ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 27th October 2020, 04:20 AM   #281
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
How soon till we get abortion tourism? You know, girl gets a Greyhound bus ticket from Iowa to Illinois, with Super 8 motel in the package. Abortion free at Planned Parenthood.
I'm guessing that it won't be legal to offer that kind of package.

It may even be illegal for someone in a state in which abortion is illegal to travel out of state for the purpose of securing an abortion. Of course senior GOPers who find themselves in need of an abortion for their girlfriend, daughter, rape victim in those states will still be able to get them because the travel was for reason A, the abortion was unrelated
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 05:41 AM   #282
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
How soon till we get abortion tourism? You know, girl gets a Greyhound bus ticket from Iowa to Illinois, with Super 8 motel in the package. Abortion free at Planned Parenthood.
Depends how long it takes for the court to hear a case that changes the abortion landscape. Personally I doubt it'll ever happen. But apparently some people are convinced that Barrett is going to cross out RvW, get thumbs up from four other justices, and that will be that.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 05:45 AM   #283
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,884
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'm guessing that it won't be legal to offer that kind of package.

It may even be illegal for someone in a state in which abortion is illegal to travel out of state for the purpose of securing an abortion. Of course senior GOPers who find themselves in need of an abortion for their girlfriend, daughter, rape victim in those states will still be able to get them because the travel was for reason A, the abortion was unrelated
I have a hard time seeing even this SCOTUS saying a state could enforce its laws on a resident who was not in that state. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I can see some red states trying to pass such laws but there's really no way they could enforce it. Other than the restrictions someone on parole or probation is put under, I can't think of anything that would allow one state to regulate the behaviors of someone not in their state.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.

Last edited by Craig4; 27th October 2020 at 06:46 AM.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 06:39 AM   #284
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'm guessing that it won't be legal to offer that kind of package.

It may even be illegal for someone in a state in which abortion is illegal to travel out of state for the purpose of securing an abortion.
That's not even remotely how state laws and state jurisdiction work.

Europeans really need to stop thinking of the United States as a central government divided into administrative regions.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 06:49 AM   #285
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
Happy birthday, Hillary!
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints HRC ?
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 06:56 AM   #286
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
I have a hard time seeing even this SCOTUS saying a state could enforce its laws on a resident who was not in that state. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I can see some red states trying to pass such laws but there's really no way they could enforce it. Other than the restrictions someone on parole or probation is put under, I can't think of anything that would allow one state to regulate the behaviors of someone not in their state.
Yes, enforcement would be impossible without the authorities being tipped off. I can however envisage that could happen and then the person travelling being arrested at the airport or state line.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's not even remotely how state laws and state jurisdiction work.

Europeans really need to stop thinking of the United States as a central government divided into administrative regions.
In the event that it becomes legal for a state to make abortions illegal, could that state pass a law to make travelling out of state to procure an abortion illegal ?
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 06:57 AM   #287
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Just remarkable that she was nominated at an event where a dozen people got sick and they’re STILL not wearing masks.
In my Death Note journal, she contracts Covid-19 from that event and spreads it to Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. All four of them pass away from covid-19...
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 06:59 AM   #288
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Appointed for life unless impeached. Judges don't work for the executive branch.
Well.. they're not supposed to work for the executive branch. I think Trump successfully changed that dynamic.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:01 AM   #289
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'm guessing that it won't be legal to offer that kind of package.

It may even be illegal for someone in a state in which abortion is illegal to travel out of state for the purpose of securing an abortion. Of course senior GOPers who find themselves in need of an abortion for their girlfriend, daughter, rape victim in those states will still be able to get them because the travel was for reason A, the abortion was unrelated
This is exactly what will happen. We only have history to base this one. Abortion bannings never effect the wealthy and privileged.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:08 AM   #290
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
In the event that it becomes legal for a state to make abortions illegal, could that state pass a law to make travelling out of state to procure an abortion illegal ?
It could pass such a law. But it would be unconstitutional and would not survive judicial scrutiny.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:13 AM   #291
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It could pass such a law. But it would be unconstitutional and would not survive judicial scrutiny.
The scrutiny would come from courts that the right-wing have packed and would eventually end up in a SCOTUS which had just reversed Roe vs. Wade.

Forgive me if I'm unconvinced of your narrative.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:20 AM   #292
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints HRC ?
That post will be funnier.

The only way Biden could expand the court and appoint people directly to it would be if the American system of government no longer existed, and had been replaced by something else with a dictator at its head. And that wouldn't be funny at all.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:25 AM   #293
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
In the event that it becomes legal for a state to make abortions illegal, could that state pass a law to make travelling out of state to procure an abortion illegal ?
Good question. I doubt it. Certainly states haven't passed similar laws for other things like drugs and firearms and fireworks and gambling and prostitution etc.

Are you indulging in a flight of fancy, or voicing what you believe to be a serious public policy concern?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:25 AM   #294
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,969
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The scrutiny would come from courts that the right-wing have packed and would eventually end up in a SCOTUS which had just reversed Roe vs. Wade.

