Supreme Court Decisions

golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Donald Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency, upholding his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries and rejecting the idea that it represented unconstitutional religious discrimination.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/u-s-top-court-backs-trump-on-travel-ban-targeting-muslim-majority-nations-idUSKBN1JM1U9


Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, ruling it violated the free speech rights of these Christian-based facilities.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion/supreme-court-strikes-down-california-law-on-anti-abortion-centers-idUSKBN1JM1SH


Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans in Texas and North Carolina on Monday in two more cases on the contentious issue of politicians manipulating electoral district boundaries for political gain, known as gerrymandering.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering-wrap/supreme-court-favors-republicans-in-gerrymandering-cases-idUSKBN1JL2KE

All of the decisions were 5 - 4 and based on the conservative / liberal split. And to remind everyone, the Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13 2016, and the Senate Republicans refused to let Obama formally propose a nominee to replace him. A move which breaks with hundreds of years of precedence.

Quote:


"You really cannot find any single comparable case," he said. "We really did not find any precedent for the idea, notwithstanding the Senate's very broad powers in this area, that a sitting president could be denied outright the authority to offer up a nominee who would receive evaluation through normal Senate processes."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think the dissent in the travel ban case is well constructed. Justice Sotomayor makes the decision out to be a minor variation on the Japanese Internment cases of World War II. The internment of American citizens on a purely racial basis is not remotely close to preventing non-citizens from entering this country--no matter what the reason for banning them. Maybe there really wasn't a strong counter argument to the ban. If there was, Sotomayor didn't present it.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:



Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed Donald Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency, upholding his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries and rejecting the idea that it represented unconstitutional religious discrimination.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/u-s-top-court-backs-trump-on-travel-ban-targeting-muslim-majority-nations-idUSKBN1JM1U9


Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, ruling it violated the free speech rights of these Christian-based facilities.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion/supreme-court-strikes-down-california-law-on-anti-abortion-centers-idUSKBN1JM1SH


Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans in Texas and North Carolina on Monday in two more cases on the contentious issue of politicians manipulating electoral district boundaries for political gain, known as gerrymandering.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering-wrap/supreme-court-favors-republicans-in-gerrymandering-cases-idUSKBN1JL2KE

All of the decisions were 5 - 4 and based on the conservative / liberal split. And to remind everyone, the Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13 2016, and the Senate Republicans refused to let Obama formally propose a nominee to replace him. A move which breaks with hundreds of years of precedence.

Quote:


"You really cannot find any single comparable case," he said. "We really did not find any precedent for the idea, notwithstanding the Senate's very broad powers in this area, that a sitting president could be denied outright the authority to offer up a nominee who would receive evaluation through normal Senate processes."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html

Thanks for posting. SCOTUS has been rendering decisions that have much more impact than where the press secretary is eating.

The gerrymandering cases make it much harder for minority parties (e.g., GOP in California, Dems in Texas) and reflects the view that the Court really doesn't have the expertise or desire to look at every district in the nation and determine what was behind it's boundaries. The Constitution doesn't say you have to be fair in politics (note, if the districts were drawn based on race, that is an entirely different matter).

I wasn't surprised by the Court's decision on the travel ban. The courts don't have the ability to assess who should or should not be let in the country, and (even if you don't agree with the policy) you have to give deference to the executive branch which has the agencies to assess who is or is not dangerous and asses other factors, and set policy. The Court made a big effort to say they were expressing no opinion on if the travel ban is effective (suggesting the justices thought is was bad public policy), just that the executive branch could make this decision. You could see this decision coming, based on past Court decisions. This also, IMO, probably means that Obama had the discretion to start DACA and Trump has the discretion to end it. The Court is going to defer to the executive branch on who gets in, and stays in, the country.

I was surprised by the California decision. The court previously held that a law requiring doctors to inform patients of their choice to have an abortion was legal. I get the Court had to balance religious/speech freedom. However, this cuts both ways, where based on this decision, (pro) abortion clinics that are bing required by red state laws to discuss birth options, can now argue these laws are unconstitutional for violating their speech rights. And I guess doctors have forfeited their rights.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
80 year old political hacks divining the words of 18th century men like the Oracle at Delphi- Who can we buy our wedding cakes from? Who can say what at an abortion clinic? The state run amock. Hopefully they all die at the same time.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do you think Justice Gorsuch was in love with the sound of his own voice at the Confirmation Hearings? I have to admit that even though I respect James Comey, he appears to share this characteristic with Gorsuch. I also giggled when Justice Gorsuch gave that speech at a Trump Hotel, which put him in the same league as a paid celebrity greeter at the front door of a casino (Joe Louis' post boxing career gig). Thomas and Scalia were regular paid speakers at Koch brothers' sponsored political events. As Bob Dylan said, we all gotta serve somebody.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can Barack Obama now be deported? Our President has revealed that the Kenyan fraudulently ran for the office, and now the Court of Supremes has granted The Don expanded powers to restore the Founding Fathers vision.

