SCOTUS Hurting Feelings

What is going on in this country?

Why am I not surprised to open up Fox news this morning and see a headline that "Law students offered therapy".

www.foxnews.com...

I know there are those that will condemn me for saying this but I am going to say it anyways;

If you are a law student, and you need therapy/counseling to help you "handle" a judgement passed by the SCOTUS, you should probably give up on law and go do something else with your life. If you are so emotionally distressed by a ruling on several things, I mostly agree with all of them, how are you going to be able to handle a case that you are dealing with in court when the opposition makes you look the fool?

a reply to: PorkChop96

Ironically, I equate this to covid and Twitter. Now, you may be scratching your head at this reference, but I will explain. I am not referring to any sort of a medical condition or treatment here, but rather the cycle of how things go in modern society these days.

Seems like people today are almost immediately laid raw with the world they live in. Every symptom, even the tiniest inconvenience, requires an over the top reaction. This is where covid comes into the discussion. Regardless of your posture on the seriousness of covid, the entire world immediately went into panic mode. Isolate, masks, gnash teeth and wring hands...heck, run around with your hair on fire even. And, while my reference still might not be clear, we need to jump to Twitter.

Now, how can Twitter possibly have anything to do with any of this? Well, it's not about Twitter in particular, but rather what Twitter represents. You see, apparently our society can no longer handle discussions longer than 280 characters. All the worlds problems have to be solved in 280 characters or less. We see this everywhere we look anymore..."I ain't got no time for dat!"

So, you see, when we couple both of these concepts together, we have a society which immediately amplifies the tiniest issue up to crisis proportions, with the future of the entire human race hanging in the balance, and then demands a solution in less than 60 seconds, and less than 280 characters.

Today it is some law students fuming over a SCOTUS decision, and yesterday it was some kid who identifies as a house plant, and the day before that it was Nike Shoe Lives Matter, and...well you get the idea. Tomorrow, it will be another crisis of epic proportion, the sky is falling...and maybe Twitter will reduce their character limit to 200 characters.

That is all.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

First off, I do want to say; Good to see you and your wonderful mannerisms back in the fold!

I could not agree with you more, these younger generations are all about immediate gratification and can't stand to see things not go their way.

As someone who grew up in one of the aforementioned generations, not unlike some people on here, they hate to see anyone with the opposite or even slightly different views/ideology than themselves. And as you said, ever so elegantly, they live their lives 260 characters and 60 seconds at a time, not bothering to look more than 6 inches in front of their faces.

The knee jerk reactions on all sides about such little things really has, in a way, desensitized me to things that should surprise me. I have come to expect this kind of childish, knee jerking, tantrum throwing reaction to things that even think about challenging the beliefs of those that, most of the time, these rulings don't affect in the slightest.

I need therapy too. It will require massages and some top-shelf bourbon three times a day for all the crap I go through working my behind off for crap wages and paying up the wazoo for the basic necessities while spoiled rotten brats go to law school to become a over-paid part of the crooked system when they graduate.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
What is going on in this country?

Why am I not surprised to open up Fox news this morning and see a headline that "Law students offered therapy".

www.foxnews.com...

I know there are those that will condemn me for saying this but I am going to say it anyways;

If you are a law student, and you need therapy/counseling to help you "handle" a judgement passed by the SCOTUS, you should probably give up on law and go do something else with your life. If you are so emotionally distressed by a ruling on several things, I mostly agree with all of them, how are you going to be able to handle a case that you are dealing with in court when the opposition makes you look the fool?

Well, supposedly, there is more going on within SCOTUS than meets the eye. There seems to be the idea that SCOTUS is taking it upon themselves or taking more power for themselves equivalent to what existing governmental entities should be deciding, in other words, they are taking lawmakers' powers unto themselves and the majority of SCOTUS are conservative leaning. Within the SCOTUS ranks there are dissenters for those controversial decisions, which most say SCOTUS rulings DO NOT not reflect the majority of American's values.

The law students have a tough time because the realization that now existing laws can be overturned at a whim(s) by these judges to fit their narratives and re-interpret, at will, the constitution should be a red flag for everyone and I would hazard a guess those students that are invested in the idea of justice that need help dealing with this travesty of justice and the opening of the flood gates for discrimination to now be legal is a shock and disappointment for their chosen field.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
If you are a law student, and you need therapy/counseling to help you "handle" a judgement passed by the SCOTUS, you should probably give up on law and go do something else with your life.

IMO any law student worth their salt, should be hitting the law books and carefully studying these SCOTUS' rulings.

But instead, their own university is offering them coloring books??

Agree fully that if someone needs to go in a corner and cry over this... law probably isn't for them.

a reply to: quintessentone

And this is something new???

I think not! This same allegation has been leveled at the SCOTUS since the days of FDR, and even before him.

Furthermore, I would certainly hope there ARE dissenters on the SCOTUS! A truly scary thought indeed would be a SCOTUS who were in unanimous agreement 100% of the time.

BTW - It is NOT the job of the SCOTUS to rule in alignment with trendy American "values". The SCOTUS job is to make decisions based on the framework and boundaries set forth is the Constitution of this Republic, nothing more and nothing less. This a an all too common misunderstanding today.

a reply to: quintessentone

Got some proof to back up your allegations?

What "discrimination" are these rulings making legal?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: quintessentone

And this is something new???

I think not! This same allegation has been leveled at the SCOTUS since the days of FDR, and even before him.

Furthermore, I would certainly hope there ARE dissenters on the SCOTUS! A truly scary thought indeed would be a SCOTUS who were in unanimous agreement 100% of the time.

BTW - It is NOT the job of the SCOTUS to rule in alignment with trendy American "values". The SCOTUS job is to make decisions based on the framework and boundaries set forth is the Constitution of this Republic, nothing more and nothing less. This a an all too common misunderstanding today.

The question remains is why did Biden say they are re-interpreting the constitution? Why are the liberal leaning SCOTUS dissenting the majority SCOTUS conservative leaning decisions? By re-interpreting the constitution to match their religious values I should expect that very soon women will be forced to live a lifestyle much as Afghanistan women do now, as the Bible dictates.

a reply to: quintessentone

And, how exactly are they "re-interpreting" the constitution to align with their religious values?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

And, how exactly are they "re-interpreting" the constitution to align with their religious values?

Read the whole article for context, please.

Our founding fathers did not see the constitution as written in stone; they expected it to be revised and believed that revisions could help the document endure. As such, they included in Article V of the constitution two different mechanisms through which to amend the text.

All 27 amendments to the constitution have been achieved through only one of those mechanisms: by having two-thirds of both chambers of Congress propose an amendment to the constitution and then having that amendment ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures.

There is a second mechanism, however. The second option is to have two-thirds of all state legislatures (34 states or more) apply for a constitutional convention and then to have three-quarters of all state legislatures or state ratifying conventions ratify any amendments proposed by the convention.

To be clear, a constitutional convention under Article V has never before been held. Moreover, the constitution provides no rules on how a constitutional convention would actually be run in practice. There is nothing in the constitution about how delegates would be selected, how they would be apportioned, or how amendments would be proposed or agreed to by delegates. And there is little useful historical precedent that lends insight to these important questions. This means that nearly any amendment could be proposed at such a convention, giving delegates enormous power to engage in political and constitutional redrafting.

Biden was right. The soul of our nation is under threat. This plan by the far right could send this country into a constitutional crisis, one much more damaging and far-reaching than January 6. Concerned citizens of all ideological stripes should speak out against this radical effort. The far right has benefited from having its efforts conducted mostly under wraps. That must change. A light must be shined on these efforts so they can be stopped and our constitutional democracy preserved.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: PorkChop96

Just to clarify (because this wasn't clear to me at first), it was a student group recommending established counseling services already on campus... it wasn't the university bringing in new or outside therapists just for this occasion. More than a little dramatic on the student union's part though.

The university's law school is not offering specialized counseling for its students, but the SGA recommended resources that are already available.

It would be interesting to see how may law students (and others) actually seek out counseling services for their "trauma." Are the students actually this immature and emotionally fragile? Or is this just all for show and drama on the part of the student group? I'd like to believe the latter, but I'm not holding my breath.

Probably because so many people want to believe that we live in a democracy, too many people don't understand that our laws and legal principles are founded on protecting the rights of the smallest minority: the individual. That it's NOT about majority rule wherein the majority can force their will on others -- whether affirmative action, providing services, or bailing out debtors -- but about ensuring and protecting due process and equal application of the law. Giving some students an advantage in admissions (and thus creating a protected or privileged class) is NOT equal application of the law. Likewise, forcing some people to provide a service they do not want to provide (and thus creating a protected or privileged class), is not equal application of the law. Forgiving some student loans for those who happen to be lucky enough to owe at this time, when so many others have dutifully paid off their student loans or never indebted themselves to begin with (and thus creating a protected or privileged class), is not equal application of the law.

It doesn't matter how noble or kind the law is to some people. If it doesn't protect the natural absolute rights of each and every individual, then it's not constitutional.

a reply to: quintessentone

Ah, how refreshing, an article on a left wing news sight article.....

That does not answer my question on your statement; "re-interpreting the constitution to match their religious values"

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Ah, how refreshing, an article on a left wing news sight article.....

That does not answer my question on your statement; "re-interpreting the constitution to match their religious values"

Were you expecting a fox news article?

You did not comment on the article.

a reply to: quintessentone

Because your article does not answer the question I asked you about your statement. But, this isn't new to me, especially coming from you.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Because your article does not answer the question I asked you about your statement. But, this isn't new to me, especially coming from you.

This is addressing your thread's premise as to the why a few of the students are experiencing trauma. Yet you have your agenda, so carry on about hurt feelz and not about the reasons why.

a reply to: quintessentone

And you can continue to dodge questions you never have the answers to but want to spew the statements out anyways.

a reply to: quintessentone

To be perfectly candid, I couldn't begin to explain why Joe Biden says anything that he says. And, all do respect to Biden, but frankly I'm not sure even he can explain why he says what he does. I'm not even convinced he understands half of the things he says himself.

Regarding your expectations on women and SCOTUS rulings...ummm, I guess I should ask if you were being serious. I sincerely doubt the SCOTUS will ever rule in ways which would make women in America live like women in Afghanistan. And, again, the SCOTUS should not be ruling by what the Bible dictates as the Constitution clearly draws a line separating church and state. (You should already know this). The responsibilities of the SCOTUS are to hand down rulings based on the framework and boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Nothing more, and nothing less.

originally posted by: quintessentone

www.theguardian.com...

LOL! Written by Russ Feingold of McCain-Feingold Act infamy... and published in a British newspaper.

For what it's worth, I first became aware of the push for an Article V Convention back in '08 when Obama was first running for president. No one was buying into it then either. Especially when it got mixed up with the Sovereign Citizen movement. No one trusts political critters of ANY stripe with the unlimited powers of a Constitutional Convention.

But I've gotta say that referring to our nation as a Constitutional Democracy is wrong, and Feingold knows it. We are a Constitutional Republic and always have been. There is a difference. And it's a crucial difference.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

And you can continue to dodge questions you never have the answers to but want to spew the statements out anyways.

I answered that question in another thread, but knowing how you orchestrate your threads there really is no point.