Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    SCOTUS (lol) rules 7-2 that a baker can't be forced to make a custom cake for a same-sex marriage due to his religious convictions. However, they stay away from the issue if anyone can discriminate against same-sex marriage rights.

    Comment


    • #82


      WASHINGTON (AP) ó The Supreme Court is allowing Ohio to clean up its voting rolls by targeting people who havenít cast ballots in a while. The justices rejected, by a 5-4 vote Monday, arguments that the practice violates a federal law intended to increase the ranks of registered voters. A handful of other states also use votersí inactivity to trigger a process that could lead to their removal from the voting rolls.
      Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that Ohio is complying with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. He was joined by his four conservative colleagues.
      The four liberal justices dissented.
      Partisan fights over ballot access are being fought across the country. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to suppress votes from minorities and poorer people who tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans have argued that they are trying to promote ballot integrity and prevent voter fraud.
      Under Ohio rules, registered voters who fail to vote in a two-year period are targeted for eventual removal from registration rolls, even if they havenít moved and remain eligible. The state said it only uses the disputed process after first comparing its voter lists with a U.S. postal service list of people who have reported a change of address. But not everyone who moves notifies the post office, the state said.
      So the state asks people who havenít voted in two years to confirm their eligibility. If they do, or if they show up to vote over the next four years, voters remain registered. If they do nothing, their names eventually fall off the list of registered voters.

      Comment


      • #83
        The United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states have the authority to force online shoppers to pay sales tax; a move that could generate billions of dollars and significantly raise prices of commonly bought goods.

        The 5-4 ruling strikes down a decades-old decision that impacted online sales; clearing the path for local governments to charge sales tax on goods regardless of whether or not the business has a ďphysicalĒ footprint within its boundaries.

        --

        By the way, Amazon already charges CA sales tax, so this isn't that big of a deal... but for other states it may be.
        Last edited by Bolt-O; 06-21-2018, 07:43 AM.

        Comment


        • #84
          SCOTUS rules 5-4 that law enforcement needs a search warrant to obtain cell phone tower tracking data on individuals. Chief Justice Roberts joined Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsberg.

          Comment


          • #85
            Two 5-4 decisions:

            SCOTUS overturns 9th circuit decision on the "travel ban" on countries that happened to be majority muslim. Per Chief Justice Roberts... nothing in the proclamation says anything about religion. The inclusion of Venezuela may have helped the government position. The four dissenters said that Trump's comments before the election did show bias against Muslims.

            Also, the court ruled 5-4 that the California law requiring religious-based anti-abortion pregnancy health centers to give information about abortion is probably unconstitutional.
            Last edited by Bolt-O; 06-26-2018, 07:33 AM.

            Comment


            • #86
              SCOTUS rules 5-4 that non-union public workers are not required to pay 'agency fees' to the unions for negotiations. This overturns a 41 year precedent set by the court and a huge blow to the public-sector unions.

              Comment


              • #87
                Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement. YUGE.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by Bolt-O View Post

                  WASHINGTON (AP) ó The Supreme Court is allowing Ohio to clean up its voting rolls by targeting people who havenít cast ballots in a while. The justices rejected, by a 5-4 vote Monday, arguments that the practice violates a federal law intended to increase the ranks of registered voters. A handful of other states also use votersí inactivity to trigger a process that could lead to their removal from the voting rolls.
                  Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that Ohio is complying with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. He was joined by his four conservative colleagues.
                  The four liberal justices dissented.
                  Partisan fights over ballot access are being fought across the country. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to suppress votes from minorities and poorer people who tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans have argued that they are trying to promote ballot integrity and prevent voter fraud.
                  Under Ohio rules, registered voters who fail to vote in a two-year period are targeted for eventual removal from registration rolls, even if they havenít moved and remain eligible. The state said it only uses the disputed process after first comparing its voter lists with a U.S. postal service list of people who have reported a change of address. But not everyone who moves notifies the post office, the state said.
                  So the state asks people who havenít voted in two years to confirm their eligibility. If they do, or if they show up to vote over the next four years, voters remain registered. If they do nothing, their names eventually fall off the list of registered voters.
                  Republicans want less voting.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by Bolt-O View Post
                    Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement. YUGE.
                    The court is going to suck for years.

                    Comment


                    • Bolt-O
                      Bolt-O commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Well, certainly more "originalist". I don't expect the court will be changing more recent decisions, such as same-sex marriage, but they may be more open to review judicial decisions that "make" law. Obviously, the most holiest of sacred cows is Roe for the Dems, but I doubt SCOTUS will outright reverse it, even though it is just bad law.