MAGAing has just begun.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

I was surprised by the California decision. The court previously held that a law requiring doctors to inform patients of their choice to have an abortion was legal. I get the Court had to balance religious/speech freedom. However, this cuts both ways, where based on this decision, (pro) abortion clinics that are bing required by red state laws to discuss birth options, can now argue these laws are unconstitutional for violating their speech rights. And I guess doctors have forfeited their rights.


Yeah, this might not turn out all that great for pro-lifers in the long run. This opens up some of their own state laws for challenge.

The gerrymandering stuff isn't over either. The Court seems to be searching for a practical standard to apply and hasn't yet found it. Doesn't mean they won't. (Of course legislation could eventually make this moot, if it ever comes to that.)
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The gerrymandering issue is, to me, the most important. We already have a Presidency and Senate of the minority - if the Supreme Court allows gerrymandering to stand then the House will also be of the minority and we will no longer be a democratic republic.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And another 5-4 result. Public Employee Union employees can't be compelled to pay some union based fees. Evidently not applicable to private union organizations.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I got it wrong--it changes the rules for non-union members who work in public employee jobs.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The court is not a court-it is a partisan legislative body appointed by the party in power, accountable to nobody with a life term, that does the bidding of its political benefactors. It is a prime example of the corruption of the original premise of the Constitution
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frankly no one should be surprised about anything coming out of this Supreme Court. It's been loaded with conservative and the latest is a conservative NUT JOB. Expect everything to be bent towards the GOP.

Oh and BTW, 92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Frankly no one should be surprised about anything coming out of this Supreme Court. It's been loaded with conservative and the latest is a conservative NUT JOB. Expect everything to be bent towards the GOP.

Oh and BTW, 92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news
You mean the nut job that saved Obamacare?

IMO, the media is insanely biased these days. Two examples, the Washington Post reported the ruling on the travel ban was really a victory because Kennedy said Trump had to obey the law. Really? Oh, and conservative commentators are not above painting a story a certain way. I can't tell you how many times I have been at the gym with Fox, MSNBC (someone must be watching), and CNN in a row while I'm on a stationary bike, and the breaking news item is reported is such a way, its hard to tell if they are reporting on the same matter. Another reason there is a lot of BS news out there is journalist (1) use commentary with the news and (2) don't know what they are talking about, rather than report the news. Go back and read those articles about the Cal stadium (you may recall that both the Comical and NYT had indicated the judge had ruled against Cal and the stadium could not be built). In the Comical's case, I think its intentional - they have an agenda. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. The Cal Chancellor, not even close to a GOP voter, thinks the media publishers false news about Cal. The other problem is the time frame of the news cycle. There is not time to check sources any more and get up to speed. So reports simply quote people, even if the quotes are not even close to accurate. This is not intentionally reporting fake news, this is malpractice brought on by the internet. Candidly, I think Democrats should be as outraged by the media. Whatever one may think about Clinton, she was slandered on several issues.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bottom line: an uninformed populace can not make good decisions. Trump backers can't, and the GOP "look the other way" types can't either now.

Make all the excuses or qualifiers you want but not being able to parse reality and Trump is a major problem. Trump's rise is on both the hardline tea-party/evangelicals but also now the GOP establishment.

You can pretend. You can hide...Trump is still on all the GOP and conservatives...and the Russkies. The irony of this can't be over-stated given the GOP's long term Cold War stance. Reagan would cry about this. For god sake, Dana Rorhabacher, in prime Reagan country, is a bought Russkie stooge.

And yes, I fully anticipated a denial on all fronts of conservatives. Look the other way long enough..and suddenly YOU ARE TRUMP.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Whatever one may think about Clinton, she was slandered on several issues.
She got slagged for using personal emails like it was some big major scandal, while almost everyone connected to Trump's team was actually under investigation for being in bed with Russian oligarchs! It wasn't that hard to find the uncomfortable connections between Trump and Russia even before the election, but it wasn't the big shiny thing that got all the focus (thanks Comey).

I've often said: the media (as a whole) doesn't have a primarily right or left-leaning bias, it's a bias towards sensationalism. Whatever sells papers, gets clicks, drives ratings, etc.

I'm not sure much can be done about this state of affairs in the short term, but people CAN get smarter about how to read news coverage and look for what is factually supported and what is not. That requires cross-checking multiple sources, but the Internet should make that pretty easy.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Breaking: Kennedy Retiring. Trump will now appoint no less than two Supreme Court justices during his time in office.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Whatever one may think about Clinton, she was slandered on several issues.
She got slagged for using personal emails like it was some big major scandal, while almost everyone connected to Trump's team was actually under investigation for being in bed with Russian oligarchs! It wasn't that hard to find the uncomfortable connections between Trump and Russia even before the election, but it wasn't the big shiny thing that got all the focus (thanks Comey).

I've often said: the media (as a whole) doesn't have a primarily right or left-leaning bias, it's a bias towards sensationalism. Whatever sells papers, gets clicks, drives ratings, etc.

