Discussion: The Supreme Court II

The "centrists" are at it again. :o
 
How have we gone backwards over the last 50 years? Their argument is flawed. Because racist state legislatures haven’t passed racists laws, that means federal oversight isn’t needed? That’s like saying because I haven’t gotten covid, I no longer need to wear a mask or get vaccinated
 
This needs to be shouted to the high heavens...

How many of the current SCOTUS were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote?

Yeah...

**** legality, precedent or whatever useful euphemism one could employ to make this seem reasonable...

This is undemocratic, wrong and not worthy of our Republic.

Anyone cheering this on you are cheering for a slide into something that more accurately could be described as American Fascism, American Apartheid or some bull**** Libertarian wet dream of Neo-Feudalism with extreme corporate control of everyone and everything.
 
Once again we know the Supreme Court is really, truly not "apolitical" as Roberts keeps claiming. Not when they allow Republicans to blatantly and openly supress voters.
 
This is his life's work - his life's crusade. As long as Roberts heads this court, we'll never be able to protect the vote. Even IF we passed H.R. 1... it'd just be struck down by the conservative court. We're done. Our only hope is that these voting restrictions around the edges aren't effective... that we win in spite of their cheating.

Also, Biden is right..... the voting restrictions are awful, but the idea that legislatures are making policy that allows them to overrule the results of an election... that is very much a different thing. That's some straight up Fascist insanity. I wish the court could have at least done something about that, but apparently that too is all good.

Yesterday was one of those days that made me feel like I really didn't want to live on this planet anymore. So many people are so blatantly awful. Sucks.
 
Once again we know the Supreme Court is really, truly not "apolitical" as Roberts keeps claiming. Not when they allow Republicans to blatantly and openly supress voters.
Roberts has never been apolitical, in fact, he's one of the most blatantly partisan Chief Justices in our history. The thing is, he's SMART. He knows that the flavor-of-the-month culture war nonsense the national party is running with is ultimately irrelevant. So when he sees the tide is turning, he'll side with the liberals (such as in Obergfell) and claim to be impartial to fend off calls for court reform.

Like McConnell, he understands what ACTUALLY keeps him and his friends in power. Legal abortion, gay marriage - this is all fine, none of the GOP establishment actually cares about that stuff. It's all about the money and muzzling the voice of the people. So he's dedicated his tenure to stripping voting rights and empowering dark money donors. Because that's how conservatives prolong and strengthen minority rule.
 
The new Taney court of voting rights.



United States Constitution said:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | The National Constitution Center.

———————

 
Last edited:
I can't wait for the next "centrist" opinion from the court.....
 


Guess we know who paid off the gambling debts....
 
I wouldn't. They both knew the risks of staying on long after it was a literal threat to democracy and the danger of being replaced by people like Barrett or Kavanaugh is too high.

He needs to retire before the threat of Republican attacks on democracy gain more power.
 
Last edited:


NBC News - Supreme Court rejects challenge to Indiana University's vaccination requirement
There were no noted dissents from other justices.

Governing.com - The Long History of Mandated Vaccines in the United States
Vaccines against smallpox during the Revolutionary War may have saved the Continental Army from defeat. It’s one example of how mandates have protected the health of Americans for more than two centuries.

History.com - When the Supreme Court Ruled a Vaccine Could Be Mandatory
A 1905 decision provided a powerful and controversial precedent for the flexing of government authority.
 
Last edited:
How is a lower court able to force a border policy to continue? Can Biden not supercede the policy with a different policy or executive order?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,535
Messages
21,755,247
Members
45,591
Latest member
MartyMcFly1985
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"