Guest Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Collins: Won't support SCOTUS pick hostile to abortion rights https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/01/politics/susan-collins-supreme-court/index.html “because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," I’m not sure why this is seen as a reasonable POV. Whether a law is “established” or not should have no bearing on how the court handles issues of constitutionality. If the legislature, executive, or the the courts have it wrong...they have it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 1, 2018 Author Share Posted July 1, 2018 What the hell is "established law" anyway to begin with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, sblfilms said: “because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," I’m not sure why this is seen as a reasonable POV. Whether a law is “established” or not should have no bearing on how the court handles issues of constitutionality. If the legislature, executive, or the the courts have it wrong...they have it wrong. I think it's dubious to base the legality of abortion on privacy. I'm not saying that Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion made illegal, I just think it was shaky ground to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said: What the hell is "established law" anyway to begin with? “The law is established when the law is what I think it should be.” as far as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 40 minutes ago, sblfilms said: “The law is established when the law is what I think it should be.” as far as I can tell. Yup, but even more so, it gives them a cop-out. For example, when asked why Collins voted for Gorsuch, she said that she didn't think he'd overturn Roe v Wade. Quote "I actually don't," she said of Gorsuch joining an opinion overturning Roe. "I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 I only support established law when it’s a law I agree with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 No one intelligent believes her, but she got a nice headline for her state to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 2, 2018 Author Share Posted July 2, 2018 5 hours ago, mclumber1 said: I think it's dubious to base the legality of abortion on privacy. I'm not saying that Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion made illegal, I just think it was shaky ground to stand on. As someone who is pro-abortion (and not merely pro-choice), the notion that a "right to privacy" (whatever the hell that is) serves as the basis of abortion's legality is absolute nonsense. This is the entire fatal flaw of American jurisprudence - that something's legality has its basis as to whether or not it's a "right" rather than whether or not it has utility for society as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: This is the entire fatal flaw of American jurisprudence - that something's legality has its basis as to whether or not it's a "right" rather than whether or not it has utility for society as a whole. A lot of the founding fathers didn't want to include a bill of rights in the constitution because they knew that as soon as you started spelling out some rights, people would start arguing that rights not spelled out don't exist. Which is of course why we get these ridiculous mental contortions about what's covered by privacy considerations, or why something is artistic speech and thus protected. The counter-argument was basically "don't be silly this is clearly a document about a government of limited and enumerated powers." Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Sen. Collins, everyone on that list will reverse Roe v. Wade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jason said: It will show a lot of concern, and a surprising amount of guile, by Trump if she is actually the pick. It would signal Trump and his allies are genuinely concerned with the optics of killing Roe. My understanding is that no matter how conservative they are, a female justice is seen in conservative circles inherently as a danger to "Go Souter" on Roe. That all said, I think it's a typical pump fake and he'll go with someone else. I find myself over thinking, "If I were faced with the complicated balancing act of pleasing my base, nominating a justice, and finally actually killing Roe and redefining the rights of women for the next 50 years it would make sense to throw down a little cover to say the swing vote on that curtailing was, herself, a woman that I nominated". But then I have to remind myself, Trump doesn't care! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbobo Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 42 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: It will show a lot of concern, and a surprising amount of guile, by Trump if she is actually the pick. It would signal Trump and his allies are genuinely concerned with the optics of killing Roe. My understanding is that no matter how conservative they are, a female justice is seen in conservative circles inherently as a danger to "Go Souter" on Roe. That all said, I think it's a typical pump fake and he'll go with someone else. I find myself over thinking, "If I were faced with the complicated balancing act of pleasing my base, nominating a justice, and finally actually killing Roe and redefining the rights of women for the next 50 years it would make sense to throw down a little cover to say the swing vote on that curtailing was, herself, a woman that I nominated". But then I have to remind myself, Trump doesn't care! Barrett has 7 kids and is a devote catholic so I wouldn't bet on her being a woman as enough for her to be automatically for Roe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 @GeneticBlueprint 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Yeah, I think Amy Barrett is the biggest anti-Roe lock of the bunch being considered. She isn’t O’Connor and certainly not Souter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 26 minutes ago, elbobo said: Barrett has 7 kids and is a devote catholic so I wouldn't bet on her being a woman as enough for her to be automatically for Roe That is not at all what I was saying. I wasn't really speaking at all to the chances of Barrett defecting on Roe. I am a pessimist who lives in a Red state surrounded by women who despise Roe. My point was that, to the horribly efficient judicial machinery in place on the Right, even a small chance of unpredictability is too much. Keep in mind, they probably don't just have their sights set on Roe, they're looking forward to post-Roe and perhaps a national law outlawing abortion. Perhaps no exceptions for rape or incest. These are the kind of things where I think they might get worried a woman might get squeamish about. And, like I said, I am not so sure I buy it. But this is the discussion conservatives are having amongst themselves. A lot of them just don't trust a woman on this issue, full stop. Not when, all things being equal, you could nominate a man instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: But this is the discussion conservatives are having amongst themselves. Is it? I’m not seeing or hearing this discussion, where have you been seeing it pop up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Good thing to know: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 I thought that was common knowledge for anyone who followed the SCOTUS at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: I thought that was common knowledge for anyone who followed the SCOTUS at all? All knowledge seems common if you know the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 I'm saying I figured it was something most of us here already knew, since we actually follow this stuff. Was talking at work the other night and my coworkers didn't know who Anthony Kennedy was, let alone the implications of him retiring. And one of them even admitted to having an abortion. It kills me how little people know about the world around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jason said: He is the reality TV president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Jason said: Yup. And to be clear, it is Roberts relative lack of judicial activism, as opposed to any hint of liberal leanings, that should give anyone any amount of optimism that he might swing with the liberals in the coming years. Did you catch the most important word in there? Relative. The other 4 are now going to be guys who will have absolutely zero compunction with throwing out 100 years of precedent in favor of telling us they know what the framers really meant in that clause. Maybe on a couple things Roberts won't want to see his court go down in history as a partisan destruction of the institution. That is the only way in which he is a swing vote. And the horrible reality is even with all that said, it could still get much worse if Trump gets to replace someone on the liberal wing amounting to a majority of mini-Scalias on the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Just nominate Sean Hannity and get it over with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Also, can't wait to get the GOP hot takes on whatever garbage person is nominated. Marco Rubio: "The President has the power to nominate individuals, and he has done so. The Senate has the power to question that nominee, and we will do so." Paul Ryan: "I haven't read the reports yet." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Democrats - We'll ok whatever he does while acting like we won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, 2user1cup said: Democrats - We'll ok whatever he does while acting like we won't. Didnt the Dems force the GOP to go nuclear last time? Why do we always have to shit on the Democratic Party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Jose said: Didnt the Dems force the GOP to go nuclear last time? Why do we always have to shit on the Democratic Party? Because they've failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 On 7/6/2018 at 1:24 PM, Jason said: Has she seen the build to Wrestlemania the last decade or two? Outside of Mania 30, the builds have been shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 34 minutes ago, MarSolo said: Has she seen the build to Wrestlemania the last decade or two? Outside of Mania 30, the builds have been shit. I really dug the 2012 build. I'm a bit biased since I attended that one, but the main events felt really big, especially Rock/Cena. /off-topicbutigetyourpoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.