I'm not sure much can be done about this state of affairs in the short term, but people CAN get smarter about how to read news coverage and look for what is factually supported and what is not. That requires cross-checking multiple sources, but the Internet should make that pretty easy.


The draft dodging chickhawk Republicans like tRump et al slandered Hillary big time. But the Bad A$$ of all Bad A$$es had nothing but respect for HRC:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5367561
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.

golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


I've often said: the media (as a whole) doesn't have a primarily right or left-leaning bias, it's a bias towards sensationalism. Whatever sells papers, gets clicks, drives ratings, etc.
I agree with you regarding CNN & MSNBC, but disagree regarding Fox and Sinclair. Rupert Murdoch and Julian Sinclair Smith and David Smith are intentionally manipulating the national conversation to achieve their own political ends. People talk about how there is too much information, but in some places and with some demographics there is actually a lack of news. I found the article below very enlightening as I don't live in a rural area, and with the closure of local news there is no local check on the national stories. Sinclair media has been exploiting these rural markets, and requiring its news organizations to provide conservative messages.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/5/9/13771462/news-deserts-explained
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Breaking: Kennedy Retiring. Trump will now appoint no less than two Supreme Court justices during his time in office.

We're screwed.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Whatever one may think about Clinton, she was slandered on several issues.
She got slagged for using personal emails like it was some big major scandal, while almost everyone connected to Trump's team was actually under investigation for being in bed with Russian oligarchs! It wasn't that hard to find the uncomfortable connections between Trump and Russia even before the election, but it wasn't the big shiny thing that got all the focus (thanks Comey).

I've often said: the media (as a whole) doesn't have a primarily right or left-leaning bias, it's a bias towards sensationalism. Whatever sells papers, gets clicks, drives ratings, etc.

I'm not sure much can be done about this state of affairs in the short term, but people CAN get smarter about how to read news coverage and look for what is factually supported and what is not. That requires cross-checking multiple sources, but the Internet should make that pretty easy.
That assumes people have the time and inclination to check sources, or read someone who actually analyzes an issue in a long article. We work a lot more as Americans than most, if not all, other countries, and I think that makes us a far less informed electorate than in many other countries. We also, as a country, tend to get our news from a source whose bias leans towards on views.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Media is bias, just look at ownership. Media as an institution is there to protect the interests of those in power.
Read some Noam Chomsky if you want understand how media works.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) .....


...and they refuse to own the fact that they gave us this Clownocracy.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

Breaking: Kennedy Retiring. Trump will now appoint no less than two Supreme Court justices during his time in office.

We're screwed.
That is an understatement.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cable News Fact Check scorecard (most recent I found):

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MSNBC and CNN fact-check. That right there is a big deal. Yes both have an editorial bends (like Fox) but using fact-checking is a big step in transparency and an on-the-level discussion. If you use facts, a debate or conversation has value. If you're not fact-checking and simply making stuff up, there is no value except to propagandist.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
F$ckin Hillary Clinton- worst Presidential candidate ever.
OBear073akaSMFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) .....


...and they refuse to own the fact that they gave us this Clownocracy.
Yep. That's my argument with my wife every time we hear the Moron speak!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

F$ckin Hillary Clinton- worst Presidential candidate ever.

Leon Panetta disagrees with you. Without Bernie, she would be POTUS and tRump would be on the road to his next bankruptcy or being dumped in an aqueduct for missing a payment to an oligarch. Instead, he and the other members of his Crime Family are well on their way to becoming legitimate billionaires (through illegitimate means).

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/leon-panetta-endorses-hillary-clinton-217451
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If only she had gone to Wisconsin instead of Harvey Weinstein fundraisers....
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

If only she had gone to Wisconsin instead of Harvey Weinstein fundraisers....

The people that bought into the propaganda that poisoned the well for Hillary were not going to vote for her just because she shared face time with them. Bernie, Comey and Putin did her in (and her own arrogance regarding email practices made her vulnerable. tRump's communication practices much more dangerous to national security, BTW).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is true. She ignored the Rust Belt, and they went for Trump...even if he had Russkie help.

It's like Sonny Dykes not playing D..you're giving it away and will have limited success if you don't cover major components.

Yes, HRC was a flawed candidate, a corporate Dem. But she would have made a fair better POTUS. We woudln't be in the current clusterfcck if she were in. But that's an IF.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The dems are idiots too. Machine politics and not listening gets HRC the nomination. Also what Michelle Wolfe said:
Quote:

"Democrats are harder to make fun of because you guys don't do anything. People think you might flip the House and Senate this November, but you guys always find a way to mess it up. You're somehow going to lose by 12 points to a guy named Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor."

She has a point. I suspect corporate dems are conflicted by having to stand by their donors and masters even if it's against the interest of the general public. And that's why they screw up.

The GOP don't have a conflict on who they serve or their master. They're for making money over people,1,000%. Everything else are minor details.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

F$ckin Hillary Clinton- worst Presidential candidate ever.
She got more votes for President than any white man in the history of the country
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.