Jump to content

b_m_b_m_b_m

Members
  • Content Count

    13,391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Everything posted by b_m_b_m_b_m

  1. My point is every case is very easy to overturn if the ideological balance of the court tips one way or another! the only reason Casey didn’t overturn roe is because judges appointed by arch conservative presidents didn’t fully fit their ideological mold. The right has learned from this and this mistake won’t be made again
  2. You can pick and choose any legal scholars you want that’s an absolute shit argument. Guess who should be considered some of the utmost authorities on constitutional law? The justices themselves! interpretation of the constitution is a political act, there is no “consensus” that exists whatsoever, and shit there’s even disagreement over how to interpret the constitution! Should we read the text as is, or the original intent? No one does this consistently so there’s no right or wrong answer!
  3. Just because the old paper doesn’t explicitly say the magic word “privacy” doesn’t mean it isn’t a right, in fact the 9th amendment makes this quite clear
  4. As I said before, we’re going to have one slate of electors submitted from the normal, official method, and another from republican legislatures and guess who gets to determine what’s what?!
  5. What if I told you the court doesn’t really care about stare decisis and will just make up whatever they want and justify it however they want to reach the outcomes they want. There’s enough case law to pretty much do what you want! Just wrap it up nicely in a bow with “we believe the court wrongly decided this case” (if the case law is even mentioned) or something similar and congrats you have a new ruling the court is an ideological project not some academic exercise in the just application of the law!
  6. This is dumb and your theoretical is on its face a violation of the first amendment. So you disclose you have an abortion you got from planned parenthood to your obgyn is that a violation of your law? Telling your married spouse a violation as well? What’s to keep the law for expanding to other medical procedures?
  7. Nearly everyone in a decision making role is wealthy, this clouds their judgement more than anything else
  8. Oh no I’m Fake news sad! Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick WWW.FOXNEWS.COM House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday would not rule out impeachment as an option to stop President Trump’s Supreme Court pick from being confirmed to the... Don’t trust what I say sometimes
  9. It’s just about the only thing senate Democrats can do at this point too i love shitting on dems more than anyone but when there isn’t even business on the floor of the senate to deal with it, or a nominee or anything, not much you can do at this point
  10. As much as the read meat dumbass conservatives would like that I think the smartest of the bunch realize how effective the bad faith “it’s still the law!” Is
  11. I doubt we get a wholesale repeal of roe immediately. You’re going to see a chipping away of the ability to access abortions by regulatory action and other such things. In fact I think state laws that ban abortion or completely repeal the roe decision, for the time being, will be struck down, but laws that effectively shut it down will stand. So more laws like doctors must have admitting privileges at all hospitals within 15 miles of a crisis pregnancy center, or that specific outpatient procedures (such as early first trimester abortions via pill) must occur at licensed medical facilities.
  12. Then pay the price politically for the shutdown. Like clockwork
  13. And for those of you keeping score at home, republicans hold both state houses in AZ, wi, mi, pa, nc, ga, fl, oh, tx and even the governor of az, ga, fl, oh, and tx not saying this will happen, but the republicans have means, motive, opportunity, and a lack of meaningful repercussions due to undemocratic gerrymandering, a broken constitution (encompassing the election of the president to the judicial system and more) and general authoritarian tendencies of one party and sheepishness of the so called opposition
  14. Also I can tell you how the courts conservatives will rule http://en.m.wikipedia.org//static/favicon/wikipedia.ico Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission - Wikipedia EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG so next look where republicans have both houses and proceed accordingly
  15. Looking forward to getting manchin on the “abolish the filibuster and pack the courts” train to only be thwarted by Dianne Feinstein lmao
  16. Boy howdy I bet we have 50 senators who can’t wait to replace her and dontchaknow pence there to break the tie also what was rbgs cause of death? We need a long form death certificate!!!!
  17. Roberts threw out the main enforcement mechanism of the voting rights act because the formula used to decide what states and localities were subject to preclearance was 40 years old, despite the law being renewed by congress nearly unanimously in 2006 and signed into law by the president, only 7 years prior to the case coming before the court. That’s it. That’s the reasoning. the roberts court will absolutely make up whatever they need to in order to advance their version of the conservative agenda. Every conservative member of the court is a federalist society goon, don’t ever forge
  18. To really torture the analogy the uk is definitely the guy who brags, after a particularly nasty divorce, “yeah I kicked the bitch out “ like it’s something to be proud of
  19. The only reason roberts is a swing justice in any sense of the word is because as CJ, when he’s in the majority he decides who writes the opinion for the court. Despite his statements to the contrary, he realizes better than most that the court is a political institution and there are no “balls and strikes” but him slow rolling conservative judicial thought (again, only in some limited cases) to grant “liberal” victories is an apparent “two steps forward, one step back” pattern of his judicial holdings and is more damaging to liberal/left/progressive causes in the long term. I hate to harp on
  20. One is a condition of related money as determined by congress, one is the executive deciding to go it alone. Unless there’s some statutory authority given to the executive that I’m not aware of that allows them to withhold funds without congressional approval due to there being “anarchist jurisdictions” in fact a good faith reading of nfib v seilbius (lol I know) would mean that this is an unconstitutional withholding of funds congress good executive bad it’s not hard folks
×
×
  • Create New...