SCOTUS Hurting Feelings

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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.

LOL do you really believe the church and state have always been separate?

a reply to: quintessentone

That was not my thread and this is not that thread. So, you can continue to ignore the question on your high horse if you choose, or you can answer the question so we can get on with this debate.

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

There is now mention of adding more liberal judges to SCOTUS and I mean a lot more to tip the scales of justice (tongue in cheek).

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

That was not my thread and this is not that thread. So, you can continue to ignore the question on your high horse if you choose, or you can answer the question so we can get on with this debate.

The article I posted answers your question as to re-interpretation, you just choose to ignore anything that does not feed your confirmation bias. Carry on woefully ignorant.

a reply to: quintessentone

it's the kind of irony you can't make up.

how is your complaining about the results of this, different than others complaining about the results of the 2020 election?

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, that only answers part of my question, addressed to the statement you made.

I will ask again since you have some cognitive disconnect this morning; ""re-interpreting" the constitution to align with their religious values?"

Notice the religious values part? You keep missing it so I thought I would point it out for you

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, that only answers part of my question, addressed to the statement you made.

I will ask again since you have some cognitive disconnect this morning; ""re-interpreting" the constitution to align with their religious values?"

Notice the religious values part? You keep missing it so I thought I would point it out for you

It's all about religious convictions, so religion trumps human rights, this is nothing new and re-interpretation of the constitution will continue to go back and forth as per usual. This too shall be overturned, this too shall pass next time 'round.

She sued the state saying Colorado's anti-discrimination law violated her right to free speech and religious freedom.

Her Christian faith prompted her lawsuit. Now, Colorado graphic designer Lorie Smith has won a legal blessing from the nation's highest court

"Nobody should be forced to create a website that goes against his or her convictions," Smith told reporters after the decision in an online news conference.

www.cbsnews.com...

Next will be hate speech is free speech and if your feelz are hurt then that's on you.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

it's the kind of irony you can't make up.

how is your complaining about the results of this, different than others complaining about the results of the 2020 election?

I am not complaining about the results, I am trying to discuss the results and the underlying reasons or future outcomes of that decision. But as I posted earlier, this too shall pass and the scales of justice or injustice will continually flip flop as with the political polarization. So anything goes and anything should be expected.

a reply to: quintessentone

You, Biden, anyone ese can say whatever you want. Everyone is going to have their own "interpretation" of the constitution. There is no "re-interpreting", there is only one true meaning of what is written. Just like everything else, it is all in how it is perceived and interpreted by each individual person.

In this case, just as I would not expect you to do things for me that are against your beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, etc, she has every right to deny service to someone that she does not feel she will be the best fit. Instead of getting all in the "feelz" and getting butt hurt, they should have bene adults, said "Thank you" and went to someone who would do what they were wanting to pay for. Not that hard. I'm not going to go into McDonalds and sue them because they won't make me a Whopper. See how stupid that would be?

Hate speech already is free speech, as long as you are saying it against a white person.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

You, Biden, anyone ese can say whatever you want. Everyone is going to have their own "interpretation" of the constitution. There is no "re-interpreting", there is only one true meaning of what is written. Just like everything else, it is all in how it is perceived and interpreted by each individual person.

In this case, just as I would not expect you to do things for me that are against your beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, etc, she has every right to deny service to someone that she does not feel she will be the best fit. Instead of getting all in the "feelz" and getting butt hurt, they should have bene adults, said "Thank you" and went to someone who would do what they were wanting to pay for. Not that hard. I'm not going to go into McDonalds and sue them because they won't make me a Whopper. See how stupid that would be?

Hate speech already is free speech, as long as you are saying it against a white person.

Watch when the SCOTUS are inundated with new liberal judges and these rulings are re-interpreted then overturned just because they can, how the conservatives will be crying foul.

a reply to: quintessentone

That is all that you got from that? Good job

Law students offered therapy

It's like they're building a "safe space" where students can go to feel heard and understood.

I think we have heard this before... 🧂🤣

a reply to: quintessentone

There is now mention of adding more liberal judges to SCOTUS and I mean a lot more to tip the scales of justice (tongue in cheek).

I've seen that and it's... it's... it's... I don't even have words for it. Or maybe I have too many words for it to narrow it down. It's just so cynical and so hyperbolic. The chances of this happening are slim. And while several recent decisions could be said to reflect one political party's agenda, not all decisions have been strictly along party lines. There have been some surprising/disappointing dissenting opinions.

I don't necessarily have a problem with adding more justices. Neither do I necessarily see a need to do so. I'm willing to consider any arguments for or against. But adding more justices at a time and in a way that only allows for a certain political persuasion to pack the court will only serve one purpose... one agenda... one political party. And it would set a precedent that I don't want set by either party!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: quintessentone

There is now mention of adding more liberal judges to SCOTUS and I mean a lot more to tip the scales of justice (tongue in cheek).

I've seen that and it's... it's... it's... I don't even have words for it. Or maybe I have too many words for it to narrow it down. It's just so cynical and so hyperbolic. The chances of this happening are slim. And while several recent decisions could be said to reflect one political party's agenda, not all decisions have been strictly along party lines. There have been some surprising/disappointing dissenting opinions.

I don't necessarily have a problem with adding more justices. Neither do I necessarily see a need to do so. I'm willing to consider any arguments for or against. But adding more justices at a time and in a way that only allows for a certain political persuasion to pack the court will only serve one purpose... one agenda... one political party. And it would set a precedent that I don't want set by either party!

Well as I posted earlier there's more than meets the eye within SCOTUS.

The oft-repeated adage, attributed to the late Justice Byron White, who served from 1962 to 1993, is that with each new justice, there’s a new court. The justices reorient to the latest appointee and, in turn, to each other.

www.cnn.com...

And as for law students, or any students in universities for that matter, it's a tough go studying for great marks, surviving if one is not from an elitist family paying the tab, facing crippling debt, and now to top it all off what legal theories and cases they have learned yesterday is not what the reality is today. So I say, thank goodness these students have help available when they need it.

a reply to: Boadicea

FDR already tried this, and when people figured out what was going on it practically doomed him, and just about created a 2nd civil war. The really scary part is...that was then, and this is now. Back then, people did things like read entire books, entire newspapers. Today, people make life-altering decisions based on 280 characters on Twitter, or what they heard on FB, or Instagram. Now that is scary!

I honestly wonder if people today would even be able to figure out what was happening, and form an objective / informed opinion based on the same. My inclination is to doubt that possibility.

a reply to: quintessentone

And as for law students, or any students in universities for that matter, it's a tough go studying for great marks, surviving if one is not from an elitist family paying the tab, facing crippling debt, and now to top it all off what legal theories and cases they have learned yesterday is not what the reality is today.

I don't think law school is easy for anyone, especially when one is struggling with other issues (like money), but the very nature of our legal system allows for appeals and therefore constantly evolving legal decisions and precedents. Including Supreme Court decisions. The legal principles, arguments and rulings are all valuable in the study (and practice) of law though.

In the big picture, we should be striving for the best legal decisions possible, and that must include questioning even Supreme Court decisions.

So I say, thank goodness these students have help available when they need it.

Of course students should have the help they need available when they need it.

But it should also be noted that lawyers sometimes lose -- even the best lawyers. Law students need to be mentally and emotionally prepared for such losses. They should also be prepared to challenge (appeal) such losses, potentially even more challenging and therefore more stressful. If they are not up for the challenge, then perhaps they should reconsider their chosen career. For their clients' benefit as well as their own. No one needs an attorney that can't handle the challenges of the job.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I honestly wonder if today people would even be able to figure out what was happening, and form an objective / informed opinion based on the same. My inclination is to doubt that possibility.

Unfortunately, my inclination is to also doubt that possibility. Too many people do not want to be objective, and therefore do not want to be informed. They just want what they want and reason be damned.

And I apply this to both "sides". If Trump had not had the opportunity he did to appoint new judges, and he'd been faced with a liberal-dominant Supreme Court, and he had suggested increasing the number of justices and he got to appoint all the new justices, I am inclined to think he would have had support as well.

But to be blunt, it is much more difficult to be informed these days, because everything -- everything! -- is subject to spin, half-truths, misinformation, etc. We would see plenty of talking heads speaking for or against it, with their self-selected facts and truths, and their lies by omission, but we would not see a fair and reasonable analysis of the legal principles, precedents, and potentialities (much less how it's done).

a reply to: quintessentone

Well, they absolutely would, and should, be screaming foul...as should every single American be screaming foul, regardless of party affiliation!

That type of activity is expressly what the Constitution was drafted to prevent!

Surely you don't think this is a good thing, do you?

Look, despite being a conservative myself, I am objective enough to be troubled by things like the overturning of Roe v. Wade. ...for no apparent reason. And, regardless of my position on the matter, the timing smacks of political douchebaggery...which is never a good thing in my book.

Packing the SCOTUS will only make things worse...not better! There's an old saying...'Watch out what ya' wish for, it just might come true!'

a reply to: Boadicea

I couldn't possibly agree more with you about people today being under-informed, mis-informed and spun.

And, to your point about Trump, I will say that politics in general is completely out of control in this country at the moment...on ALL sides. My confidence level in politicians doing the right thing, or even doing the wrong thing (as long as it is what they promised to do), is close to zero.

Several posts above you said you didn't have the words, or you had too many words to narrow what you wanted to say down. I'm in the same boat.

My problem, and it is a problem too, is that I care, and this care extends further than 6" inches in front of my nose. In fact, my level of care/concern quite possibly extends beyond my time here on this blue orb.

ETA - I feel that the political leadership in this country at the moment is completely disconnected from the people, and our government has gone wildly astray. What I can't seem to put my head around is the proper course to fix it.

a reply to: PorkChop96

It begins in the schools at a very young age. The curriculum has changed drastically and instead of individuals with independent thought, you have individuals who care more about others and how those others view them.

It's the "Guilt Trip" generation! The reactions you see are really nothing new if you care to peruse the archives of all things "SJW".

I imagine packing the court will become a thing here shortly. 🙄