Post: #51

I',m willing to speculate that Gorsuch's decision here is fine, but the fact that this is a "loss for Trump" is the lie/fake news.

(04-17-2018 02:14 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 12:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong but this law would have applied to all immigrants, not just illegal ones correct? In that case I agree with Gorsuch.

Correct. It appears the law is poorly written because it does not seem to define correctly as to what exactly is a "crime of violence". Should have been more specific in terms of which felonies or misdemeanors in a outlined fashion. Also, the person in the suit, had came to America legally, not illegally, which is another problem with the way ICE used that law and applied it to him.

Congress just needs to make an adjustment to that law.

When the full arguments are released, it will probably have more details as to what particular items are offending.

Post: #52

When can we start to seriously assume Higgs Bosun is Hilary Clinton?

Post: #53

I thought the ruling was bullshit and Gorsuch seems like a traitor.

Post: #54

Even worse, none of the women on the SC are any good. They are so dumb they couldnt qualify as a crossing guard. How the hell did they get on there? It is Gods will Ted Cruz go to the SC.

Post: #55

Because the S.C. needed single moms (RBG), high functioning lesbians (Kagan) and wise latinas (Sotomayor).

Post: #56

Trump putting Gorsuch on the SC saved our country. Full stop.
Read the latest dissent on then travel ban lets us all know Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer want us dead. Fucksticks the four of them.

Post: #57

(06-26-2018 09:56 PM)rpg Wrote:  Trump putting Gorsuch on the SC saved our country. Full stop.
Read the latest dissent on then travel ban lets us all know Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer want us dead. Fucksticks the four of them.

The Clinton crime family found a way to whack Scalia, so they could get him too. Hopefully Trump can get two more on the court soon before something bad happens. I just hope he doesn't put more women in there. I can only think of one that is conservative enough that is a federal judge anyway. Not a lot of them in general because what woman would vote her ownself into submission of male leadership and traditional living. That's right none would.

Post: #58

As a Canadian, I look upon my American neighbours today with significant envy thanks to the decision of the majority of the SCOTUS in JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL.

Here's a link to the decision for those with more time on their hands than me (I just read the headnote and some media coverage about it as it is 83 pages): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...cle_inline

The WSJ article is a fair summation of the majority and the dissent. https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-cou...1530108179

Quote:The 5-4 vote, along conservative-liberal lines, on Wednesday overruled a 1977 precedent that had fueled the growth of public-sector unionization even as representation has withered in private industry. More than one-third of public employees are unionized, compared with just 6.5% of those in the private sector, according to a January report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The impact of the ruling is likely to stretch far beyond the workplace, sapping resources from unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Education Association that have provided funds, resources and activists largely in support of Democratic candidates. In the 2016 election cycle, public-sector unions spent $64.6 million on political activities, and 90% of that went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest spenders were the nation’s two biggest teachers’ unions and AFSCME.

...

Justice Samuel Alito, whose opinions have shaped the court’s turn against public-sector unions, wrote for the majority.

“Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable,” even if they are part of collective bargaining that benefits that employee, affronts a “cardinal constitutional command,” he wrote. Justice Alito quoted Justice Robert Jackson’s 1943 opinion forbidding mandatory recitation of the flag salute in public school: the government may not “force citizens to confess by word or act” any opinion.

...

For the court’s liberals, the decision Wednesday—the final day of this term—capped a term replete with disappointment.

“There’s no sugarcoating today’s opinion,” Justice Elena Kagan said from the bench. The majority, acting as “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices,” had stopped “the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance,” she said.

Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Kagan accused the majority of “weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.”

Some 20 states, principally in liberal-leaning regions such as the Northeast and the Pacific Coast, permit government agencies to reach union-security agreements with labor organizations, requiring employees within a bargaining unit either to join the union or pay it a fee for core services, such as negotiating and enforcing contracts.

Unions, which call such charges “fair-share fees,” say they are necessary to prevent free riders—employees who are happy to receive the raises, benefits and job security a union contract offers but prefer to let their co-workers foot the bill.

Justice Kagan's dissent also laments that public sector unions are going to find it difficult to raise the money they "need" without being able to force it upon non-members working in the same industry as members.

As a small businessman, this made me chuckle. If the only way you can convince people to pay for your product or services is to force them to pay you using the power of the state, maybe your product or services should SUCK LESS?

