to keep some sort of order in a disorderly environment. A little self restraint on everyone's part goes a long way.
when you post ridicuolous drivel like this yer position is up something, but it's not the middle...
5 months of wasted time and effort to achieve a cheap victory lap from a podium rooted in quicksand.
Trump issues a completely legal EO, the left judge shops TWICE in order to stall, delay and obstruct a legal action...once it goes before the SC it is immediately re-instated in a 9-0 decision ( until it can be heard in it;s entirety next session) and somehow brownie imagines that it's the R's who wasted 5 mos on it???

brownman, you've let trump derangement syndrome destroy your brain...it's fully encompassed you to the point where you are no longer capable of seeing things through anything but an " I hate trump and trump voters" lens...sad so sad, you actually seemed like a decent guy before you became ill...

back to the SCOTUS decision on the "travel ban"... it was plainly obvious that barring extreme political legislative activism from the bench that this EO was gonna fly...I know some of you can't help but hold out hope that "your side" will sidestep the constitution whenever the law doesn't suit you, but it's a dangerous practice that needs to be quelled...

we need judges at all levels, but particularly the SCOTUS, to make the administration of justice blind to anything but the concrete facts of the matter...ambiguity needs to be legislated out not adjudicated...that's the only way to insure the integrity of the courts...

I have a big problem with open ended laws where whoever is in power has broad latitude as to how it applies...again I want a stop sign to mean stop and nothing but stop...regardless of who is in power and who encounters said stop sign...
I'm having trouble understanding why some Trump supporters feel this is vindication for the legality of the Executive Order(s). So far, the only parts of the Orders allowed to go into effect are those impacting refugees and potential visitors with no connection to the US. All others - those with relatives, business, students, etc. will be allowed to continue coming. What the Court said is that the injunctions were overly broad so they narrowed them down. Three justices out of the nine said they would've allowed a stay of all injunctions. In the meantime, by the time the Court hears the government appeals in the fall, the 90 days will have passed and the Court could simply determine that the issue is moot.
and that's perfectly fine...the point is to VERIFY who people are...if you have valid documentation of your status and that status is acceptable then you have been vetted...that's the goal of the EO...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Post Reply