                      There's a new movie coming out... "Weekend at Ruthie's". She might be the most cared-for person on the planet, at least for the next year. Breyer isn't all that young either at 79.

                  • #90
                    Originally posted by Bolt-O View Post
                    SCOTUS rules 5-4 that non-union public workers are not required to pay 'agency fees' to the unions for negotiations. This overturns a 41 year precedent set by the court and a huge blow to the public-sector unions.
                    The public sector will be worse for this. Weaker unions will lead to lower pay, which will discourage the best workers from applying to work in the public sector.

                    Comment


                    • Bolt-O
                      Bolt-O commented
                      Editing a comment
                      They have the best pension systems which outweigh higher salary. If unions can do better at focusing on negotiation and worker protection, rather than political influence, they might get people to be happy to pay for that, than mandating it.

                    • SDfan
                      SDfan commented
                      Editing a comment
                      long past due. there NEVER should have been "public sector" Unions in the 1st place. Just 1 more horrid progressive concoction aided by morons like Jerry Brown. Life is gonna get worse and worse for progressive/liberals until the civil war comes- then it gets really bad for them with re-education camps so they can learn the truth about this country from the beginning instead of the lies they were indoctrinated with and more to allow them the opportunity to embrace the greatest country the earth has ever seen and to be productive, contributing citizens as the founders intended- or get the hell out. America, love it (as originally created) or leave it!

                  • #91
                    Trump's next pick should be Judge Roy Moore.

                    Comment


                    • #92
                      Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the pick. 53 yrs old, clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and was appointed to the DC appellate court by George W. Bush.

                      Comment


                      • #93
                        I don't know if public-sector workers have the "best pension system", but, if they do, they won't have them when they no longer have unions. Who do you think will swoop those jobs? Just the people nobody else wanted to hire.

                        Comment


                        • #94
                          the robots are taking over.
                          Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #95
                            Originally posted by SDfan View Post
                            the robots are taking over.
                            Yes you are.

                            Comment


                            • #96
                              Watching the hearings on the side... what a zoo. Dems and protestors trying hard to stop the hearings, but are just sounding shrill. They aren't showing the protestors getting arrested, and the Dem senators are on"talking points".

                              Comment


                              • SDfan
                                SDfan commented
                                Editing a comment
                                I saw lots of arrests on TV. Libs are the most angry and intolerant people on the planet.

                              • Bolt-O
                                Bolt-O commented
                                Editing a comment
                                Yeah. They are relying on the courts to for 'new law'.

                            • #97
                              It's done, Kavanaugh confirmed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. My hope is that he remains fair, and continues the record he placed in front of the nation. Its my hope that both sides will think twice before throwing around reputations with uncollaborated claims against any nominee. The dems didn't want this to go through before the election, but I think they went over the line by dragging Kavanaugh through that dirt and maybe unified their opposition before the election. It's pretty amazing how consistent the talking point were since Kennedy's retirement, I think they would have done the same playbook on any male nominee. Lord help us for the next confirmation round if Trump has another space to fill if Ginsberg or Breyer decides to retire... or die.

                              Just my thinking, he's not going to be as reliable to the right as Alito or Thomas, but should be to the right of Kennedy. There is no way to know for sure, he could be the next Souter.

                              Comment


                              • #98
                                the intolerant Left was on record they would oppose ANYBODY on Trump's list of 25 and do "whatever it takes" to scuttle any nomination. They even had prepared protest signs saying "I'm against judge ----" with no names on them to fill in the blanks after Trump announced his pick! They sunk to new lows and showed the entire country what scumbags they are and will stop at nothing to grab and hold onto power. The media is entirely complicit in the disgusting circus created by the Dems- and what really irks me is the oft-repeated lie that there is some permanent "swing seat" vacated by Kennedy that needed to be filled with same- when no such thing exists. Also how they keeping mindlessly blathering how the GOP wanted for decades to swing the court to the hard right, when in reality it is moving back to center with focus on adhering to the Constitution as intended and not being used to make law instead of just interpreting it as designed. The Founders created a very specific process to make fundamental changes to our society called the Amendment process- and this was to ensure that passing fads and popular culture did not result in making destructive laws on a whim. The libs hate that because their ideas have never been validated enough to survive the Amendment process so they resorted to changing the purpose of the Supreme Court to ram through their unprincipled social agenda.
                                Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

                                Comment


                                • #99
                                  Originally posted by like54ninjas View Post
                                  Iím not exactly sure what you are disputing. Are we discussing if Flynn, or for that matter any other Trump campaign/transition, broke the law by their contracts? But if it is all on the up and up why continually lie about your contacts and conversations?
                                  The republican house memo is questionable at best.