In any event, back to my original point, our Supreme Court of Canada ruled back in 1991 that forced union dues against members or non-members alike did NOT infringe our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, our unions, particularly the public sector ones, have spend the last 30 years engaged in all kinds of leftist political activism, including very heavily in elections (most notably Ontario in 2014 and Federally in 2015). It would sure be lovely if they had less money to go sticking their noses in political activism - something US public sector unions are about to face in a big way.

Gorsuch may not be everyone's favourite, but does anyone here actually think these last swaths of 5-4 rulings would have all been the same if Garland were there instead?

Post: #59

Kennedy is OUT!

Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc

Quote:Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc
The president is likely to nominate someone more conservative than Kennedy, a swing vote who has sometimes sided with liberals on key opinions, including on the landmark ruling that legalized gay marriage.

by Pete Williams / Jun.27.2018 / 2:06 PM ET / Updated 2:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced Wednesday that he will retire at the end of next month, preparing the way for the most significant change in the court's makeup in half a century.

The vacancy will allow President Donald Trump to make the U.S. Supreme court a solidly conservative body for years, if not generations, to come — a towering legacy of his time in office.

Kennedy's departure on July 31, which had been rumored for the last year, could also put in doubt the future of a nationwide right of access to abortion.

"Justice Kennedy was the most important member of the court in a century, maybe ever," said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues frequently before the court and publishes the SCOTUSblog web site.

Kennedy turns 82 in July and is the court's second-oldest justice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85.

Since 2006, when moderate conservative Sandra Day O'Connor left the court, Kennedy has been the swing justice, often casting the deciding vote in the most high-profile cases.

Joining the court's four other conservatives, he voted to gut the landmark Voting Rights Act, allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds to support candidates and give new life to the Second Amendment right to own a gun.

But he joined the liberals in banning capital punishment for the youngest offenders, declaring that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions and limiting the powers of the states to enforce their own tough immigration laws.

He profoundly shaped the court's rulings on gay rights, writing four of its most important decisions, including the landmark 2015 ruling that struck down bans nationwide on same-sex marriage.

"It's not just that he was the pivotal vote so often. It's that his thinking changed the country,” Goldstein said. Gay rights is the biggest example, but it's not the only one."

Any nominee chosen by Trump is sure to be more conservative than Kennedy. The president would likely pick someone as ideologically to the right as Neil Gorsuch, who has voted with the court's other conservatives in nearly every case since taking his place on the bench just over a year ago.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Kennedy, a fellow Californian, in 1987 after the Senate rejected Robert Bork as too rigid and after a second nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, admitted smoking marijuana.

At first a reliable conservative, Kennedy soon broke away and voted to uphold the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision. But 14 years later, he wrote the ruling that approved a federal ban on so-called partial-birth abortions.

A Trump-nominated successor to Kennedy would likely become the court's fifth reliable conservative, joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Gorsuch. Because only Thomas has declared opposition to Roe v Wade, it's uncertain whether opponents of abortion would have the five votes needed to overturn it.

At age 69, Kennedy had a stent placed in one of his heart arteries, and underwent the same procedure a year later. But neither kept him off the golf course, and his health has appeared sound.

A year ago, he told friends he was considering stepping down, but he returned to the bench last October for the start of the current term. His departure will end nearly 31 years of service on the Supreme Court.

Post: #60

Big news. Kennedy was the swing vote on tons of liberal shit. Imagine John McCain or W as a judge.

Libs are gonna go apeshit if Trump appoints another Gorsuch

Post: #61

Fantastic news. Outstanding.

Post: #62

(06-27-2018 02:07 PM)Hypno Wrote:  Big news. Kennedy was the swing vote on tons of liberal shit. Imagine John McCain or W as a judge.

Libs are gonna go apeshit if Trump appoints another Gorsuch

How difficult are the dems going to make his new appointment? I already saw Chris Matthews screaming on Hardball today that 'this was the time for the dems to make a stand or lose it all'. He suggested not showing up to the nomination meetings and other 'democratic means'.

Well, if push comes to shove Trump waits until after November once we control both the Senate and the House ;-)

Post: #63

This goes one of two ways:

Trump appoints conservative. Then:

Senate Democrats don’t filibuster appointee, make November about Trump (unlikely)

Senate Democrats filibuster appointee, make November elections a deep, deep “turn out the vote” contest. Evangelicals (especially) know that after all these decades they are nine votes away from their goal.

