Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

DaveXA said:

You're relatively new here, so I'll humor you.
1. Generally support lower taxes.
2. Generally support less regulation.
3. Generally believe education should be driven at the local level.
Hell, I'll even give you a 4th, I tend to vote Republican at the local and sometimes state level, at least that was the case until Trump came around and usurped the party.

Click to expand...

Way to commit yourself, Dave. To be honest, I have to say that sounds exactly like what a progressive who wanted to pretend to be a Trump-hating Republican would say. It's like you thought of three statements that would sound like a person vaguely conservative without triggering the progs. That's what it looks like to me. IMO.

Trump and DeSantis combined have about 70% of Republican support last time I looked. Which means you put yourself out of line wiht the overwhelming majority of Reps by not supporting them.

A lot of the other Republican support is among young up-an-comers more trying to make a name for themselves or position for VP, than actually run for president, like Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Each of them is still an asterisk rather than a percent. I'm going to guess you would not support any of them, but you can raise your hand and tell me which which if I'm wrong.

You got Mike Pence, who was a Trumper for four and a half years, you got Chris Christie, who seems to be the Republican Michael Moore, and you got Asa Hutchinson.

Of those, only Hutchinson has any real credibility as a Republican.

Who is your man or woman? Or are you going to wait until Trump is nominated and say, "See! If only (candidate you never said you would support) had gotten the nomination I could have voted Republican. Oh well, I guess as a Republican I have no choice but vote for Biden . . . "

DaveXA said:

Between the 3 linked twitter accounts there are over 500k followers. A large majority of these are registered Republican voters who don't support Trump. Hardly a myth.

For accuracy, I go in once a week, not once every 2 weeks. The minimum in our agency is once weekly. Some go in more often depending on the position.

Click to expand...

So it would cost you four sick days to have a month off. My mistake.

DaveXA said:

Yes, you do, but again still well below average starting salaries. Where I live, my salary is bottom 20%.

Click to expand...

What is your GS grade?

DaveXA said:

Not one individual I work with is sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, let alone on the beach unless they're using their scheduled leave like it would be for any normal job. The pot shots says more about you than the people I actually work with.

Click to expand...

So, are you barred from working somewhere else but home, if you have a laptop and a hotspot?

DaveXA said:

That's actually not entirely true. It depends on your location, job market, profession, etc. Some are more competitive than others. But overall, yes, wage growth has trailed inflation, and that's true for both federal and private sector jobs.

Click to expand...

But much more so for the private sector. Bidinflation is killing working Americans, robbing them of their chance to save for their future, and for their children's college. Eerily fitting in the the Democrats' goals of having older Americans be dependent on government and young adults dependent on government for college.

Snarky Sack said:

I dont' remember anyone asking me to discuss planks in the Libertarian platform. Maybe it was when I was not seeing your posts.

I'm libertarian the adjective, not "Libertarian" the noun, but I'll be happy to discuss any particular plank of their platform you would like me to. I would guess that I support most of them.

Click to expand...

Let's check the tape:

Snarky Sack said:

As to my being libertarian, that is far to advanced a subject for this board.

Click to expand...

cuddlemonkey said:

I highly doubt that. How about you hit us with the highlights and we find out?

Click to expand...

Snarky Sack said:

If I did that, how long do you think it would take for someone to say "So you're saying . . . " followed by something that I did not say?

Click to expand...

Nope, you responded to me by impugning the intelligence of everyone on the board and then refusing because you assume we are all going to lie about you. Seems like a copout to me.

cuddlemonkey said:

Let's check the tape:







Nope, you responded to me by impugning the intelligence of everyone on the board and then refusing because you assume we are all going to lie about you. Seems like a copout to me.

Click to expand...

Yup, sure fits his pattern.

cuddlemonkey said:

Let's check the tape:







Nope, you responded to me by impugning the intelligence of everyone on the board and then refusing because you assume we are all going to lie about you. Seems like a copout to me.

Click to expand...

I agree, that I did. It must have been after a day of being beset with personal attacks based on no logic. Still, that's no excuse for me acting the same.

Apologies to all who were offended.

Anyway, today I am willing to talk about any particular plank in the Libertarian Party platform.

Pick one, if you're sincerely interested.

Snarky Sack said:

I agree, that I did. It must have been after a day of being beset with personal attacks based on no logic. Still, that's no excuse for me acting the same.

Apologies to all who were offended.

Anyway, today I am willing to talk about any particular plank in the Libertarian Party platform.

Pick one, if you're sincerely interested.

Click to expand...

Do you see a great difference in the Libertarian Party before and after Trump? I’ve seen some Libertarians on Twitter complaining that the newest iteration of the Libertarian Party is unserious and has been taken over by basically trolls, for lack of a better word.

MT15 said:

Do you see a great difference in the Libertarian Party before and after Trump? I’ve seen some Libertarians on Twitter complaining that the newest iteration of the Libertarian Party is unserious and has been taken over by basically trolls, for lack of a better word.

Click to expand...

I don't see that much of a difference. The party has evolved, as parties will, but I'm not seeing Trump as much of a factor in that. Maybe he is, and I just don't see it.

If he is, it could be that people of a libertarian mindset are horrified at the attempt to use the criminal justice system to interfere with an election again. Perhaps they have temporarily paused their libertarianism to support Trump because they think that we can't worry about making the U.S. into a libertarian repubic, when it is danger of not being a republic at all. That has been my thinking in supporting Trump. If many others think the same, they may well have abandoned the party to trolls.

The problem with being a libertarian and participating in politics is that libertarians are not "joiners," so we are already skeptical of the whole idea of a political party that would tell us how to be Libertarian. There are different kinds of libertarians and each thinks the others are misusing the label. State a position on a libertarian themed forum and you will likely be called either an anarchist or a socialist.

The key to libertianism, as opposed to the Libertarian Party, is the non-aggression principle (NAP). That means that we oppose initiating force for any reason other than in opposition to force initiated by someone else. So we would oppose forcing someone to stop taking drugs if they are not bothering us, but support forcing someone to stop stealing from or robbing us to buy drugs or anything else.

We look at taxes as a form of stealing from or robbing us to buy things. That's the ideal. Doesn't mean any of us supports the sudden cessation of taxes. Each libertarian seems to come up with their own idea about how (very minimal) government can be funded without the use of force, only to be immediately set upon by the others for how dumb that idea is.

Snarky Sack said:

Way to commit yourself, Dave. To be honest, I have to say that sounds exactly like what a progressive who wanted to pretend to be a Trump-hating Republican would say. It's like you thought of three statements that would sound like a person vaguely conservative without triggering the progs. That's what it looks like to me. IMO.

Click to expand...

You see what you want to see. What the fork ever man.

Snarky Sack said:

Trump and DeSantis combined have about 70% of Republican support last time I looked. Which means you put yourself out of line wiht the overwhelming majority of Reps by not supporting them.

Click to expand...

I don't give a sheet about whether I'm in line with the GOP. Their obsession with Trump is why I left the party. I still lean conservative on fiscal issues. It's the Republican Party that moved, not me.

Snarky Sack said:

A lot of the other Republican support is among young up-an-comers more trying to make a name for themselves or position for VP, than actually run for president, like Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Each of them is still an asterisk rather than a percent. I'm going to guess you would not support any of them, but you can raise your hand and tell me which which if I'm wrong.

You got Mike Pence, who was a Trumper for four and a half years, you got Chris Christie, who seems to be the Republican Michael Moore, and you got Asa Hutchinson.

Of those, only Hutchinson has any real credibility as a Republican.

Who is your man or woman?

Click to expand...

Your memory is failing you then. I already explained who I'd support in another thread. I'll repeat myself then, I haven't decided yet, but I'm open to considering Christie and Hurd. I'd support Romney or Cheney if one of them jumped in.

Snarky Sack said:

Or are you going to wait until Trump is nominated and say, "See! If only (candidate you never said you would support) had gotten the nomination I could have voted Republican. Oh well, I guess as a Republican I have no choice but vote for Biden . . . "

Click to expand...

Nope.

Snarky Sack said:

So it would cost you four sick days to have a month off. My mistake.

Click to expand...

Keep up those pot shots. What a guy.

Snarky Sack said:

What is your GS grade?

Click to expand...

None of your forking business.

Snarky Sack said:

So, are you barred from working somewhere else but home, if you have a laptop and a hotspot?

Click to expand...

Yes, i actually am.

Snarky Sack said:

But much more so for the private sector. Bidinflation is killing working Americans, robbing them of their chance to save for their future, and for their children's college. Eerily fitting in the the Democrats' goals of having older Americans be dependent on government and young adults dependent on government for college.

Click to expand...

DaveXA said:

You see what you want to see. What the fork ever man.

I don't give a sheet about whether I'm in line with the GOP. Their obsession with Trump is why I left the party. I still lean conservative on fiscal issues. It's the Republican Party that moved, not me.

Your memory is failing you then. I already explained who I'd support in another thread. I'll repeat myself then, I haven't decided yet, but I'm open to considering Christie and Hurd. I'd support Romney or Cheney if one of them jumped in.

Click to expand...

My memory is that you listed only people like Romney that were not running. I can look it up, if you insist.

Christie is not the least bit conservative. Hurd at least served his country.

DaveXA said:

Nope.

Keep up those pot shots. What a guy.

None of your forking business.

Yes, i actually am.

Click to expand...

Alright, well anyway . . .

I've enjoyed debating you, Dave, once you stopped just making snarky comments about me in reply to other people's snarky comments. No hard feeling on my end. I'm leaving the board after only a few more posts.

Thought this was a very interesting read
==============================
Mitch McConnell wants you to know: The Court That McConnell Built — the Senate minority leader is, more than anyone else, responsible for its current configuration — is an unremarkable, by-the-books institution.

In McConnell’s telling, the court is an “ideologically unpredictable body” that “produces diverse outcomes” — and, he says, the numbers back him up.


You’ve heard about damned lies and statistics? The maxim applies to the Supreme Court, too. The Kentucky Republican is using numbers to try to sand the edges off a hard-right court, and the most intriguing thing about his argument, made in a recent Post op-ed, is that he felt compelled to make it at all.


Building a conservative-dominated federal judiciary has been McConnell’s passion project, but his greatest passion is achieving — or, in this circumstance, regaining — power.

With control of the Senate up for grabs next year, McConnell must be worrying about whether the court’s actions, in particular its overruling of Roe v. Wade, are taking a toll on his chances of retaking the chamber and again becoming majority leader.

Because that is the best explanation for why McConnell is choosing to minimize the enormity of his accomplishment — his transformation of the Supreme Court from a wobbly center-right institution into a far more conservative, at times aggressively radical, body.

Under McConnell’s no-holds barred stewardship, Justice Antonin Scalia was replaced — not by President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, but by President Donald Trump’s, Neil M. Gorsuch. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy retired to make way for Brett M. Kavanaugh. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died just before the 2020 election, and McConnell muscled through her replacement, Amy Coney Barrett.

The bottom line: one significant shift to the right (Kavanaugh) and one mammoth one (Barrett). Two seats that should have gone to Democratic presidents were instead handed to Trump. Thank you, Senator McConnell.


And the new justices delivered. Abortion rights, gone. Affirmative action, gone. Gun rights, dramatically expanded. The administrative state, deconstruction underway. Religious liberties, triumphant; separation of church and state, not so much. Does this sound “ideologically unpredictable” to you?………

Guess this can go here

It’s more than just SCOTUS
==================

The worst federal court decisions may not have come from the Supreme Court.

If you are concerned about contempt for precedent, partisan hackery and judicial hubris, take a look at what district court judges have been doing.

There was U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s atrocious ruling in April reversing the Food and Drug Administration’s 2-decades-old approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. He obliterated any notion of standing, ignored the six-year statute of limitations for challenging FDA approvals, spewed a raft of right-wing disinformation and ignored decades of medical data. The Biden administration successfully appealed issuance of a nationwide injunction.


And let’s not forget the unsupportable ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon of Florida putting her finger on the scale to try to block the Justice Department from reviewing secret documents hoarded by former president Donald Trump.

Cannon never had jurisdiction to hear the case (her ruling was overturned on appeal), invented a new category of protection for a former president and utterly ignored national security interests.

But not to be outdone, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty in Louisiana, in a case involving government contacts with social media companies, “effectively issued a prior restraint on large swaths of speech, cutting short an essential dialogue between the government and social media companies about online speech and potentially lethal misinformation,” explained Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe in Just Security.

(Buying into the right-wing conspiracy theories about the Biden administration trying to quash views on social media now comes not just from MAGA lawmakers but from MAGA judges.)……

What can be done? First, the number of lower court judges should be expanded to reduce workload and court congestion, to improve diversity, and to dilute the impact of unqualified and intemperate judges.

The number of lower court seats has not been expanded since 1990, when there were about 80 million fewer Americans.


Second, Democrats should end the use of “blue slips,” which allow senators to block consideration of a district court nominee in their states; Senate Republicans have abused the tradition to stop reasonable nominees, and dozens of nominations and vacancies remain pending……

So Alabama is basically giving a big fork you to SCOTUS...

Instead of simply complying with the Supreme Court’s order in the Allen v. Milligan case, Alabama’s legislature redrew the congressional map to lower the Black voting-age population in the existing Democratic seat held by Rep. Terri Sewell from about 55% to just over 50% and then increased a second district’s Black population percentage to about 40%.

The new map approved by Alabama’s legislature and governor will go before federal courts for review in August, so this story is far from over.

Click to expand...

GrandAdmiral said:

So Alabama is basically giving a big fork you to SCOTUS...

US Supreme Court faces 'outright defiance' from Alabama | CNN Politics

It was a legitimate surprise when the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court ordered Alabama’s conservative-dominated state government last month to redraw its congressional map and include either a second majority-Black congressional district or something quite close to it.

www.cnn.com

Click to expand...

Welp, they have a decision to make. Tbh, Bama should lose their electoral votes. Idk tho. I'm not sure there's any precedent for this.

DaveXA said:

Welp, they have a decision to make. Tbh, Bama should lose their electoral votes. Idk tho. I'm not sure there's any precedent for this.

Click to expand...

I think Alabama is playing the "what are you going to do about it" card. I have no idea what the Supreme Court can do about it without assistance from the Executive and/or Legislative branches.

I was never clear about what enforcement teeth the Voting Rights Act had. I think we need to turn on the SuperChuck signal.

LA - L.A. said:

I think Alabama is playing the "what are you going to do about it" card. I have no idea what the Supreme Court can do about it without assistance from the Executive and/or Legislative branches.

I was never clear about what enforcement teeth the Voting Rights Act had. I think we need to turn on the SuperChuck signal.

Click to expand...

Yep, it definitely something I've got questions about. There's so much legal stuff going on, it's gonna be a challenge following everything during election season.

LA - L.A. said:

I think Alabama is playing the "what are you going to do about it" card. I have no idea what the Supreme Court can do about it without assistance from the Executive and/or Legislative branches.

I was never clear about what enforcement teeth the Voting Rights Act had. I think we need to turn on the SuperChuck signal.

Click to expand...

Can't the district court draw the map and force them to use it? That should definitely be done if it's possible. You let one state defiy the orders of the SC and soon every state will be defying their orders whenever the Republcians don't want to follow them.

coldseat said:

Can't the district court draw the map and force them to use it? That should definitely be done if it's possible. You let one state defiy the orders of the SC and soon every state will be defying their orders whenever the Republcians don't want to follow them.

Click to expand...

Just for fun, I am going to try my hand at a congressional map for Alabama in the next day or two.

coldseat said:

Can't the district court draw the map and force them to use it? That should definitely be done if it's possible. You let one state defiy the orders of the SC and soon every state will be defying their orders whenever the Republcians don't want to follow them.

Click to expand...

That would mean getting the Alabama secretary of state to abide by that ruling. We're approaching Nullification Crisis levels now with states telling the federal level to fork off.