                                  Here is the NYT article written on Dec. 1, 2017. In the article it actually has the Mueller court filing.

                                  WASHINGTON ó President Trumpís former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador last December, becoming the first senior White House official to cut a cooperation deal in the special counselís wide-ranging inquiry into election interference.

                                  Mr. Flynnís discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trumpís aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynnís plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration.

                                  The documents do not disclose what Mr. Trump knew about Mr. Flynnís discussions. But in at least one instance, prosecutors say, Mr. Flynn was directed by a ďvery senior memberĒ of the presidential transition team to discuss a United Nations resolution. Mr. Trumpís lawyers believe that unnamed aide was Mr. Trumpís son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, according to a lawyer briefed on the matter.
                                  We are debating the contradictory reporting and actual meaning of what is reported. I bolded this reply of yours above as the topic of discussion:
                                  You are incorrect sir. General Michael Flynn, Trumpís NSA, lied to the FBI in Jan. 2017 long before Director Mueller was appointed. He lied about his contacts with senior Russian officials on behalf of the Trump transition team in regard to sanctions.

                                  Followed by my framing the topic for us to debate as this: Did Flynn break any laws talking to Russian diplomats or lie to cover it up?

                                  The Hill (not a conservative outlet) ran the article with information directly out of the House Intelligence committee memo, which is an official government document containing testimony under oath and other on-the-record before Congress information collected by the bipartisan committee. It is as close to the "truth" as we get from our government. It is not questionable in any sense- everything within it is documented and provable. The Democrats on the committee tried to block its release claiming it was biased and they've claimed this more than once now- that it would damage national security and expose sources, etc. EACH time they claimed that, it was proven false and clearly intended to keep information embarrassing to them from coming out. Adam Schiff runs his mouth each time and makes claims that never get proven by him and Democrats. He said they would release their own report that would rebut all Memo claims, but it did nothing of the sort. I can dig that 1 up and post too if you want to compare them.The NYT (an admitted Liberal leaning, Anti-Trumo publication) article you posted is 1 year old and takes an initial charge filing (not tried or adjudicated yet) and tries to weave a web of lawbreaking around that. No sources are named, no actual LAWS supposedly broken are detailed- just stories about Obama administration warnings, etc.

                                  The article I posted blows all that up with this: The report claims that these top FBI and Justice Department officials had different answers regarding whether the agents were ďinvestigating misleading statements to the Vice President, which the Vice President echoed publicly about the content of this calls; a possible violation of the Logan Act; or a desire top obtain more information as part of the counterintelligence investigation into General Flynn.Ē

                                  Then there is this: "Although Deputy Director McCabe acknowledged that Ďthe two people who interviewed [Flynn] didnít think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case,í General Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements on December 1, 2017"

                                  Then the Mueller sentencing memo dropped 2 days ago and recommended no jail time and blacked out exactly what topic Flynn made his false (misleading) statement about? There's no indication at all Flynn lied about or covered up contacts with Russian officials. And again, that is not illegal according to former federal prosecutors like Andy McCarthy and noted legal scholar, Yale Law Professor, and proud Liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz. Check out his Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

                                  So I'm saying despite dozens of articles and opinion pieces out there claiming there is lawbreaking and trying to tie Flynn + Russians + Trump = COLLUSION - the actual facts just don't support that. There's a ton of spin doctoring and biased reporting by anti-Trump forces trying to delude us into believing a narrative that just isn't true.

                                  So what do you make of that? Facts we know: Flynn pleaded guilty to 1 single count on a topic not disclosed + Mueller recommended a slap on the wrist sentence + no mention of tying Trump or his team to any illegal contacts or collusion. I'm open to considering your convincing arguments proving the case the Trump haters are trying to make out of it. Or, If you're satisfied my depicting of the event is more correct that what you come up with- we can move on to debating if any of the charges against Manafort or convictions for his crimes have anything at all to do with Trump or Collusion during or after the campaign


                                  Chagras Got no barg!!!!!!!

                                  Comment


                                  • Moved discussion posts regarding POTUS legitimacy to appoint to the supreme court to this thread:

                                    http://www.thepowderblues.com/forum/...-mueller-probe

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X