This is the most interesting appointment since Alito replaced O’Connor.

Post: #64

Kudos to Kennedy for making a graceful exit as opposed to the shambling corpse of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Post: #65

Guy behind the RSB feed wearing a "deplorable lives matter" t-shirt. Top kek.

WRONG THREAD

Post: #66

The president really has a lot of power here, the Dems really have to be careful not to over play their hand. You see comments like Maxine Waters agitating people to violence, I wouldn’t be surprised what happens here

During the great depression, after FDR had passed all of his communist legislation, he threatened to increase the size of the Supreme Court and pack it with his nominees. The president probably has the power to do that, the Constitution doesn’t specify the size of the court. He could probably also create new districts or new federal judge ships, not at the Supreme Court level at the trial and appellate court level, and just go nuts.

In FDRs case, everybody got the message that he had them by the shorthairs, and they didn’t challenge his legislation or to the extent they did the Supreme Court rolled over and looked the other way. So there is precedent for this. Of course it would be really provocative for Trump to do something like that, but it would be in response to a filibuster or some other BS that the Democrats pull.

Post: #67

MSNBC on suicide watch is enough to tell me this is a good thing.

Post: #68

(06-27-2018 05:19 PM)Nolecbo Wrote:  Senate Democrats filibuster appointee,

It takes a simple majority of the Senate to change the rules. Democrats filibustered Gorsuch and Republicans responded by voting to end debate.

(06-27-2018 07:28 PM)Hypno Wrote:  During the great depression, after FDR had passed all of his communist legislation, he threatened to increase the size of the Supreme Court and pack it with his nominees. The president probably has the power to do that, the Constitution doesn’t specify the size of the court. He could probably also create new districts or new federal judge ships, not at the Supreme Court level at the trial and appellate court level, and just go nuts.

Though the president can nominate as many Supreme Court justices as he wants, each one would require a vote in the Senate. Moreover, the power to ordain and establish inferior federal courts is vested in Congress. So Trump can't dictate how many federal judges or courts or districts there are. He might make proposals, but can only act on bills that Congress sends to him.

Post: #69

He can’t create new courts without legislation but he could probably appoint 100 new judges to the southern district of NY for example. That’s basically what FDR did, but for the Supreme Court



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch...saved_nine

Post: #70

Another thing trump might do is have DOJ conduct an investigation as to whether RBG is fit physically and emotionally to continue to serve. The constitution gives them life tenure but such an investigation might put public pressure on her to retire

Post: #71

(06-28-2018 08:32 AM)Hypno Wrote:  Another thing trump might do is have DOJ conduct an investigation as to whether RBG is fit physically and emotionally to continue to serve. The constitution gives them life tenure but such an investigation might put public pressure on her to retire

The DOJ has no power over any Supreme Court Justice, unless they commit a federal felony, and even then, I don't think they can even be arrested for it if I recall correctly. They could only be charged after an impeachment and removal.

A SCOTUS Justice can only be removed via impeachment, which begins in the House of Representatives, then if impeached there, the Senate may remove them by a majority vote. The Vice President Pence may break a tie if there is one.

She would have to be physically falling over herself, incoherent, unable to write or speak intelligently for that to even become an option.

If she was hospitalized in a very serious fashion, unable to do her job for the next session, that might be a trigger for impeachment as well.

Chief Justice Roberts would traditionally speaking be the person to address her health issues first and if that did not work and her fuck ups are just too obvious to the public, Congress might talk about it.

Historically speaking congressmen and presidents tend to leave SCOTUS judges alone, and try not to bother them, and that is for a very good reason. Alot of this is built in by design by the original founding fathers, to prevent the other two branches of government from harassing SCOTUS judges or dragging them into politics.

Post: #72

Post: #73

DOJ has the power to investigate a judge

They can make public their findings

For example Rhein quits was on medication that caused him to see and hear a hints other people didn’t see or hear. DOJ could investigate RBG health or connections to Russia and publish, which might result in legislation or impeachment. Not saying that she has done anything worthy of investigation or impeachment, just that the President has that power. The limits you state are accurate but Trump like FDR might act unconventionally

Post: #74

Travelerkai you should reset the history of FDRs relationship with the SCt. It’s a major exception to your view of history.

Post: #75

(06-27-2018 07:05 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  The Clinton crime family found a way to whack Scalia, so they could get him too.

Is this statement established fact, speculations or a tongue-in-cheek comment?