Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

KernelSlanders posted:

They are following the law. In this case, Congress passed a law that says all Federal statutes have a religious exemption unless the law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest.

Congress also passed a law saying that birth control will be included in a health plan offered by a company if they wish to avoid various penalties.

There's no reason to be so drat obtuse, if it were really that clear cut do you think SCOTUS would have granted cert?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

ErIog posted:

The important thing to remember is that the SCOTUS process is loving old, and it only became practical recently to make entire edit histories available to the public. Keeping every revision on paper in perpetuity as some are suggesting they should have been doing is madness.

I can find the documents recording and certifying the installation, repair, certification and so on for every one of the millions of parts on a 747. We could do this before computers were cheap and easy. That's for each and every plane. If that could be done decades ago, it would be trivial for SCOTUS.

EDIT: If it's the case that it simply needs to be public, then it's even more ridiculous.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

euphronius posted:

"Corruption" is a meaningless slur and imho you really should shy away from using it.

What about "conflict of interest"?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

euphronius posted:

Much better because it has a technical definition wrt lawyers and corporate law.

Would you mind posting or linking the definition you have in mind, in case there are significant differences or caveats that might not be apparent to a layperson?

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Evil Fluffy posted:

Unless multiple conservative justices die or retire(lol) with a Dem* in the WH and with Dem control over the Senate, that lobby effectively controls the country for the next several decades.


* also assumes it's not some idiot centrist who nominates a conservative to "keep the court balanced" or whatever idiocy they'd use to not pick a progressive or even center-left replacement.

Why in the hell do you think “The West Wing” is somehow related to real life? You’re literally making poo poo up and then getting mad about it.

Big Hubris posted:

They invented and cling to a conspiracy theory about Nader being a plant to ignore the conspiracy that stole the election. Gore flinching that hard suggests he knew, so they also ignore that.

I don’t recall seeing you do anything about it. Maybe consider that this was for the oldest posters here one of the first presidential elections they voted in and might not be all that connected to the so-called leftists who would have swung the election for lack of a little more support.

Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 04:34 on May 19, 2021

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Evil Fluffy posted:

What the hell does the West Wing have to do with this? The SCOTUS and judiciary in general is stacked with a bunch of right wingers selected specifically for their political views which includes them all being anti-choice. The GOP (correctly) sees the courts as their best defense against change since loading it with a lot of middle aged extremists means they ultimately control things because judicial reform is dead in the water thanks to Republicans and shithead :decorum: Dems.

The bullshit claim made about some big mean liberal nominating a conservative justice “out of fairness” is lifted wholesale from The West Wing, numbnuts. But hey, whatever it takes to keep that fake rage going I guess.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

VitalSigns posted:

Seems unlikely that if any blue states still have defunct anti-abortion laws on the books that they would even bother to enforce them and/or wouldn't repeal them immediately.

I don’t see how this proves your case that “blue state libs wouldn’t care”.

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Evil Fluffy posted:

Not everyone watches and/or gives a poo poo about The West Wing like you do I guess so grats on being an rear end in a top hat looking to pick a fight? I guess Democrats have never nominated garbage conservatives to the court due to idiotic "decorum" and garbage traditions right? So there's no reason to worry that similar idiocy will happen again.


Barrett and Kavanaugh easily fit in that group. Abortion rights will only exist to the extent that Gorsuch and Roberts decide they should and if either of them decide "yes I think abortion should be illegal" then that's the end of abortion in the US for the foreseeable future, unless the SCOTUS majority changes.

You literally took something from a lovely TV show, pretended it was real and got mad over it. Learn the difference between television and reality.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Solkanar512
Dec 28, 2006

by the sex ghost

Platystemon posted:

Strip the court of all appellate jurisdiction.

Now they get “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party”.

Have fun litigating water wars and the misdeed of ambassadors.

So, parking tickets then? Occasional DUIs and hit and runs?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply