Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    MT15

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    26,245
    Reaction score
    38,507
    Location
    Midwest
    Online
    With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

    We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

    I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

     
    Sendai said:
    After ratification of the bill of rights it was routine for the federal government to to fund religious schools, orphanages, and hospitals up to the end of the 19th century. There was a hundred years of federally funded Christian Indian Schools.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was included in the first amendment to protect the nine states that had official state religions.

    Funding religious schools isn’t establishing a religion.
    Click to expand...
    Once again, we are back to the glory days of the 19th century! The time of this nation's genocidal, slave trading and robber baron beginnings!
     
    Sendai said:
    After ratification of the bill of rights it was routine for the federal government to to fund religious schools, orphanages, and hospitals up to the end of the 19th century. There was a hundred years of federally funded Christian Indian Schools.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was included in the first amendment to protect the nine states that had official state religions.

    Funding religious schools isn’t establishing a religion.
    Click to expand...
    I don’t think Christian Indian schools are the flex you seem to think they are.

    I don’t want my money going to any religious schools. It violates a valuable core practice that has served us well for over a hundred years. Religious orders can fund their own schools. They don’t need my tax dollars.

    It’s ridiculous. It forces me to support a religion.
     
    efil4 said:
    soooo the govt is free to destroy then? Or this is saying they must abide by lower court rulings?
    Click to expand...

    It's saying that the RFRA is not a valid legal basis to challenge the transfer (which would support an injunction). The Ninth Circuit refused to enjoin the transfer of tribal land to a private copper company on the basis that the RFRA prohibited the transfer b/c the site was an Apache holy place. SCOTUS denied the writ.

    Here's the CA9 opinion:
     
    superchuck500 said:
    It's saying that the RFRA is not a valid legal basis to challenge the transfer (which would support an injunction). The Ninth Circuit refused to enjoin the transfer of tribal land to a private copper company on the basis that the RFRA prohibited the transfer b/c the site was an Apache holy place. SCOTUS denied the writ.

    Here's the CA9 opinion:
    Click to expand...


    oohhhh i particularly liked this part

    ... ". Rather, the government advanced this argument for the first time in itsbrief opposing rehearing en banc, and now asks the en banc panel to rule in its favor on this newly developed argument.The government infrequently shows any grace when people miss deadlines or do not follow its rules. Cf. Niz-Chavez v.Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1486 (2021) (“If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.”). I would not show any leniency to the government and would consider this argument waived."
     
    DaveXA said:
    If it makes Gorsuch and Thomas mad...I'm OK with it. Yeah it's petty, but fork 'em.
    Click to expand...
    So you’re good with destroying sacred Native American lands because you don’t like Gorsuch and Thomas.
     
    Sendai said:
    So you’re good with destroying sacred Native American lands because you don’t like Gorsuch and Thomas.
    Click to expand...

    I don't like it, but the RFRA isn't applicable to this situation. Legally it was the correct decision. Also, this was all made possible because of last minute rider (The Land Authorization Act) attached to a must pass NDAA in 2014. One guess as to which party attached that rider to a must pass bill. We need to elect better people if we don't want these things to happen.
     
    Sendai said:
    “If it makes Gorsuch and Thomas mad...I'm OK with it. Yeah it's petty, but fork 'em.”
    Click to expand...
    It's like you didn't even read @coldseat's response.

    Or you just can't grasp the distinction between being ok with the Supreme Court denying a petition on a specific basis (and making Gorsuch and Thomas mad), and being ok with the subject of the petition going ahead. As if you think that if someone is against something they must, necessarily, support any action that opposes that thing, regardless of meaning and consequence.

    Either way, the problem is, yet again, on your end.
     
    Sendai said:
    “If it makes Gorsuch and Thomas mad...I'm OK with it. Yeah it's petty, but fork 'em.”
    Click to expand...
    Yep, that and what you claimed I said are clearly 2 different things...but keep up the good work. :9:

    And to be clear, the emphasis was on them being mad, not on whatever made them mad. That in no way implies I agree with whatever made them mad. Clear enough for you?
     
    CNN) — President Donald Trump has privately complained that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. But he has directed particular ire at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee, one of the sources said.

    The behind-closed-doors grievances have been wide-ranging, and while many have been about Barrett, Trump has also expressed frustration about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the sources familiar with the matter said. The complaints have gone on for at least a year, the sources said.

    The president’s anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020.

    “It’s not just one ruling. It’s been a few different events he’s complained about privately,” a senior administration official told CNN.

    In a statement, principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said: “President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role.”……..

    www.cnn.com

    Trump privately complains about Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices he nominated | CNN Politics

    President Donald Trump has privately expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    CNN) — President Donald Trump has privately complained that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. But he has directed particular ire at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee, one of the sources said.

    The behind-closed-doors grievances have been wide-ranging, and while many have been about Barrett, Trump has also expressed frustration about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the sources familiar with the matter said. The complaints have gone on for at least a year, the sources said.

    The president’s anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020.

    “It’s not just one ruling. It’s been a few different events he’s complained about privately,” a senior administration official told CNN.

    In a statement, principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said: “President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role.”……..

    www.cnn.com

    Trump privately complains about Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices he nominated | CNN Politics

    President Donald Trump has privately expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
    Click to expand...
    As usual, what he says is usually the opposite. He claims to respect the court, yet his administration ignored the court on Abrego and didn’t order the planes to turn around. I always negate what Trump says to reveal the true message.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom