Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Burgold
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

Also I think precedence is stupid as an end all be all. 
 

yes you should absolutely factor in that the court has ruled on the subject before. 
 

it should not be a blanket statement that the previous ruling is somehow set in stone and trumps everything else. 
 

the general idea of what’s “right” for the people, with respect to the intent of our constitution/BoR/ammendments, should be the overarching guiding principal. Not some notion that because it was ruled on 40 years ago we’re always beholden to it. A lot changes over time. Give me a break.  

 

I actually agree here. I think precedence should be considered, but not used as an end all be all.  However, I also do believe that there should be some overwhelming evidence and very compelling arguments when overturning precedent. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I actually agree here. I think precedence should be considered, but not used as an end all be all.  However, I also do believe that there should be some overwhelming evidence and very compelling arguments when overturning precedent. 

Exactly. 
 

And the argument should basically center around the idea that something has changed significantly over time. 
 

like I can’t think of a good “change over time” that would supersede the rational in brown. more people identifying as white nationalists doesn’t really qualify in my mind...
 

but I could absolutely see advances in medical tech/procedures or science warrant a change in something like abortion (just using it as an example not saying anything should change)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

but I could absolutely see advances in medical tech/procedures or science warrant a change in something like abortion (just using it as an example not saying anything should change)

I swear, claws are retracted, just asking, and I don't mean to sound like a B...

is there any other example? what medical tech advances would change the validity of Roe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I swear, claws are retracted, just asking, and I don't mean to sound like a B...

is there any other example? what medical tech advances would change the validity of Roe?


I don’t know. 
 

all I’m saying is that just because they ruled on it already doesn’t mean it cannot ever be reconsidered. 
 

pretending otherwise is dumb. I’m sure we can find plenty of rulings people who pretend that way don’t like, and would have no problem ignoring precedent if it suited their desired outcome 

 

I’m just tired of people being fake. Don’t preach standards you’re not willing to adhere to yourself. And pretending scotus rulings are sacred and can never be revisited under any circumstance is dumb. 
 

Ignoring precedence is dumb too. It has a place. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I swear, claws are retracted, just asking, and I don't mean to sound like a B...

is there any other example? what medical tech advances would change the validity of Roe?

 

If they could remove a zygote and implant it in an artificial womb and provide for adoption after birth, I might consider it.

 

Or implant artificial womb to every man and let women make decisions on whether the pregnancy should go full term or not.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@skinsmarydu

i keep thinking about your question cause I don’t like my initial response. So I want to try again. I’m afraid this may be a worse response but I’m gonna try ;) I’ll start by saying I don’t really care about abortion it’s not one of my political footballs that guides me so I don’t have any desire/motive to change it. I’m going to talk strictly about brown to try to prove my point and take abortion out of it. 
 

I guess I could think of a significant scientific/data change that could cause us to revisit brown.  I breezed by this idea in my rush to mock the idea that there being more white nationalists could somehow be used to justify segregating schools. But thinking back I have a legitimate reason. I think...

 

we know research shows people perform better when they’re comfortable. We know people are more comfortable when they are well fed. Same with a stable household. And research has shown people perform better simply if they’re surrounded by people “like them” in (contextually related) positions of authority. We know when a women proctors a test females tend to do better than when a male proctors a test. Same with racial minorities. 
 

I could absolutely see there being a day where some smart people put together an idea that basically says:

so long as you fund them equally

so long as they are staffed by people that comparable in qualifications and outcomes

it is better for the overall education level of the country, and therefore the socioeconomic situation (which then leads to improvements in drug use, crime, etc), if people go to schools where the other students and the staff look like them. 
And also as a society we somehow offset the diversity experience (say sports have to be mixed, or something. I don’t know. This is the danger of playing hypotheticals on a hot button issue, use your imagination to think of a good way to offset the loss of experiencing diversity in schools)
 

latino schools, white schools, black schools, Asian schools. Everyone does way better when they have that level of comfort throughout their education experience 

 

Say some really smart people put that together. 


I don’t want scotus refusing to hear it because tons of decades ago a bunch of racist ****-head white people broke the schools apart by race in effort to screw non-white people over. So now we can’t consider doing this even though it would provide a much need vast improvement to overall education and well being of society. 

this is why total appeal to precedence is dumb. We have no idea of knowing what’s down the road that will make today’s standards and ideas, even the ones proposed by the best and brightest and most respected of their time, look uninformed and harmful. 