Forgive me if I'm unconvinced of your narrative.
Considering overturning roe v wade is the correct decision, you would be in good hands.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:41 AM   #295
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The scrutiny would come from courts that the right-wing have packed and would eventually end up in a SCOTUS which had just reversed Roe vs. Wade.

Forgive me if I'm unconvinced of your narrative.
First, you're using the term "court packing" wrong. Stop that, it only demonstrates you're either clueless or dishonest.

Second, I can't help your paranoia. But the conservative justices actually have judicial philosophies, and none of them would justify the kind of state over-reach that you're describing.

But if even that isn't enough, just consider this: they know that if conservative states are allowed to regulate what citizens do outside of those states, then liberal states will be empowered to do the same thing. Why would they want to open the door to that? They don't. Nobody does.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:45 AM   #296
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints HRC ?
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints NOMINATES HRC (who is subsequently approved by the dem majority senate)?

Edited for PEDANTS
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:47 AM   #297
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That post will be funnier.

The only way Biden could expand the court and appoint people directly to it would be if the American system of government no longer existed, and had been replaced by something else with a dictator at its head. And that wouldn't be funny at all.
See below.

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints NOMINATES HRC (who is subsequently approved by the dem majority senate)?

Edited for PEDANTS
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:47 AM   #298
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,344
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That post will be funnier.

The only way Biden could expand the court and appoint people directly to it would be if the American system of government no longer existed, and had been replaced by something else with a dictator at its head. And that wouldn't be funny at all.
Expanding the courts would require congress passing a law to do so (well within the possibility if the democrats take both the house and senate).

And although Biden couldn't appoint Clinton (or some other left of center person ( he could nominate them, and a democratic controlled senate would likely rubber stamp them. (since as we saw with republicans, actually vetting a nominee is no longer an issue).

Both of those are completely legal, and doesn't require a change in the system of government or a "dictator".



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:47 AM   #299
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,222
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The arguments in favor of the electoral college are long standing, you don't need me to tell them to you if you're actually curious (not a given).
I recommend you watch the rest of the video I provided. Those arguments you're alluding to largely don't pan out.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:49 AM   #300
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,571
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Both of those are completely legal, and doesn't require a change in the system of government or a "dictator".



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Legality doesn't matter. If Biden does it, he's a dictator. When Republicans do it, it's just good leadership...
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:49 AM   #301
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,969
The real parallel here is john addams appointing a judge after he lost.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 07:58 AM   #302
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, you're using the term "court packing" wrong. Stop that, it only demonstrates you're either clueless or dishonest.
Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Second, I can't help your paranoia. But the conservative justices actually have judicial philosophies, and none of them would justify the kind of state over-reach that you're describing.
They'd find a way - to protect unborn children.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But if even that isn't enough, just consider this: they know that if conservative states are allowed to regulate what citizens do outside of those states, then liberal states will be empowered to do the same thing. Why would they want to open the door to that? They don't. Nobody does.
They wouldn't, they'd find a way to slap those states down.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:06 AM   #303
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,969
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.
Deliberately stopped? They let Obama know that his nominee wouldn't pass. They advised. It wasn't a blanket denial. If Obama nominated ACB I'm positive she would have passed in 2016.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:09 AM   #304
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
See below.
The president also doesn't have the authority to expand the court.

I can see why some people wouldn't find the "happy birthday Hillary" thing funny. But at least it was short, to the point, and actually landed on her birthday.

Which is not to say a convoluted mess can't be funnier than a pithy zinger. Many a good farce has been written on the strength of a convoluted mess. But I'm not sure Basil Fawlty was quite the look you should be going for, here.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:11 AM   #305
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.



They'd find a way - to protect unborn children.



They wouldn't, they'd find a way to slap those states down.
This. Consistency isn't necessary when you're on top. It would be really nice if the roles were reversed following next tuesday. Would be fun watching the little ***** squirm.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:17 AM   #306
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The president also doesn't have the authority to expand the court.

I can see why some people wouldn't find the "happy birthday Hillary" thing funny. But at least it was short, to the point, and actually landed on her birthday.

Which is not to say a convoluted mess can't be funnier than a pithy zinger. Many a good farce has been written on the strength of a convoluted mess. But I'm not sure Basil Fawlty was quite the look you should be going for, here.
And the answer is to be...more pedantic. OK.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:19 AM   #307
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Expanding the courts would require congress passing a law to do so (well within the possibility if the democrats take both the house and senate).

And although Biden couldn't appoint Clinton (or some other left of center person ( he could nominate them, and a democratic controlled senate would likely rubber stamp them. (since as we saw with republicans, actually vetting a nominee is no longer an issue).

Both of those are completely legal, and doesn't require a change in the system of government or a "dictator".
And neither of these are Biden expanding the court and appointing a justice. Q.E.D.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:27 AM   #308
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,344
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints HRC ?
That is a really dumb idea.

Hillary Clinton is too old...She would only be able to serve a few years before she died.

Now Chelsea Clinton would be an ideal pick... She's a Clinton, which by itself would drive the republicans into fits, and she's younger (which means she could serve on the courts much longer.) And I can't help but think it would annoy the trump-spawn... "nepotism done right!"

Granted, its not like she has experience as a judge, or, well, even as a lawyer. But hey! If Trump can be an expert in politics, science, foreign affairs, etc. without any background in any of those fields, she can easily become a supreme court judge. She just has to follow her gut!
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:30 AM   #309
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And neither of these are Biden expanding the court and appointing a justice. Q.E.D.
Acting as if you've never heard of legislation that is passed under a presidents watch referred to as that presidents legislation .... is really odd.

But you do you.
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:45 AM   #310
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,344
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, you're using the term "court packing" wrong. Stop that, it only demonstrates you're either clueless or dishonest.

Second, I can't help your paranoia. But the conservative justices actually have judicial philosophies, and none of them would justify the kind of state over-reach that you're describing.
Actually I suspect those "judicial philosophies" are really only used by judges to justify conclusions that they have already made, and just want some sort of explanation about how/why they ruled. They will either twist the basis of their philosophy to make it fit what they want, or randomly abandon it all together if the need fits.

Quote:
But if even that isn't enough, just consider this: they know that if conservative states are allowed to regulate what citizens do outside of those states, then liberal states will be empowered to do the same thing. Why would they want to open the door to that? They don't. Nobody does.
The right wing (even right wing judges) are not above engaging in hypocrisy. I am sure they would have no problem holding up (for example) anti-abortion laws (with claims of "states rights"), yet strike down laws passed by more liberal-leaning states as unconstitutional.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:54 AM   #311
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.
It is different. The fact that you don't care about the difference doesn't justify deliberate use of the wrong terminology.

Quote:
They wouldn't, they'd find a way to slap those states down.
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:58 AM   #312
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Actually I suspect those "judicial philosophies" are really only used by judges to justify conclusions that they have already made
What you suspect doesn't matter.

I've long noted the tendency of leftists to justify their positions based on ascribing motives to their opponents that their opponents never expressed. It's a very bad habit, but the left seems addicted to it. I could speculate on why the left does so, but that would be hypocritical of me to do so. It is enough to merely note the pattern. And to note that it is not actually persuasive.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:01 AM   #313
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The scrutiny would come from courts that the right-wing have packed and would eventually end up in a SCOTUS which had just reversed Roe vs. Wade.

Forgive me if I'm unconvinced of your narrative.
'Sallright. I'm unconvinced by yours.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:02 AM   #314
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,628
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It is different. The fact that you don't care about the difference doesn't justify deliberate use of the wrong terminology.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
IAssertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There's ample evidence of conservative judges making rulings that align with their political, economic or religious dogma. Of course you're free to ignore it.

I can see them ruling that preventing travel from a state where abortion is illegal to a state where it is legal for the purposes of procuring an abortion is illegal because preserving the life of the unborn child (or preventing a murder) is pre-eminent whereas.

I'm not even clear what kind of thing a blue state would make illegal and then prevent people travelling to red states to do.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:03 AM   #315
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,884
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints NOMINATES HRC (who is subsequently approved by the dem majority senate)?

Edited for PEDANTS
I wonder if Anita Hill is thinking of a career change.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:06 AM   #316
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
And the answer is to be...more pedantic. OK.
You botched the joke. There's no comedy credit for "... but it would have been funny if I'd told it right!"

And even if you had told it right, it still wouldn't be as funny as the other one.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:09 AM   #317
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
That is a really dumb idea.

Hillary Clinton is too old...She would only be able to serve a few years before she died.

Now Chelsea Clinton would be an ideal pick... She's a Clinton, which by itself would drive the republicans into fits, and she's younger (which means she could serve on the courts much longer.) And I can't help but think it would annoy the trump-spawn... "nepotism done right!"

Granted, its not like she has experience as a judge, or, well, even as a lawyer. But hey! If Trump can be an expert in politics, science, foreign affairs, etc. without any background in any of those fields, she can easily become a supreme court judge. She just has to follow her gut!
As far as I know, there's no requirement that a federal judge actually be a legal professional. It would be interesting to see a "lay" justice nominated and confirmed. And even if it were Chelsea Clinton, I wouldn't object. I mean, I'd have partisan misgivings about the shift in the court's political makeup, of course. But in terms of procedure and qualifications I don't see a problem.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:15 AM   #318
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,734
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Acting as if you've never heard of legislation that is passed under a presidents watch referred to as that presidents legislation .... is really odd.

But you do you.
I've heard of it. I think it's a bad thing and we should push back on it, hard. I think it leads to gross misunderstandings about how our government actually works, and who actually has authority and responsibility for the different parts of it. I think people have a wildly over-inflated view of what the president actually is and does. I think people need to spend less time stanning the presidency, and more time thinking seriously about the signifcant role the legislature plays in governing the country and overseeing the executive branch.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:15 AM   #319
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,411
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
There's ample evidence of conservative judges making rulings that align with their political, economic or religious dogma. Of course you're free to ignore it.
In other words, they have conservative judicial philosophies.

There is no evidence that they would go 180 degrees against them over something like this. That's purely your own paranoia, it doesn't come from anywhere real.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:24 AM   #320
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,748
There are no such things as progressive or Conservative judicial philosophies.

There are only different buzzwords people use to justify their ideological ruling.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.