 

Maybe that’s also a bad example. I don’t know. 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

@tshile has said a lot that I agree with so I won't go into that.  Thanks bro!

 

Regarding the census thing, I'm assuming since it says Sotomayor dissented, I'm assuming everyone else agreed?  If justices on both says agreed, except her, I tend to think it must have been a solid legal argument. 

I'm not sure about that.  But I was wondering too.  There are instances where they have given Trump and co. the benefit of the doubt just because he is president, despite the facts around the case showing it would be nonsensical to do so.  

Edited by visionary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw, come on...the question was about medical tech advances specifically...no need to expound on other issues.  But the best doctor that saved my life was an African, and a  Rams fan (infectious diseases, Emory)...my liver doctor was from Romania (die hard Penguins fan, I became his favorite patient when I told him I had 3 Jaromir Jagr rookie cards), and an old man who runs GI at Emory and made me a case study because the quack turned out to NOT be a duck. 

But you're damn right, girlie things stay with girl doctors...imagine having an auto mechanic that has never owned a car...

I know you said "not saying anything should change", but what could change Roe with further medical advancement? I don't understand that point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skinsmarydu said:

the question was about medical tech advances specifically

Right, because I can’t really think of what else could change over time that’s related to the issue that could matter. 
 

I would consider “more people are against abortion” in the same category as “more people identify as white nationalists” when it comes to coming up with reasons to revisit a scotus ruling. 
 

Originally I couldn’t think of one for brown at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I don't understand that point?

I don’t know what else I could say to explain the point. 
 

im not interested in creating mythical scientific or medical advancements that would significant change our understanding/way of abortion. 
 

I shouldn’t have tried to do it with brown either but I was trying to use a different topic to illustrate the point to get out of being locked into a single topic

9 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

But you're damn right, girlie things stay with girl doctors

Also I don’t know where this came from but no I don’t believe that nor did I intent to say that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris did a pretty good job of blowing up the idea that ACB had no idea what Trump was looking for in a Supreme Court justice.   Trump goes public about what he wants, then ACB publishes opinions 100% in line with what Trump wants, then starts getting moved up the ranks immediately after.   Harris giving good explanation of how the dominoes fell that led to her receiving the nomination.   Trump put out a casting call, ACB auditioned.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Also I think precedence is stupid as an end all be all. 
 

yes you should absolutely factor in that the court has ruled on the subject before. 
 

it should not be a blanket statement that the previous ruling is somehow set in stone and trumps everything else. 

 

It also shouldn't be a litmus test that one will guarantee in advance to reverse.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

It also shouldn't be a litmus test that one will guarantee in advance to reverse.  

 

Agreed

 

and as lame as the “I won’t comment on made up case/hypothetical arguments/etc, I’ll rule on ones presented to me when they are presented to me” it’s the correct answer. 
 

I’m a fan of believing people are capable of having personal opinions but not letting that influence their professional opinions as judges. If you can show a specific person has a track record, great. But I’m not going to assume a scotus nominee is not capable of leaving their personal opinions at the door. It’s not exactly a high standard and I think it’s ridiculous scotus nominees have lost the benefit of the doubt there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tshile said:

Agreed

 

and as lame as the “I won’t comment on made up case/hypothetical arguments/etc, I’ll rule on ones presented to me when they are presented to me” it’s the correct answer. 

 

I have no issue with her not wanting to comment/pretend litigate hypothetical cases that would be brought in front of her in the future, but I did find it troubling that she wouldn't say things like voter intimidation was against the law, even when the law was read right to her after.  The same with the peaceful transfer of power, even if in her head she would be willing to hear a Trump challenge.  It just seems like a couple easy layups she could have answered but as with anyone connected to Trump there always seems to be a hesitation to say any magic words or opinions that might sent him into a rage.

 

I also didn't understand her hesitancy to elaborate on her documented opinions on cases that have already been heard by the court.  I think it is reasonable to ask someone, who has already chimed in on these things public, to elaborate on it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I also didn't understand her hesitancy to elaborate on her documented opinions on cases that have already been heard by the court.  I think it is reasonable to ask someone, who has already chimed in on these things public, to elaborate on it. 


because the only thing that stands between her and a lifetime appointment is saying something stupid that turns a few republicans against her. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, tshile said:


because the only thing that stands between her and a lifetime appointment is saying something stupid that turns a few republicans against her. 
 

 


One change. 
 

It is impossible for her to say something stupid enough to lose a vote. 
 

If she says something BIPARTISAN, maybe. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...